It's likely to be reformed but parliament, especially the lords ironically, will not allow power which parliament has to be taken back into royal perogative.
I would have to disagree with you here.
If a majority government wants to scrap the FTPA then it will happen.
Not everything a majority government tries to do gets past the Lords.
If it's in the manifesto it will, the Lords can and will be bypassed
Only by convention, specifically the Salisbury Convention.
An interesting article, but it does not seek to justify at all the central assertion that "there is nothing wrong with the system under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act."
There is everything wrong with the FTPA. The flaws are now so manifest that it's not even worth setting them out in detail.
The one caveat to a straight repeal is that there is a case that the opposition parties could be allowed a 14 day period of grace in which they could avert the election (called by the PM without reference to parliament as before) by passing a vote of confidence in a new alternative government.
It's likely to be reformed but parliament, especially the lords ironically, will not allow power which parliament has to be taken back into royal perogative.
I would have to disagree with you here.
If a majority government wants to scrap the FTPA then it will happen.
Not everything a majority government tries to do gets past the Lords.
If it's in the manifesto it will, the Lords can and will be bypassed
it will depend on how it looks (optics is always important in these things). If they do then they will certainly regret it. it's a short term gain but will be a low priority.
I do think that there is a case for significant reform of the act and when elections happen. switching to a 4 year cycle of the following
1) General Election year 2) Local council year 1 (county councils + PCCs) 3) Devolved Parliaments / London Assembly 4) Local Council year 2 (borough councils / unitary authorities)
Actually even if not In the manifesto the best the Lords can do is delay for one session, so a majority government can and will repeal FTPA if they want
But there's always a balance of how much time and political capital they're willing to expend on it. So there's a big difference between something the government kinda wants and something they REALLY want. If it doesn't make it into the manifesto, chances are their attention is elsewhere.
You bring in an amendment to the FTPA to make it a simple majority required and ti make the QS and Budget formal confidence votes. If it fails in the Lords you reintroduce after the next state opening and it cannot be stopped by the Lords. Easily done in the 5 year term of a majority government and of little time pressure/consumption
Ok, one of my random posts but I've decided the bellweather for the coming election as to whether its a) brexit dominated and b) labour meltdown is Sunderland Central 55 to 33 Lab to Tory last time and 61% leave. If Boris has the Brexit mojo behind him in any election I expect it to fall.
It's likely to be reformed but parliament, especially the lords ironically, will not allow power which parliament has to be taken back into royal perogative.
I would have to disagree with you here.
If a majority government wants to scrap the FTPA then it will happen.
Not everything a majority government tries to do gets past the Lords.
If it's in the manifesto it will, the Lords can and will be bypassed
Only by convention, specifically the Salisbury Convention.
The parliament act means the Lords only have delaying power of one year (session) so, convention aside, they are powerless to block a bill wanted by a majority government with more than a year to run.
There's been a lot of talk about the SNP these last few days, so this is an opportune moment to consider a potential turn of events.
Say the Conservative & Unionist drop a "give us a majority and we leave without a deal, no referendum" manifesto, and the Liberal Demcrats drop a "give us a majority and we revoke, no referendum" manifesto. If the SNP put "give us a majority in Scotland and we negotiate independence, no referendum" in their manifesto, how do the Conservative & Unionists and the Liberal Democrats counter it? There is a real chance that the equivocation and doublespeak needed to say "our mandate will count but yours won't" will seriously weaken Tory and Lib Dem messaging. I could see both the SNP and Labour doing quite well out of such a situation. Don't know whether it's a card the SNP are considering pulling out of their sleeve, but given the negative noises about an indyref2 (despite a Holyrood mandate), it could be seen as a necessary escalation on their part.
I don't know if there has ever been polling but I reckon there would be strong support in England for Scottish independence.
Personally I would love to see the back of them.
Yes, there has been such polling. You are far from alone.
An interesting article, but it does not seek to justify at all the central assertion that "there is nothing wrong with the system under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act."
There is everything wrong with the FTPA. The flaws are now so manifest that it's not even worth setting them out in detail.
The one caveat to a straight repeal is that there is a case that the opposition parties could be allowed a 14 day period of grace in which they could avert the election (called by the PM without reference to parliament as before) by passing a vote of confidence in a new alternative government.
One could argue strongly is that the FTPA is only appearing to not work because we have a highly incompetent and divisive PM and equally incompetent and divisive LoTO. If there were an individual in either post who was more consensus minded it would work very nicely, as they would realise that in order to pass any legislation during the remainder of the term they have to find compromise, and therefore, better reflect the "will-o-the-people" across a broader spectrum, rather than a tyranny of the just-about majority
The one caveat to a straight repeal is that there is a case that the opposition parties could be allowed a 14 day period of grace in which they could avert the election (called by the PM without reference to parliament as before) by passing a vote of confidence in a new alternative government.
if we had a proportional system of electing MPs and it was likely that an alternative government could be formed without a new election then the 14 day period would be meaningful but even in this scenario we are in at the moment it would only to prevent a nodeal brexit and not to start governing in the longer time
There's been a lot of talk about the SNP these last few days, so this is an opportune moment to consider a potential turn of events.
Say the Conservative & Unionist drop a "give us a majority and we leave without a deal, no referendum" manifesto, and the Liberal Demcrats drop a "give us a majority and we revoke, no referendum" manifesto. If the SNP put "give us a majority in Scotland and we negotiate independence, no referendum" in their manifesto, how do the Conservative & Unionists and the Liberal Democrats counter it? There is a real chance that the equivocation and doublespeak needed to say "our mandate will count but yours won't" will seriously weaken Tory and Lib Dem messaging. I could see both the SNP and Labour doing quite well out of such a situation. Don't know whether it's a card the SNP are considering pulling out of their sleeve, but given the negative noises about an indyref2 (despite a Holyrood mandate), it could be seen as a necessary escalation on their part.
I don't know if there has ever been polling but I reckon there would be strong support in England for Scottish independence.
Personally I would love to see the back of them.
That says more about you than it does about Scotland.
The fundamental problem of our system at the moment is not the FTPA, it is the adversarial tradition of our two party system. Politicians should learn to look for solutions that more accurately reflect the range of opinion rather than a divisive winner takes all mindset.
An interesting article, but it does not seek to justify at all the central assertion that "there is nothing wrong with the system under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act."
There is everything wrong with the FTPA. The flaws are now so manifest that it's not even worth setting them out in detail.
The one caveat to a straight repeal is that there is a case that the opposition parties could be allowed a 14 day period of grace in which they could avert the election (called by the PM without reference to parliament as before) by passing a vote of confidence in a new alternative government.
One could argue strongly is that the FTPA is only appearing to not work because we have a highly incompetent and divisive PM and equally incompetent and divisive LoTO. If there were an individual in either post who was more consensus minded it would work very nicely, as they would realise that in order to pass any legislation during the remainder of the term they have to find compromise, and therefore, better reflect the "will-o-the-people" across a broader spectrum, rather than a tyranny of the just-about majority
+1 With Laurel and Hardy in charge, even good systems can look bad.
The Vettel praise omits the fact that Leclerc obeyed the team agreed strategy at the start to make sure Vettel had the slipstream. Had he been racing his teammate for the first corner, he’d have moved across in front of Hamilton immediately from the start to give him the tow. Vettel might well still have got past Hamilton, but would likely not have been able to make the move on Leclerc.
Ferrari aren’t going to discuss it in any great detail in public, so it’s hard to be certain, but I am unimpressed by their management of the race start.
It is quite clear YouGov and Opinium will give one set of results and ComRes, Delta, Survation will give another. One group is badly wrong. I don't think averaging helps. Parties pay for MRP polls - so they may be better informed.
An interesting article, but it does not seek to justify at all the central assertion that "there is nothing wrong with the system under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act."
There is everything wrong with the FTPA. The flaws are now so manifest that it's not even worth setting them out in detail.
The one caveat to a straight repeal is that there is a case that the opposition parties could be allowed a 14 day period of grace in which they could avert the election (called by the PM without reference to parliament as before) by passing a vote of confidence in a new alternative government.
One could argue strongly is that the FTPA is only appearing to not work because we have a highly incompetent and divisive PM and equally incompetent and divisive LoTO. If there were an individual in either post who was more consensus minded it would work very nicely, as they would realise that in order to pass any legislation during the remainder of the term they have to find compromise, and therefore, better reflect the "will-o-the-people" across a broader spectrum, rather than a tyranny of the just-about majority
+1 With Laurel and Hardy in charge, even good systems can look bad.
If brexit hadn't shattered both main parties in to two (or more) pieces internally, and after it has been nominally resolved, it will work as before. until Brexit we have no-dealt, passed a WA or revoked nothing will change
There's been a lot of talk about the SNP these last few days, so this is an opportune moment to consider a potential turn of events.
Say the Conservative & Unionist drop a "give us a majority and we leave without a deal, no referendum" manifesto, and the Liberal Demcrats drop a "give us a majority and we revoke, no referendum" manifesto. If the SNP put "give us a majority in Scotland and we negotiate independence, no referendum" in their manifesto, how do the Conservative & Unionists and the Liberal Democrats counter it? There is a real chance that the equivocation and doublespeak needed to say "our mandate will count but yours won't" will seriously weaken Tory and Lib Dem messaging. I could see both the SNP and Labour doing quite well out of such a situation. Don't know whether it's a card the SNP are considering pulling out of their sleeve, but given the negative noises about an indyref2 (despite a Holyrood mandate), it could be seen as a necessary escalation on their part.
I don't know if there has ever been polling but I reckon there would be strong support in England for Scottish independence.
Personally I would love to see the back of them.
