'New YouGov polling for The Times has shown Boris’s Tories soar higher to a 15 point lead, making up more than the Labour and Brexit Party vote shares combined.
Interestingly, the poll found that since July, the Brexit Party vote has fallen by almost two thirds among 2017 Tories, yet only by just 1% among 2017 Labour voters. Now the Brexit Party vote is almost evenly made up of voters who in 2017 went for the Tory (13%) and Labour (8%) parties, meaning it could be an electoral boost to the Tories in the next election, eating away at Labour voters who would never vote Tory. Jack Brereton, the new Tory MP for Stoke-on-Trent South is convinced he would not have won his seat in 2017 if UKIP had not stood against him, taking Labour votes. Meanwhile MPs like Stewart Jackson who UKIP did not stand against lost out by tiny margins…
Boris’s personal ratings have climbed higher too, being twice as popular as Corbyn in the Best Prime Minister question, with 43% to Corbyn’s 21%. And for the first time ever, Boris has overtaken Corbyn in all age brackets. Among those aged 18-24, Boris leads by 32 to 29.'
For me Boris overtaking Corbyn in the 18-24 bracket by 32