Yes, there has been such polling. You are far from alone.
And what percentage of English people want to "see the back of" the Scots? I'd quite like to see the back of nationalism as a creed, but I see no reason to encourage the Scots to take a decision that would be even worse for them and us than Brexit. Though if English nationalists cause no-deal I can see why the Scots will want independence within the EU, as how could things be much worse? I suspect there will be quite few English based "mock-Jocks" lining up for Scottish nationality, and who could blame them.
FTPA 2011 is a very good act. The only change I would do is make it even tighter. Make it legally binding that the election will happen on the first Thursday in May 20XX and thereafter every 5 years. If any government is VoNCed and a GE has to happen then that term will last until the same May first Thursday more than 4 years later. The law we had previously gave the sitting PM too much leeway. It was like winning the toss in cricket all the time but also choosing when the toss should be held.
FTPA 2011 is a very good act. The only change I would do is make it even tighter. Make it legally binding that the election will happen on the first Thursday in May 20XX and thereafter every 5 years. If any government is VoNCed and a GE has to happen then that term will last until the same May first Thursday more than 4 years later.
There's been a lot of talk about the SNP these last few days, so this is an opportune moment to consider a potential turn of events.
Say the Conservative & Unionist drop a "give us a majority and we leave without a deal, no referendum" manifesto, and the Liberal Demcrats drop a "give us a majority and we revoke, no referendum" manifesto. If the SNP put "give us a majority in Scotland and we negotiate independence, no referendum" in their manifesto, how do the Conservative & Unionists and the Liberal Democrats counter it? There is a real chance that the equivocation and doublespeak needed to say "our mandate will count but yours won't" will seriously weaken Tory and Lib Dem messaging. I could see both the SNP and Labour doing quite well out of such a situation. Don't know whether it's a card the SNP are considering pulling out of their sleeve, but given the negative noises about an indyref2 (despite a Holyrood mandate), it could be seen as a necessary escalation on their part.
I don't know if there has ever been polling but I reckon there would be strong support in England for Scottish independence.
Personally I would love to see the back of them.
Yes, there has been such polling. You are far from alone.
And what percentage of English people want to "see the back of" the Scots? I'd quite like to see the back of nationalism as a creed, but I see no reason to encourage the Scots to take a decision that would be even worse for them and us than Brexit. Though if English nationalists cause no-deal I can see why the Scots will want independence within the EU, as how could things be much worse? I suspect there will be quite few English based "mock-Jocks" lining up for Scottish nationality, and who could blame them.
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
The demented FTPA should be abolished. It should've self-destructed after the Coalition ended, and it's sheer idiocy that stopped it being written that way.
What’s so bad about it? As I set out above, it can work perfectly well if politicians focus on the features of the system and act accordingly.
The problem with the FPTA is when a minority government wants to pretend it has a majority
Exactly. If it sought to recognise the numerical balance of Parliament and tailored its policies accordingly to build a majority, it would disappoint the purists but it would get some stuff done.
Have we not been through a few years of deciding there is no majority in parliament for any possible affirmative action? Just the moment when a FTPA needs at allow for an election.
No.
Theresa May sought to impose her deal on Parliament. It resisted. Boris Johnson has sought to impose no deal on Parliament. It is resisting.
Other options have barely been explored yet.
If a majority of the House of Commons wants an early election, it will happen. If it does not, or not yet, then the MPs who do not will need to make the compromises necessary to move forward. That now looks set to happen.
Parliament has had abundant time to express a majority view about what it wants and intends (not what it does not). It hasn't.
How much Parliamentary time has been allotted to consideration of options other than those propounded by the successive governments?
Pass. Indicative votes would be a starting point.
Oh god! Not more "indicative votes"
What on Earth is wrong with that? It was always intended to have multiple rounds to home in on a consensus. We had only two, and three options got far closer in round 2 than round 1 Customs Union went from failing by 6 to failing by 3 Common Market 2.0 went from failing by 94 to failing by 21 Deal-plus-Confirmatory Referendum went from failing by 27 to failing by 12 All were far closer than any of the three votes on May’s Deal in raw form.
One more round of Indicative Votes could easily have given one or more positive ways forward.
There's been a lot of talk about the SNP these last few days, so this is an opportune moment to consider a potential turn of events.
Say the Conservative & Unionist drop a "give us a majority and we leave without a deal, no referendum" manifesto, and the Liberal Demcrats drop a "give us a majority and we revoke, no referendum" manifesto. If the SNP put "give us a majority in Scotland and we negotiate independence, no referendum" in their manifesto, how do the Conservative & Unionists and the Liberal Democrats counter it? There is a real chance that the equivocation and doublespeak needed to say "our mandate will count but yours won't" will seriously weaken Tory and Lib Dem messaging. I could see both the SNP and Labour doing quite well out of such a situation. Don't know whether it's a card the SNP are considering pulling out of their sleeve, but given the negative noises about an indyref2 (despite a Holyrood mandate), it could be seen as a necessary escalation on their part.
I don't know if there has ever been polling but I reckon there would be strong support in England for Scottish independence.
Personally I would love to see the back of them.
Yes, there has been such polling. You are far from alone.
And what percentage of English people want to "see the back of" the Scots? I'd quite like to see the back of nationalism as a creed, but I see no reason to encourage the Scots to take a decision that would be even worse for them and us than Brexit. Though if English nationalists cause no-deal I can see why the Scots will want independence within the EU, as how could things be much worse? I suspect there will be quite few English based "mock-Jocks" lining up for Scottish nationality, and who could blame them.
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
An election right now is clearly in the national interest.
But one which Boris Johnson wins on a tacky exploitative ticket is equally clearly not.
This is the conundrum that I am wrestling with.
🙏
Help !!
An election could produce exactly the same hung parliament as we currently have an achieve nothing. I hate the idea of referenda, but I think the right way forward would be 3 or 4 options put to the electorate on a transferable vote system. This could be done on the same day as a GE to attempt to increase turnout. The result should be binding on the government that wins to deliver it.
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
The problem has been that, following issues of violence with football 'fans' and with the EDL etc, English nationalism has been looked down on. It has also been bound up with Britishness. it's really only been over the last 20 or so years where the Scot Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been around that the English have been given licence to be nationalistic without it appearing thuggish/racist. even then it's happened (labour MPs commenting on england flags anyone)
An interesting article, but it does not seek to justify at all the central assertion that "there is nothing wrong with the system under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act."
There is everything wrong with the FTPA. The flaws are now so manifest that it's not even worth setting them out in detail.
The one caveat to a straight repeal is that there is a case that the opposition parties could be allowed a 14 day period of grace in which they could avert the election (called by the PM without reference to parliament as before) by passing a vote of confidence in a new alternative government.
One could argue strongly is that the FTPA is only appearing to not work because we have a highly incompetent and divisive PM and equally incompetent and divisive LoTO. If there were an individual in either post who was more consensus minded it would work very nicely, as they would realise that in order to pass any legislation during the remainder of the term they have to find compromise, and therefore, better reflect the "will-o-the-people" across a broader spectrum, rather than a tyranny of the just-about majority
+1 With Laurel and Hardy in charge, even good systems can look bad.
If brexit hadn't shattered both main parties in to two (or more) pieces internally, and after it has been nominally resolved, it will work as before. until Brexit we have no-dealt, passed a WA or revoked nothing will change
I am concerned that whatever Brexit "resolution" we get there will be arguments, recriminations and division for years to come. Shame really. Thanks Brexiteers, so much for your faux patriotism!
An interesting article, but it does not seek to justify at all the central assertion that "there is nothing wrong with the system under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act."
There is everything wrong with the FTPA. The flaws are now so manifest that it's not even worth setting them out in detail.
The one caveat to a straight repeal is that there is a case that the opposition parties could be allowed a 14 day period of grace in which they could avert the election (called by the PM without reference to parliament as before) by passing a vote of confidence in a new alternative government.
One could argue strongly is that the FTPA is only appearing to not work because we have a highly incompetent and divisive PM and equally incompetent and divisive LoTO. If there were an individual in either post who was more consensus minded it would work very nicely, as they would realise that in order to pass any legislation during the remainder of the term they have to find compromise, and therefore, better reflect the "will-o-the-people" across a broader spectrum, rather than a tyranny of the just-about majority
OK, it looks like I do have to spell it out.
Both main parties are behaving rationally. They aren't "forced" by the FTPA to do anything. They "realise" that it's in their tactical interests to let matters play out as they are. Johnson correctly wants to force an election but otherwise to be brought down only by a VONC of the HoC rather than resign the government, while Corbyn correctly wants to let him hang there. Neither wants to be the one that jumps first. Both have interpreted the tactical advantages to their parties correctly in terms of those positions. The FTPA is letting them both play this charade out for pure political gain, while the government of this country is left in limbo.
There's been a lot of talk about the SNP these last few days, so this is an opportune moment to consider a potential turn of events.
Say the Conservative & Unionist drop a "give us a majority and we leave without a deal, no referendum" manifesto, and the Liberal Demcrats drop a "give us a majority and we revoke, no referendum" manifesto. If the SNP put "give us a majority in Scotland and we negotiate independence, no referendum" in their manifesto, how do the Conservative & Unionists and the Liberal Democrats counter it? There is a real chance that the equivocation and doublespeak needed to say "our mandate will count but yours won't" will seriously weaken Tory and Lib Dem messaging. I could see both the SNP and Labour doing quite well out of such a situation. Don't know whether it's a card the SNP are considering pulling out of their sleeve, but given the negative noises about an indyref2 (despite a Holyrood mandate), it could be seen as a necessary escalation on their part.
That Holyrood mandate would be working a lot better if they hadn't blethered on and on about it being a "once in a generation chance" last time round
An election right now is clearly in the national interest.
But one which Boris Johnson wins on a tacky exploitative ticket is equally clearly not.
This is the conundrum that I am wrestling with.
🙏
Help !!
An election could produce exactly the same hung parliament as we currently have an achieve nothing. I hate the idea of referenda, but I think the right way forward would be 3 or 4 options put to the electorate on a transferable vote system. This could be done on the same day as a GE to attempt to increase turnout. The result should be binding on the government that wins to deliver it.
three questions 1) remain in the EU Yes/No 2) If 1 is NO, Remain in the Customs Union 3) If 1 is NO, Remain aligned to the single market
There's been a lot of talk about the SNP these last few days, so this is an opportune moment to consider a potential turn of events.
Say the Conservative & Unionist drop a "give us a majority and we leave without a deal, no referendum" manifesto, and the Liberal Demcrats drop a "give us a majority and we revoke, no referendum" manifesto. If the SNP put "give us a majority in Scotland and we negotiate independence, no referendum" in their manifesto, how do the Conservative & Unionists and the Liberal Democrats counter it? There is a real chance that the equivocation and doublespeak needed to say "our mandate will count but yours won't" will seriously weaken Tory and Lib Dem messaging. I could see both the SNP and Labour doing quite well out of such a situation. Don't know whether it's a card the SNP are considering pulling out of their sleeve, but given the negative noises about an indyref2 (despite a Holyrood mandate), it could be seen as a necessary escalation on their part.
I don't know if there has ever been polling but I reckon there would be strong support in England for Scottish independence.
Personally I would love to see the back of them.
Yes, there has been such polling. You are far from alone.
And what percentage of English people want to "see the back of" the Scots? I'd quite like to see the back of nationalism as a creed, but I see no reason to encourage the Scots to take a decision that would be even worse for them and us than Brexit. Though if English nationalists cause no-deal I can see why the Scots will want independence within the EU, as how could things be much worse? I suspect there will be quite few English based "mock-Jocks" lining up for Scottish nationality, and who could blame them.
Wanting to 'see the back of them' is just a hurt reaction to the perceived rejection of English people inherent the tide of Scottish nationalism that only came to light for most English people during the indyref. Ironically enough, that movement itself is based on perceived alienation and rejection of Scotland by the English. All stupid divisive nonense pitting British people against each other.
There's been a lot of talk about the SNP these last few days, so this is an opportune moment to consider a potential turn of events.
Say the Conservative & Unionist drop a "give us a majority and we leave without a deal, no referendum" manifesto, and the Liberal Demcrats drop a "give us a majority and we revoke, no referendum" manifesto. If the SNP put "give us a majority in Scotland and we negotiate independence, no referendum" in their manifesto, how do the Conservative & Unionists and the Liberal Democrats counter it? There is a real chance that the equivocation and doublespeak needed to say "our mandate will count but yours won't" will seriously weaken Tory and Lib Dem messaging. I could see both the SNP and Labour doing quite well out of such a situation. Don't know whether it's a card the SNP are considering pulling out of their sleeve, but given the negative noises about an indyref2 (despite a Holyrood mandate), it could be seen as a necessary escalation on their part.
I don't know if there has ever been polling but I reckon there would be strong support in England for Scottish independence.
Personally I would love to see the back of them.
Yes, there has been such polling. You are far from alone.
And what percentage of English people want to "see the back of" the Scots? I'd quite like to see the back of nationalism as a creed, but I see no reason to encourage the Scots to take a decision that would be even worse for them and us than Brexit. Though if English nationalists cause no-deal I can see why the Scots will want independence within the EU, as how could things be much worse? I suspect there will be quite few English based "mock-Jocks" lining up for Scottish nationality, and who could blame them.
Wanting to 'see the back of them' is just a hurt reaction to the perceived rejection of English people inherent the tide of Scottish nationalism that only came to light for most English people during the indyref. Ironically enough, that movement itself is based on perceived alienation and rejection of Scotland by the English. All stupid divisive nonense pitting British people against each other.
On a UNS basis , it implies 40 gains from Labour offset by 14 losses to LDs and circa 10 to SNP - to give a Tory total of 333 ie a majority of 16.
Why is UNS different from Baxterising ?
Baxter is Electoral Calculus and makes its own assumptions which I am far from convinced are soundly based. UNS is far from perfect , but I much prefer it in that above and below average swings tend to cancel one another out.
There's been a lot of talk about the SNP these last few days, so this is an opportune moment to consider a potential turn of events.
Say the Conservative & Unionist drop a "give us a majority and we leave without a deal, no referendum" manifesto, and the Liberal Demcrats drop a "give us a majority and we revoke, no referendum" manifesto. If the SNP put "give us a majority in Scotland and we negotiate independence, no referendum" in their manifesto, how do the Conservative & Unionists and the Liberal Democrats counter it? There is a real chance that the equivocation and doublespeak needed to say "our mandate will count but yours won't" will seriously weaken Tory and Lib Dem messaging. I could see both the SNP and Labour doing quite well out of such a situation. Don't know whether it's a card the SNP are considering pulling out of their sleeve, but given the negative noises about an indyref2 (despite a Holyrood mandate), it could be seen as a necessary escalation on their part.
I don't know if there has ever been polling but I reckon there would be strong support in England for Scottish independence.
Personally I would love to see the back of them.
Yes, there has been such polling. You are far from alone.
And what percentage of English people want to "see the back of" the Scots? I'd quite like to see the back of nationalism as a creed, but I see no reason to encourage the Scots to take a decision that would be even worse for them and us than Brexit. Though if English nationalists cause no-deal I can see why the Scots will want independence within the EU, as how could things be much worse? I suspect there will be quite few English based "mock-Jocks" lining up for Scottish nationality, and who could blame them.
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
This weekend's YouGov and Opinium suggest all of the week's excitement at the Supreme Court and in Parliament has had little effect on Voting Intention.
Sure, we have no idea whether YouGov/Opinium or ComRes/Survation are more accurate - but it does appear that the position is pretty stable over the week.
I think the reason is that in spite of all the drama, nothing has really happened to change anybody's opinion.
The Sunday Times reports that internal Labour polling is predicting 100 seat losses. It says Labour has lost a third of its 2017 vote to the LDs and another 10% to the Brexit Party.
That would take them to their lowest share of seats since 1931?
An election right now is clearly in the national interest.
But one which Boris Johnson wins on a tacky exploitative ticket is equally clearly not.
This is the conundrum that I am wrestling with.
🙏
Help !!
An election could produce exactly the same hung parliament as we currently have an achieve nothing. I hate the idea of referenda, but I think the right way forward would be 3 or 4 options put to the electorate on a transferable vote system. This could be done on the same day as a GE to attempt to increase turnout. The result should be binding on the government that wins to deliver it.
You can't bind a government because government has no power to deliver. You can only bind a parliament, and then only by parliament first binding itself in passing legislation which takes effect after a confirmatory referendum. And not even that prevents parliament repealing it either before it takes effect or (unless it has transferred a power like granting Scotland independence) after. If you have transferred a power, like giving Scotland independence, sadly the only solution to repeal would involve conquest. And I would hate to give this current shower of politicians any ideas like that.
There's been a lot of talk about the SNP these last few days, so this is an opportune moment to consider a potential turn of events.
Say the Conservative & Unionist drop a "give us a majority and we leave without a deal, no referendum" manifesto, and the Liberal Demcrats drop a "give us a majority and we revoke, no referendum" manifesto. If the SNP put "give us a majority in Scotland and we negotiate independence, no referendum" in their manifesto, how do the Conservative & Unionists and the Liberal Democrats counter it? There is a real chance that the equivocation and doublespeak needed to say "our mandate will count but yours won't" will seriously weaken Tory and Lib Dem messaging. I could see both the SNP and Labour doing quite well out of such a situation. Don't know whether it's a card the SNP are considering pulling out of their sleeve, but given the negative noises about an indyref2 (despite a Holyrood mandate), it could be seen as a necessary escalation on their part.
I don't know if there has ever been polling but I reckon there would be strong support in England for Scottish independence.
Personally I would love to see the back of them.
Yes, there has been such polling. You are far from alone.
And what percentage of English people want to "see the back of" the Scots? I'd quite like to see the back of nationalism as a creed, but I see no reason to encourage the Scots to take a decision that would be even worse for them and us than Brexit. Though if English nationalists cause no-deal I can see why the Scots will want independence within the EU, as how could things be much worse? I suspect there will be quite few English based "mock-Jocks" lining up for Scottish nationality, and who could blame them.
Wanting to 'see the back of them' is just a hurt reaction to the perceived rejection of English people inherent the tide of Scottish nationalism that only came to light for most English people during the indyref. Ironically enough, that movement itself is based on perceived alienation and rejection of Scotland by the English. All stupid divisive nonense pitting British people against each other.
There's been a lot of talk about the SNP these last few days, so this is an opportune moment to consider a potential turn of events.
Say the Conservative & Unionist drop a "give us a majority and we leave without a deal, no referendum" manifesto, and the Liberal Demcrats drop a "give us a majority and we revoke, no referendum" manifesto. If the SNP put "give us a majority in Scotland and we negotiate independence, no referendum" in their manifesto, how do the Conservative & Unionists and the Liberal Democrats counter it? There is a real chance that the equivocation and doublespeak needed to say "our mandate will count but yours won't" will seriously weaken Tory and Lib Dem messaging. I could see both the SNP and Labour doing quite well out of such a situation. Don't know whether it's a card the SNP are considering pulling out of their sleeve, but given the negative noises about an indyref2 (despite a Holyrood mandate), it could be seen as a necessary escalation on their part.
I don't know if there has ever been polling but I reckon there would be strong support in England for Scottish independence.
Personally I would love to see the back of them.
Yes, there has been such polling. You are far from alone.
And what percentage of English people want to "see the back of" the Scots? I'd quite like to see the back of nationalism as a creed, but I see no reason to encourage the Scots to take a decision that would be even worse for them and us than Brexit. Though if English nationalists cause no-deal I can see why the Scots will want independence within the EU, as how could things be much worse? I suspect there will be quite few English based "mock-Jocks" lining up for Scottish nationality, and who could blame them.
Wanting to 'see the back of them' is just a hurt reaction to the perceived rejection of English people inherent the tide of Scottish nationalism that only came to light for most English people during the indyref. Ironically enough, that movement itself is based on perceived alienation and rejection of Scotland by the English. All stupid divisive nonense pitting British people against each other.
When we should all be pitted against the EU.
Given the UK wide vote, and the EU game-playing since then - Yes
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
The problem has been that, following issues of violence with football 'fans' and with the EDL etc, English nationalism has been looked down on. It has also been bound up with Britishness. it's really only been over the last 20 or so years where the Scot Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been around that the English have been given licence to be nationalistic without it appearing thuggish/racist. even then it's happened (labour MPs commenting on england flags anyone)
It's not the football thugs that's the problem. It's the unjustified stupidity of it all. England doesn't suffer from being part of a larger entity where is fails to get its way. It forms the vast majority of the UK, and in terms of the EU, the general centre-right choices of England fit quite nicely with the centrist way Europe has evolved. Certainly, English Conservatives have been instrumental in shaping the single market. England more often than not gets its way*.
Contrast that with Scotland. How much of your lifetime has been spent with a Tory PM in Downing Street? And in how many elections in the same period of time has Scotland voted Tory? There's a worrying gulf there, and I'm surprised it doesn't trouble more people in Scotland than it evidently does.
And yet, for all that, which country has decided to turn the table over? It baffles me, both that Scotland isn't more nationalistic and that England isn't less.
*nobody even think of quoting those "x% of EU laws were opposed by us!" from the referendum. They were all lies.
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
The problem has been that, following issues of violence with football 'fans' and with the EDL etc, English nationalism has been looked down on. It has also been bound up with Britishness. it's really only been over the last 20 or so years where the Scot Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been around that the English have been given licence to be nationalistic without it appearing thuggish/racist. even then it's happened (labour MPs commenting on england flags anyone)
It's not the football thugs that's the problem. It's the unjustified stupidity of it all. England doesn't suffer from being part of a larger entity where is fails to get its way. It forms the vast majority of the UK, and in terms of the EU, the general centre-right choices of England fit quite nicely with the centrist way Europe has evolved. Certainly, English Conservatives have been instrumental in shaping the single market. England more often than not gets its way*.
Contrast that with Scotland. How much of your lifetime has been spent with a Tory PM in Downing Street? And in how many elections in the same period of time has Scotland voted Tory? There's a worrying gulf there, and I'm surprised it doesn't trouble more people in Scotland than it evidently does.
And yet, for all that, which country has decided to turn the table over? It baffles me, both that Scotland isn't more nationalistic and that England isn't less.
*nobody even think of quoting those "x% of EU laws were opposed by us!" from the referendum. They were all lies.
England is hardly nationalistic at all. It's one of the most multi-cultural places on earth. The BNP vote is tiny. cf. Scotland with a 95pc white population and a 40pc nationalist vote
There's been a lot of talk about the SNP these last few days, so this is an opportune moment to consider a potential turn of events.
Say the Conservative & Unionist drop a "give us a majority and we leave without a deal, no referendum" manifesto, and the Liberal Demcrats drop a "give us a majority and we revoke, no referendum" manifesto. If the SNP put "give us a majority in Scotland and we negotiate independence, no referendum" in their manifesto, how do the Conservative & Unionists and the Liberal Democrats counter it? There is a real chance that the equivocation and doublespeak needed to say "our mandate will count but yours won't" will seriously weaken Tory and Lib Dem messaging. I could see both the SNP and Labour doing quite well out of such a situation. Don't know whether it's a card the SNP are considering pulling out of their sleeve, but given the negative noises about an indyref2 (despite a Holyrood mandate), it could be seen as a necessary escalation on their part.
I don't know if there has ever been polling but I reckon there would be strong support in England for Scottish independence.
Personally I would love to see the back of them.
Yes, there has been such polling. You are far from alone.
And what percentage of English people want to "see the back of" the Scots? I'd quite like to see the back of nationalism as a creed, but I see no reason to encourage the Scots to take a decision that would be even worse for them and us than Brexit. Though if English nationalists cause no-deal I can see why the Scots will want independence within the EU, as how could things be much worse? I suspect there will be quite few English based "mock-Jocks" lining up for Scottish nationality, and who could blame them.
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
There's been a lot of talk about the SNP these last few days, so this is an opportune moment to consider a potential turn of events.
Say the Conservative & Unionist drop a "give us a majority and we leave without a deal, no referendum" manifesto, and the Liberal Demcrats drop a "give us a majority and we revoke, no referendum" manifesto. If the SNP put "give us a majority in Scotland and we negotiate independence, no referendum" in their manifesto, how do the Conservative & Unionists and the Liberal Democrats counter it? There is a real chance that the equivocation and doublespeak needed to say "our mandate will count but yours won't" will seriously weaken Tory and Lib Dem messaging. I could see both the SNP and Labour doing quite well out of such a situation. Don't know whether it's a card the SNP are considering pulling out of their sleeve, but given the negative noises about an indyref2 (despite a Holyrood mandate), it could be seen as a necessary escalation on their part.
I don't know if there has ever been polling but I reckon there would be strong support in England for Scottish independence.
Personally I would love to see the back of them.
Yes, there has been such polling. You are far from alone.
And what percentage of English people want to "see the back of" the Scots? I'd quite like to see the back of nationalism as a creed, but I see no reason to encourage the Scots to take a decision that would be even worse for them and us than Brexit. Though if English nationalists cause no-deal I can see why the Scots will want independence within the EU, as how could things be much worse? I suspect there will be quite few English based "mock-Jocks" lining up for Scottish nationality, and who could blame them.
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
Let's be serious now.
I'm deadly serious.
The Kool aid flows far and wide across these islands
The demented FTPA should be abolished. It should've self-destructed after the Coalition ended, and it's sheer idiocy that stopped it being written that way.
What’s so bad about it? As I set out above, it can work perfectly well if politicians focus on the features of the system and act accordingly.
The problem with the FPTA is when a minority government wants to pretend it has a majority
Exactly. If it sought to recognise the numerical balance of Parliament and tailored its policies accordingly to build a majority, it would disappoint the purists but it would get some stuff done.
Have we not been through a few years of deciding there is no majority in parliament for any possible affirmative action? Just the moment when a FTPA needs at allow for an election.
No.
Theresa May sought to impose her deal on Parliament. It resisted. Boris Johnson has sought to impose no deal on Parliament. It is resisting.
Other options have barely been explored yet.
If a majority of the House of Commons wants an early election, it will happen. If it does not, or not yet, then the MPs who do not will need to make the compromises necessary to move forward. That now looks set to happen.
Parliament has had abundant time to express a majority view about what it wants and intends (not what it does not). It hasn't.
How much Parliamentary time has been allotted to consideration of options other than those propounded by the successive governments?
Pass. Indicative votes would be a starting point.
Oh god! Not more "indicative votes"
Perhaps we should have explicative votes to see if parliament can at least agree on the definitions.
Putting aside arguments over house effects, trends with individual pollsters are important.
No change in this poll, but after the YouGov poll of 19th/20th Sept had the Cons down to 30%, with two back at 33% Johnson seems to have steadied the ship for now despite all his woes, and with a significant BXP vote at 13% still there for a potential squeeze. The combined Con and BXP vote is still only 1% below its peak since he became leader.
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
The problem has been that, following issues of violence with football 'fans' and with the EDL etc, English nationalism has been looked down on. It has also been bound up with Britishness. it's really only been over the last 20 or so years where the Scot Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been around that the English have been given licence to be nationalistic without it appearing thuggish/racist. even then it's happened (labour MPs commenting on england flags anyone)
It's not the football thugs that's the problem. It's the unjustified stupidity of it all. England doesn't suffer from being part of a larger entity where is fails to get its way. It forms the vast majority of the UK, and in terms of the EU, the general centre-right choices of England fit quite nicely with the centrist way Europe has evolved. Certainly, English Conservatives have been instrumental in shaping the single market. England more often than not gets its way*.
Contrast that with Scotland. How much of your lifetime has been spent with a Tory PM in Downing Street? And in how many elections in the same period of time has Scotland voted Tory? There's a worrying gulf there, and I'm surprised it doesn't trouble more people in Scotland than it evidently does.
And yet, for all that, which country has decided to turn the table over? It baffles me, both that Scotland isn't more nationalistic and that England isn't less.
*nobody even think of quoting those "x% of EU laws were opposed by us!" from the referendum. They were all lies.
England is hardly nationalistic at all. It's one of the most multi-cultural places on earth. The BNP vote is tiny. cf. Scotland with a 95pc white population and a 40pc nationalist vote
Ummm, the BNP are not the only nationalist party in England. The Brexit Party, the Conservative & Unionist parties are both unabashedly nationalistic. There's a fair case to be made for Labour being nationalistic, though there's a lot of ambiguity about their position. You can count every single Leave voter as people who have voted for at least one nationalist policy. I mean, Leave itself is by definition a nationalist policy.
I should clarify that a great number of people in England aren't necessarily English nationalists. Many are British nationalists.
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
The problem has been that, following issues of violence with football 'fans' and with the EDL etc, English nationalism has been looked down on. It has also been bound up with Britishness. it's really only been over the last 20 or so years where the Scot Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been around that the English have been given licence to be nationalistic without it appearing thuggish/racist. even then it's happened (labour MPs commenting on england flags anyone)
It's not the football thugs that's the problem. It's the unjustified stupidity of it all. England doesn't suffer from being part of a larger entity where is fails to get its way. It forms the vast majority of the UK, and in terms of the EU, the general centre-right choices of England fit quite nicely with the centrist way Europe has evolved. Certainly, English Conservatives have been instrumental in shaping the single market. England more often than not gets its way*.
Contrast that with Scotland. How much of your lifetime has been spent with a Tory PM in Downing Street? And in how many elections in the same period of time has Scotland voted Tory? There's a worrying gulf there, and I'm surprised it doesn't trouble more people in Scotland than it evidently does.
And yet, for all that, which country has decided to turn the table over? It baffles me, both that Scotland isn't more nationalistic and that England isn't less.
*nobody even think of quoting those "x% of EU laws were opposed by us!" from the referendum. They were all lies.
England is hardly nationalistic at all. It's one of the most multi-cultural places on earth. The BNP vote is tiny. cf. Scotland with a 95pc white population and a 40pc nationalist vote
Multi-culturalism isn't the opposite of nationalism. Just look at the US.
I suspect many of you don't realise how shocking was the MPs declaration that they were representatives rather than delegates. Most people assumed that on issues like referenda where the people were asked to make a decision, their representative/delegate would faithfully honour their vote.
It came as a nasty shock to discover that MPs could do what they wanted on these issues despite any manifesto promises. That's the real cause of the anger and far more worrying than any Leave/Brexit split.
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
The problem has been that, following issues of violence with football 'fans' and with the EDL etc, English nationalism has been looked down on. It has also been bound up with Britishness. it's really only been over the last 20 or so years where the Scot Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been around that the English have been given licence to be nationalistic without it appearing thuggish/racist. even then it's happened (labour MPs commenting on england flags anyone)
It's not the football thugs that's the problem. It's the unjustified stupidity of it all. England doesn't suffer from being part of a larger entity where is fails to get its way. It forms the vast majority of the UK, and in terms of the EU, the general centre-right choices of England fit quite nicely with the centrist way Europe has evolved. Certainly, English Conservatives have been instrumental in shaping the single market. England more often than not gets its way*.
Contrast that with Scotland. How much of your lifetime has been spent with a Tory PM in Downing Street? And in how many elections in the same period of time has Scotland voted Tory? There's a worrying gulf there, and I'm surprised it doesn't trouble more people in Scotland than it evidently does.
And yet, for all that, which country has decided to turn the table over? It baffles me, both that Scotland isn't more nationalistic and that England isn't less.
*nobody even think of quoting those "x% of EU laws were opposed by us!" from the referendum. They were all lies.
I agree with you to a certain extent but the increased nationalism in Scotland and Wales has made the English more nationalistic. but the thing is it feels like "we can be nationalistic but you can't".
England voted for a stable Tory majority in 2010, 2015 and 2017 but the way the system is it didn't happen. this is because the four nations are going in different directions and will continue to do so.
The only way that it's resolved fully, bar the breakup of the UK, is a federal system with equal powers across the nations.
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
The problem has been that, following issues of violence with football 'fans' and with the EDL etc, English nationalism has been looked down on. It has also been bound up with Britishness. it's really only been over the last 20 or so years where the Scot Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been around that the English have been given licence to be nationalistic without it appearing thuggish/racist. even then it's happened (labour MPs commenting on england flags anyone)
It's not the football thugs that's the problem. It's the unjustified stupidity of it all. England doesn't suffer from being part of a larger entity where is fails to get its way. It forms the vast majority of the UK, and in terms of the EU, the general centre-right choices of England fit quite nicely with the centrist way Europe has evolved. Certainly, English Conservatives have been instrumental in shaping the single market. England more often than not gets its way*.
Contrast that with Scotland. How much of your lifetime has been spent with a Tory PM in Downing Street? And in how many elections in the same period of time has Scotland voted Tory? There's a worrying gulf there, and I'm surprised it doesn't trouble more people in Scotland than it evidently does.
And yet, for all that, which country has decided to turn the table over? It baffles me, both that Scotland isn't more nationalistic and that England isn't less.
*nobody even think of quoting those "x% of EU laws were opposed by us!" from the referendum. They were all lies.
England is hardly nationalistic at all. It's one of the most multi-cultural places on earth. The BNP vote is tiny. cf. Scotland with a 95pc white population and a 40pc nationalist vote
Ummm, the BNP are not the only nationalist party in England. The Brexit Party, the Conservative & Unionist parties are both unabashedly nationalistic. There's a fair case to be made for Labour being nationalistic, though there's a lot of ambiguity about their position. You can count every single Leave voter as people who have voted for at least one nationalist policy. I mean, Leave itself is by definition a nationalist policy.
I should clarify that a great number of people in England aren't necessarily English nationalists. Many are British nationalists.
If you class wanting to leave that farce of a democracy and large bureaucratic expense as "nationalistic" then it's easy to see how confused you could get.
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
The problem has been that, following issues of violence with football 'fans' and with the EDL etc, English nationalism has been looked down on. It has also been bound up with Britishness. it's really only been over the last 20 or so years where the Scot Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been around that the English have been given licence to be nationalistic without it appearing thuggish/racist. even then it's happened (labour MPs commenting on england flags anyone)
It's not the football thugs that's the problem. It's the unjustified stupidity of it all. England doesn't suffer from being part of a larger entity where is fails to get its way. It forms the vast majority of the UK, and in terms of the EU, the general centre-right choices of England fit quite nicely with the centrist way Europe has evolved. Certainly, English Conservatives have been instrumental in shaping the single market. England more often than not gets its way*.
Contrast that with Scotland. How much of your lifetime has been spent with a Tory PM in Downing Street? And in how many elections in the same period of time has Scotland voted Tory? There's a worrying gulf there, and I'm surprised it doesn't trouble more people in Scotland than it evidently does.
And yet, for all that, which country has decided to turn the table over? It baffles me, both that Scotland isn't more nationalistic and that England isn't less.
*nobody even think of quoting those "x% of EU laws were opposed by us!" from the referendum. They were all lies.
England is hardly nationalistic at all. It's one of the most multi-cultural places on earth. The BNP vote is tiny. cf. Scotland with a 95pc white population and a 40pc nationalist vote
Multi-culturalism isn't the opposite of nationalism. Just look at the US.
Agreed. Perhaps people are disagreeing because they don't like the sound of the word "nationalist". I don't mean it in a pejorative sense. Nationalism isn't good or bad, it just is. Brexit is a nationalist policy. So were anticolonial independence movements. So is white supremacy. Some nationalist policies are good and some are bad. Judge them on their own merits. Generally, if it's about hatred of others I judge it to be bad. If it's about self governance I think it's good. In this respect, the nationalism of Brexit was a mix of good and bad, although my personal judgement is that the self-governance aspect was misguided because there wasn't actually a problem that needed solved.
Mr. B, find it hard to believe Leclerc could've kept Vettel behind him, and the German was faster on race pace.
We can agree that Ferrari's management of the situation is poor.
Given the strength of the tow at Sochi off the start, and that both the Ferrari drivers had good getaways, while it’s not a certainty, I don’t think it unlikely at all.
As for race pace, it’s simply not possible to make a valid comparison between the front runner in clear air and the following car. All sorts of other considerations - particularly tyre preservation and engine cooling - come into play. Note Leclerc was only 1.5 seconds back on lap 8.
Vettel confirmed after the race there was an agreement for the start strategy, but refused to discuss it further.
All in all, pretty foolish... and which driver is Ferrari going to be banking on for the next decade ?
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
The problem has been that, following issues of violence with football 'fans' and with the EDL etc, English nationalism has been looked down on. It has also been bound up with Britishness. it's really only been over the last 20 or so years where the Scot Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been around that the English have been given licence to be nationalistic without it appearing thuggish/racist. even then it's happened (labour MPs commenting on england flags anyone)
It's not the football thugs that's the problem. It's the unjustified stupidity of it all. England doesn't suffer from being part of a larger entity where is fails to get its way. It forms the vast majority of the UK, and in terms of the EU, the general centre-right choices of England fit quite nicely with the centrist way Europe has evolved. Certainly, English Conservatives have been instrumental in shaping the single market. England more often than not gets its way*.
Contrast that with Scotland. How much of your lifetime has been spent with a Tory PM in Downing Street? And in how many elections in the same period of time has Scotland voted Tory? There's a worrying gulf there, and I'm surprised it doesn't trouble more people in Scotland than it evidently does.
And yet, for all that, which country has decided to turn the table over? It baffles me, both that Scotland isn't more nationalistic and that England isn't less.
*nobody even think of quoting those "x% of EU laws were opposed by us!" from the referendum. They were all lies.
England is hardly nationalistic at all. It's one of the most multi-cultural places on earth. The BNP vote is tiny. cf. Scotland with a 95pc white population and a 40pc nationalist vote
Multi-culturalism isn't the opposite of nationalism. Just look at the US.
It's a leading indicator - The US is a special case because it uses the world's reserve currency
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
The problem has been that, following issues of violence with football 'fans' and with the EDL etc, English nationalism has been looked down on. It has also been bound up with Britishness. it's really only been over the last 20 or so years where the Scot Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been around that the English have been given licence to be nationalistic without it appearing thuggish/racist. even then it's happened (labour MPs commenting on england flags anyone)
It's not the football thugs that's the problem. It's the unjustified stupidity of it all. England doesn't suffer from being part of a larger entity where is fails to get its way. It forms the vast majority of the UK, and in terms of the EU, the general centre-right choices of England fit quite nicely with the centrist way Europe has evolved. Certainly, English Conservatives have been instrumental in shaping the single market. England more often than not gets its way*.
Contrast that with Scotland. How much of your lifetime has been spent with a Tory PM in Downing Street? And in how many elections in the same period of time has Scotland voted Tory? There's a worrying gulf there, and I'm surprised it doesn't trouble more people in Scotland than it evidently does.
And yet, for all that, which country has decided to turn the table over? It baffles me, both that Scotland isn't more nationalistic and that England isn't less.
*nobody even think of quoting those "x% of EU laws were opposed by us!" from the referendum. They were all lies.
England is hardly nationalistic at all. It's one of the most multi-cultural places on earth. The BNP vote is tiny. cf. Scotland with a 95pc white population and a 40pc nationalist vote
Multi-culturalism isn't the opposite of nationalism. Just look at the US.
It's a leading indicator - The US is a special case because it uses the world's reserve currency
I should clarify that a great number of people in England aren't necessarily English nationalists. Many are British nationalists.
15 to 20 years ago that was probably true and I would have agreed with it. the rise of the SNP and the indyref has changed that. The concept of Britishness for a long time was equivalent to Englishness but it's not true anymore. Britishness as an identity is dying out. The younger generation is more likely to consider themselves European than British
Putting aside arguments over house effects, trends with individual pollsters are important.
No change in this poll, but after the YouGov poll of 19th/20th Sept had the Cons down to 30%, with two back at 33% Johnson seems to have steadied the ship for now despite all his woes, and with a significant BXP vote at 13% still there for a potential squeeze. The combined Con and BXP vote is still only 1% below its peak since he became leader.
If the Lib Dems overtake Labour it could be carnage for Corbyn. He might achieve the destruction of his party within 5 yrs. Some achievement
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
The problem has been that, following issues of violence with football 'fans' and with the EDL etc, English nationalism has been looked down on. It has also been bound up with Britishness. it's really only been over the last 20 or so years where the Scot Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been around that the English have been given licence to be nationalistic without it appearing thuggish/racist. even then it's happened (labour MPs commenting on england flags anyone)
It's not the football thugs that's the problem. It's the unjustified stupidity of it all. England doesn't suffer from being part of a larger entity where is fails to get its way. It forms the vast majority of the UK, and in terms of the EU, the general centre-right choices of England fit quite nicely with the centrist way Europe has evolved. Certainly, English Conservatives have been instrumental in shaping the single market. England more often than not gets its way*.
Contrast that with Scotland. How much of your lifetime has been spent with a Tory PM in Downing Street? And in how many elections in the same period of time has Scotland voted Tory? There's a worrying gulf there, and I'm surprised it doesn't trouble more people in Scotland than it evidently does.
And yet, for all that, which country has decided to turn the table over? It baffles me, both that Scotland isn't more nationalistic and that England isn't less.
*nobody even think of quoting those "x% of EU laws were opposed by us!" from the referendum. They were all lies.
England is hardly nationalistic at all. It's one of the most multi-cultural places on earth. The BNP vote is tiny. cf. Scotland with a 95pc white population and a 40pc nationalist vote
Multi-culturalism isn't the opposite of nationalism. Just look at the US.
It's a leading indicator - The US is a special case because it uses the world's reserve currency
American exceptionalism predates American hegemony.
The demented FTPA should be abolished. It should've self-destructed after the Coalition ended, and it's sheer idiocy that stopped it being written that way.
What’s so bad about it? As I set out above, it can work perfectly well if politicians focus on the features of the system and act accordingly.
The problem with the FPTA is when a minority government wants to pretend it has a majority
Exactly. If it sought to recognise the numerical balance of Parliament and tailored its policies accordingly to build a majority, it would disappoint the purists but it would get some stuff done.
Have we not been through a few years of deciding there is no majority in parliament for any possible affirmative action? Just the moment when a FTPA needs at allow for an election.
No.
Theresa May sought to impose her deal on Parliament. It resisted. Boris Johnson has sought to impose no deal on Parliament. It is resisting.
Other options have barely been explored yet.
If a majority of the House of Commons wants an early election, it will happen. If it does not, or not yet, then the MPs who do not will need to make the compromises necessary to move forward. That now looks set to happen.
Parliament has had abundant time to express a majority view about what it wants and intends (not what it does not). It hasn't.
How much Parliamentary time has been allotted to consideration of options other than those propounded by the successive governments?
Pass. Indicative votes would be a starting point.
Oh god! Not more "indicative votes"
What on Earth is wrong with that? It was always intended to have multiple rounds to home in on a consensus. We had only two, and three options got far closer in round 2 than round 1 Customs Union went from failing by 6 to failing by 3 Common Market 2.0 went from failing by 94 to failing by 21 Deal-plus-Confirmatory Referendum went from failing by 27 to failing by 12 All were far closer than any of the three votes on May’s Deal in raw form.
One more round of Indicative Votes could easily have given one or more positive ways forward.
Agree- it was very strange to stop the IV process when it was stopped. Was it just the issue of a 24 hour news culture wanting everything resolved nownowNOW?
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
The problem has been that, following issues of violence with football 'fans' and with the EDL etc, English nationalism has been looked down on. It has also been bound up with Britishness. it's really only been over the last 20 or so years where the Scot Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been around that the English have been given licence to be nationalistic without it appearing thuggish/racist. even then it's happened (labour MPs commenting on england flags anyone)
It's not the football thugs that's the problem. It's the unjustified stupidity of it all. England doesn't suffer from being part of a larger entity where is fails to get its way. It forms the vast majority of the UK, and in terms of the EU, the general centre-right choices of England fit quite nicely with the centrist way Europe has evolved. Certainly, English Conservatives have been instrumental in shaping the single market. England more often than not gets its way*.
Contrast that with Scotland. How much of your lifetime has been spent with a Tory PM in Downing Street? And in how many elections in the same period of time has Scotland voted Tory? There's a worrying gulf there, and I'm surprised it doesn't trouble more people in Scotland than it evidently does.
And yet, for all that, which country has decided to turn the table over? It baffles me, both that Scotland isn't more nationalistic and that England isn't less.
*nobody even think of quoting those "x% of EU laws were opposed by us!" from the referendum. They were all lies.
England is hardly nationalistic at all. It's one of the most multi-cultural places on earth. The BNP vote is tiny. cf. Scotland with a 95pc white population and a 40pc nationalist vote
Multi-culturalism isn't the opposite of nationalism. Just look at the US.
It's a leading indicator - The US is a special case because it uses the world's reserve currency
What on earth are you on about?
What? So you're allowed to write drivel but I can't? Two can play at that game.
I suspect many of you don't realise how shocking was the MPs declaration that they were representatives rather than delegates. Most people assumed that on issues like referenda where the people were asked to make a decision, their representative/delegate would faithfully honour their vote.
It came as a nasty shock to discover that MPs could do what they wanted on these issues despite any manifesto promises. That's the real cause of the anger and far more worrying than any Leave/Brexit split.
Yet the vast majority of MPs have voted in complete adherence to their manifesto commitments.
Putting aside arguments over house effects, trends with individual pollsters are important.
No change in this poll, but after the YouGov poll of 19th/20th Sept had the Cons down to 30%, with two back at 33% Johnson seems to have steadied the ship for now despite all his woes, and with a significant BXP vote at 13% still there for a potential squeeze. The combined Con and BXP vote is still only 1% below its peak since he became leader.
If the Lib Dems overtake Labour it could be carnage for Corbyn. He might achieve the destruction of his party within 5 yrs. Some achievement
Only a change in voting system to a PR system will break up the two main parties.
I suspect many of you don't realise how shocking was the MPs declaration that they were representatives rather than delegates. Most people assumed that on issues like referenda where the people were asked to make a decision, their representative/delegate would faithfully honour their vote.
It came as a nasty shock to discover that MPs could do what they wanted on these issues despite any manifesto promises. That's the real cause of the anger and far more worrying than any Leave/Brexit split.
The vast majority of voters would have implicitly understood the concept even if they went about their daily lives unawares of its real meaning.
Voters elect MPs and are happy that these representatives deal with the often unfathomable minutiae of parliamentary business.
What has caused the schism with Brexit is the very clear spirit of a binary referendum where voters would, quite reasonably, expect their MPs to follow a direct instruction.
There wasn't a nuance in a win/lose referendum especially where the political class framed the exercise as a winner takes all proposition.
The Sunday Times reports that internal Labour polling is predicting 100 seat losses. It says Labour has lost a third of its 2017 vote to the LDs and another 10% to the Brexit Party.
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
The problem has been that, following issues of violence with football 'fans' and with the EDL etc, English nationalism has been looked down on. It has also been bound up with Britishness. it's really only been over the last 20 or so years where the Scot Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been around that the English have been given licence to be nationalistic without it appearing thuggish/racist. even then it's happened (labour MPs commenting on england flags anyone)
It's not the football thugs that's the problem. It's the unjustified stupidity of it all. England doesn't suffer from being part of a larger entity where is fails to get its way. It forms the vast majority of the UK, and in terms of the EU, the general centre-right choices of England fit quite nicely with the centrist way Europe has evolved. Certainly, English Conservatives have been instrumental in shaping the single market. England more often than not gets its way*.
Contrast that with Scotland. How much of your lifetime has been spent with a Tory PM in Downing Street? And in how many elections in the same period of time has Scotland voted Tory? There's a worrying gulf there, and I'm surprised it doesn't trouble more people in Scotland than it evidently does.
And yet, for all that, which country has decided to turn the table over? It baffles me, both that Scotland isn't more nationalistic and that England isn't less.
*nobody even think of quoting those "x% of EU laws were opposed by us!" from the referendum. They were all lies.
England is hardly nationalistic at all. It's one of the most multi-cultural places on earth. The BNP vote is tiny. cf. Scotland with a 95pc white population and a 40pc nationalist vote
Multi-culturalism isn't the opposite of nationalism. Just look at the US.
Agreed. Perhaps people are disagreeing because they don't like the sound of the word "nationalist". I don't mean it in a pejorative sense. Nationalism isn't good or bad, it just is. Brexit is a nationalist policy. So were anticolonial independence movements. So is white supremacy. Some nationalist policies are good and some are bad. Judge them on their own merits. Generally, if it's about hatred of others I judge it to be bad. If it's about self governance I think it's good. In this respect, the nationalism of Brexit was a mix of good and bad, although my personal judgement is that the self-governance aspect was misguided because there wasn't actually a problem that needed solved.
In my provincial backwater most people love their country and respect other countries. Call it what you like.
The Sunday Times reports that internal Labour polling is predicting 100 seat losses. It says Labour has lost a third of its 2017 vote to the LDs and another 10% to the Brexit Party.
So if it's internal polling, why is it appearing? 1. A deliberate leak, in which case there may not even be such polling, motivated maybe by expectations management to allow Jeremy to emerge triumphant when the loss is limited to 30 or so seats, or to keep MPs onside as he chooses not to VONC (although I can't see why Corbyn would need to), or if not what else? 2. It's a genuine leak, for whatever motive, and the polling exists.
Regardless, it's fairly consistent with some but not all published polls.
I should clarify that a great number of people in England aren't necessarily English nationalists. Many are British nationalists.
15 to 20 years ago that was probably true and I would have agreed with it. the rise of the SNP and the indyref has changed that. The concept of Britishness for a long time was equivalent to Englishness but it's not true anymore. Britishness as an identity is dying out. The younger generation is more likely to consider themselves European than British
I agree with you that Britishness is in a squeeze between English/Scottish/Welshness and Europeanness. A few years ago I would have unthinkingly identified as British, but that's not nationalism, that's just identity. It's only when you apply your identity to your beliefs in the governing unit in which you'd like to live that it becomes nationalism. So people can be pro-Europe and identify very strongly as British and that's not nationalism. Conversely you can "feel" European but decide on balance that Britain should be out of the EU. That /is/ nationalism.
The problem with the FPTA is when a minority government wants to pretend it has a majority
Exactly. If it sought to recognise the numerical balance of Parliament and tailored its policies accordingly to build a majority, it would disappoint the purists but it would get some stuff done.
Have we not been through a few years of deciding there is no majority in parliament for any possible affirmative action? Just the moment when a FTPA needs at allow for an election.
No.
Theresa May sought to impose her deal on Parliament. It resisted. Boris Johnson has sought to impose no deal on Parliament. It is resisting.
Other options have barely been explored yet.
If a majority of the House of Commons wants an early election, it will happen. If it does not, or not yet, then the MPs who do not will need to make the compromises necessary to move forward. That now looks set to happen.
Parliament has had abundant time to express a majority view about what it wants and intends (not what it does not). It hasn't.
How much Parliamentary time has been allotted to consideration of options other than those propounded by the successive governments?
Pass. Indicative votes would be a starting point.
Oh god! Not more "indicative votes"
What on Earth is wrong with that? It was always intended to have multiple rounds to home in on a consensus. We had only two, and three options got far closer in round 2 than round 1 Customs Union went from failing by 6 to failing by 3 Common Market 2.0 went from failing by 94 to failing by 21 Deal-plus-Confirmatory Referendum went from failing by 27 to failing by 12 All were far closer than any of the three votes on May’s Deal in raw form.
One more round of Indicative Votes could easily have given one or more positive ways forward.
Agree- it was very strange to stop the IV process when it was stopped. Was it just the issue of a 24 hour news culture wanting everything resolved nownowNOW?
I rather assumed it was stopped out of the Conservative/DUP fear that one or more options might succeed. Thus indicating a Brexit that might not suit the Conservatives. Which would be bad for them and thus must be stopped as a higher priority than actually enacting a Brexit.
In my provincial backwater most people love their country and respect other countries. Call it what you like.
Patriotism. Speaking personally, I find nationalism entirely understandable, but patriotism has always been baffling. Why would you love a flag? Britain has always been a mixed bag of good and evil. Most countries are.
I should clarify that a great number of people in England aren't necessarily English nationalists. Many are British nationalists.
15 to 20 years ago that was probably true and I would have agreed with it. the rise of the SNP and the indyref has changed that. The concept of Britishness for a long time was equivalent to Englishness but it's not true anymore. Britishness as an identity is dying out. The younger generation is more likely to consider themselves European than British
I agree with you that Britishness is in a squeeze between English/Scottish/Welshness and Europeanness. A few years ago I would have unthinkingly identified as British, but that's not nationalism, that's just identity. It's only when you apply your identity to your beliefs in the governing unit in which you'd like to live that it becomes nationalism. So people can be pro-Europe and identify very strongly as British and that's not nationalism. Conversely you can "feel" European but decide on balance that Britain should be out of the EU. That /is/ nationalism.
Indeed, but without an identity binding the country together the UK will break up over the longer term.
Interesting - Centre-right win, junior partner social democrats down, far right well down, and like Germany a gigantic leap for the Greens, who have more than tripled their vote.
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
The problem has been that, following issues of violence with football 'fans' and with the EDL etc, English nationalism has been looked down on. It has also been bound up with Britishness. it's really only been over the last 20 or so years where the Scot Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been around that the English have been given licence to be nationalistic without it appearing thuggish/racist. even then it's happened (labour MPs commenting on england flags anyone)
It's not the football thugs that's the problem. It's the unjustified stupidity of it all. England doesn't suffer from being part of a larger entity where is fails to get its way. It forms the vast majority of the UK, and in terms of the EU, the general centre-right choices of England fit quite nicely with the centrist way Europe has evolved. Certainly, English Conservatives have been instrumental in shaping the single market. England more often than not gets its way*.
Contrast that with Scotland. How much of your lifetime has been spent with a Tory PM in Downing Street? And in how many elections in the same period of time has Scotland voted Tory? There's a worrying gulf there, and I'm surprised it doesn't trouble more people in Scotland than it evidently does.
And yet, for all that, which country has decided to turn the table over? It baffles me, both that Scotland isn't more nationalistic and that England isn't less.
*nobody even think of quoting those "x% of EU laws were opposed by us!" from the referendum. They were all lies.
England is hardly nationalistic at all. It's one of the most multi-cultural places on earth. The BNP vote is tiny. cf. Scotland with a 95pc white population and a 40pc nationalist vote
Multi-culturalism isn't the opposite of nationalism. Just look at the US.
It's a leading indicator - The US is a special case because it uses the world's reserve currency
What on earth are you on about?
What? So you're allowed to write drivel but I can't? Two can play at that game.
I really meant that question. I do not understand what reserve currency has to do with anything. You might find what I write drivel, I don't much care, but at least I do try to explain what I mean. That is, someone with a reading age of ten ought to be able to understand what I'm saying and either agree or, more likely, fling heavy objects at me because my opinions are so contemptible. But I just didn't understand your cryptic one-line teleportation into economics.
Putting aside arguments over house effects, trends with individual pollsters are important.
No change in this poll, but after the YouGov poll of 19th/20th Sept had the Cons down to 30%, with two back at 33% Johnson seems to have steadied the ship for now despite all his woes, and with a significant BXP vote at 13% still there for a potential squeeze. The combined Con and BXP vote is still only 1% below its peak since he became leader.
If the Lib Dems overtake Labour it could be carnage for Corbyn. He might achieve the destruction of his party within 5 yrs. Some achievement
Only a change in voting system to a PR system will break up the two main parties.
I don't think it's the only route. You could quite possibly see a large scale defection of a mass of Labour MPs to the Libs after the GE, once they have been elected. What if Watson tired of bashing his head against the wall and led 50 or so out? A year ago that didn't seem that viable, because the Libs were polling in single figures so some tried the new party route. For now it's still not that attractive, but only because there is the problem is that the defecting MPs would probably have to stand down for sitting Lib candidates already in place. If the Libs do poll around 20% and win 30+ seats, then I think the mass defection route will become attractive.
I should clarify that a great number of people in England aren't necessarily English nationalists. Many are British nationalists.
15 to 20 years ago that was probably true and I would have agreed with it. the rise of the SNP and the indyref has changed that. The concept of Britishness for a long time was equivalent to Englishness but it's not true anymore. Britishness as an identity is dying out. The younger generation is more likely to consider themselves European than British
I agree with you that Britishness is in a squeeze between English/Scottish/Welshness and Europeanness. A few years ago I would have unthinkingly identified as British, but that's not nationalism, that's just identity. It's only when you apply your identity to your beliefs in the governing unit in which you'd like to live that it becomes nationalism. So people can be pro-Europe and identify very strongly as British and that's not nationalism. Conversely you can "feel" European but decide on balance that Britain should be out of the EU. That /is/ nationalism.
Indeed, but without an identity binding the country together the UK will break up over the longer term.
Interesting - Centre-right win, junior partner social democrats down, far right well down, and like Germany a gigantic leap for the Greens, who have more than tripled their vote.
Social Democrats were not the junior partner in the outgoing govt: it was the far right who were embroiled in scandal.
This weekend's YouGov and Opinium suggest all of the week's excitement at the Supreme Court and in Parliament has had little effect on Voting Intention.
Sure, we have no idea whether YouGov/Opinium or ComRes/Survation are more accurate - but it does appear that the position is pretty stable over the week.
I think the reason is that in spite of all the drama, nothing has really happened to change anybody's opinion.
Yes, I think that's right. The big question, only addressed by one poll so far a few weeks ago, is whether tactical voting will feature heavily. If it doesn't feature at all, we'll get a 1983-style Tory landslide. If it features heavily on the Lab/Lib side, Johnson may be out. As with most things, the answer is no doubt in between, but where?
I think England is more nationalistic than Scotland.
The problem has been that, following issues of violence with football 'fans' and with the EDL etc, English nationalism has been looked down on. It has also been bound up with Britishness. it's really only been over the last 20 or so years where the Scot Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been around that the English have been given licence to be nationalistic without it appearing thuggish/racist. even then it's happened (labour MPs commenting on england flags anyone)
It's not the football thugs that's the problem. It's the unjustified stupidity of it all. England doesn't suffer from being part of a larger entity where is fails to get its way. It forms the vast majority of the UK, and in terms of the EU, the general centre-right choices of England fit quite nicely with the centrist way Europe has evolved. Certainly, English Conservatives have been instrumental in shaping the single market. England more often than not gets its way*.
Contrast that with Scotland. How much of your lifetime has been spent with a Tory PM in Downing Street? And in how many elections in the same period of time has Scotland voted Tory? There's a worrying gulf there, and I'm surprised it doesn't trouble more people in Scotland than it evidently does.
And yet, for all that, which country has decided to turn the table over? It baffles me, both that Scotland isn't more nationalistic and that England isn't less.
*nobody even think of quoting those "x% of EU laws were opposed by us!" from the referendum. They were all lies.
England is hardly nationalistic at all. It's one of the most multi-cultural places on earth. The BNP vote is tiny. cf. Scotland with a 95pc white population and a 40pc nationalist vote
Multi-culturalism isn't the opposite of nationalism. Just look at the US.
It's a leading indicator - The US is a special case because it uses the world's reserve currency
American exceptionalism predates American hegemony.
That much is true, but pre-hegemonial exceptionalism was hardly multicultural. I think it can be argued that the partial, reluctant embrace of multiculturalism has trailed (and was caused by) hegemonial efforts.
Comments
There is everything wrong with the FTPA. The flaws are now so manifest that it's not even worth setting them out in detail.
The one caveat to a straight repeal is that there is a case that the opposition parties could be allowed a 14 day period of grace in which they could avert the election (called by the PM without reference to parliament as before) by passing a vote of confidence in a new alternative government.
I do think that there is a case for significant reform of the act and when elections happen. switching to a 4 year cycle of the following
1) General Election year
2) Local council year 1 (county councils + PCCs)
3) Devolved Parliaments / London Assembly
4) Local Council year 2 (borough councils / unitary authorities)
and no more electing by thirds
With Laurel and Hardy in charge, even good systems can look bad.
NewGov
Manchester Withington (Lab Maj 29,875; Jeff Smith MP)
Lab 1/8
LD 4/1
Grn 50/1
Con 100/1
(Shadsy)
Could happen again.
Had he been racing his teammate for the first corner, he’d have moved across in front of Hamilton immediately from the start to give him the tow. Vettel might well still have got past Hamilton, but would likely not have been able to make the move on Leclerc.
Ferrari aren’t going to discuss it in any great detail in public, so it’s hard to be certain, but I am unimpressed by their management of the race start.
Parties pay for MRP polls - so they may be better informed.
But one which Boris Johnson wins on a tacky exploitative ticket is equally clearly not.
This is the conundrum that I am wrestling with.
🙏
Help !!
The law we had previously gave the sitting PM too much leeway. It was like winning the toss in cricket all the time but also choosing when the toss should be held.
It was always intended to have multiple rounds to home in on a consensus.
We had only two, and three options got far closer in round 2 than round 1
Customs Union went from failing by 6 to failing by 3
Common Market 2.0 went from failing by 94 to failing by 21
Deal-plus-Confirmatory Referendum went from failing by 27 to failing by 12
All were far closer than any of the three votes on May’s Deal in raw form.
One more round of Indicative Votes could easily have given one or more positive ways forward.
Go on Kate, pop over the floor
Both main parties are behaving rationally. They aren't "forced" by the FTPA to do anything. They "realise" that it's in their tactical interests to let matters play out as they are. Johnson correctly wants to force an election but otherwise to be brought down only by a VONC of the HoC rather than resign the government, while Corbyn correctly wants to let him hang there. Neither wants to be the one that jumps first. Both have interpreted the tactical advantages to their parties correctly in terms of those positions. The FTPA is letting them both play this charade out for pure political gain, while the government of this country is left in limbo.
We can agree that Ferrari's management of the situation is poor.
1) remain in the EU Yes/No
2) If 1 is NO, Remain in the Customs Union
3) If 1 is NO, Remain aligned to the single market
all binding
https://twitter.com/ukip/status/1178293808670355456?s=21
One Happy Island
Sure, we have no idea whether YouGov/Opinium or ComRes/Survation are more accurate - but it does appear that the position is pretty stable over the week.
I think the reason is that in spite of all the drama, nothing has really happened to change anybody's opinion.
Contrast that with Scotland. How much of your lifetime has been spent with a Tory PM in Downing Street? And in how many elections in the same period of time has Scotland voted Tory? There's a worrying gulf there, and I'm surprised it doesn't trouble more people in Scotland than it evidently does.
And yet, for all that, which country has decided to turn the table over? It baffles me, both that Scotland isn't more nationalistic and that England isn't less.
*nobody even think of quoting those "x% of EU laws were opposed by us!" from the referendum. They were all lies.
No change in this poll, but after the YouGov poll of 19th/20th Sept had the Cons down to 30%, with two back at 33% Johnson seems to have steadied the ship for now despite all his woes, and with a significant BXP vote at 13% still there for a potential squeeze. The combined Con and BXP vote is still only 1% below its peak since he became leader.
https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/1178214384386134018
You can count every single Leave voter as people who have voted for at least one nationalist policy. I mean, Leave itself is by definition a nationalist policy.
I should clarify that a great number of people in England aren't necessarily English nationalists. Many are British nationalists.
It came as a nasty shock to discover that MPs could do what they wanted on these issues despite any manifesto promises. That's the real cause of the anger and far more worrying than any Leave/Brexit split.
England voted for a stable Tory majority in 2010, 2015 and 2017 but the way the system is it didn't happen. this is because the four nations are going in different directions and will continue to do so.
The only way that it's resolved fully, bar the breakup of the UK, is a federal system with equal powers across the nations.
Generally, if it's about hatred of others I judge it to be bad. If it's about self governance I think it's good. In this respect, the nationalism of Brexit was a mix of good and bad, although my personal judgement is that the self-governance aspect was misguided because there wasn't actually a problem that needed solved.
As for race pace, it’s simply not possible to make a valid comparison between the front runner in clear air and the following car. All sorts of other considerations - particularly tyre preservation and engine cooling - come into play. Note Leclerc was only 1.5 seconds back on lap 8.
Vettel confirmed after the race there was an agreement for the start strategy, but refused to discuss it further.
All in all, pretty foolish... and which driver is Ferrari going to be banking on for the next decade ?
Harris behind Buttigieg in South Carolina. She's done folks.
Voters elect MPs and are happy that these representatives deal with the often unfathomable minutiae of parliamentary business.
What has caused the schism with Brexit is the very clear spirit of a binary referendum where voters would, quite reasonably, expect their MPs to follow a direct instruction.
There wasn't a nuance in a win/lose referendum especially where the political class framed the exercise as a winner takes all proposition.
1. A deliberate leak, in which case there may not even be such polling, motivated maybe by expectations management to allow Jeremy to emerge triumphant when the loss is limited to 30 or so seats, or to keep MPs onside as he chooses not to VONC (although I can't see why Corbyn would need to), or if not what else?
2. It's a genuine leak, for whatever motive, and the polling exists.
Regardless, it's fairly consistent with some but not all published polls.
A few years ago I would have unthinkingly identified as British, but that's not nationalism, that's just identity. It's only when you apply your identity to your beliefs in the governing unit in which you'd like to live that it becomes nationalism. So people can be pro-Europe and identify very strongly as British and that's not nationalism. Conversely you can "feel" European but decide on balance that Britain should be out of the EU. That /is/ nationalism.
Thus indicating a Brexit that might not suit the Conservatives. Which would be bad for them and thus must be stopped as a higher priority than actually enacting a Brexit.
She came across appallingly which is why i've been baffled by the enthusiasm of some for her.
Speaking personally, I find nationalism entirely understandable, but patriotism has always been baffling. Why would you love a flag? Britain has always been a mixed bag of good and evil. Most countries are.
https://twitter.com/denisstaunton/status/1178326310873174018
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1178330140885032961?s=21
And note the reason given. Precisely my rationale.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/08/15/small-minds-and-brexit-jeremy-corbyns-latest-gambit/
You might find what I write drivel, I don't much care, but at least I do try to explain what I mean. That is, someone with a reading age of ten ought to be able to understand what I'm saying and either agree or, more likely, fling heavy objects at me because my opinions are so contemptible. But I just didn't understand your cryptic one-line teleportation into economics.
I think it can be argued that the partial, reluctant embrace of multiculturalism has trailed (and was caused by) hegemonial efforts.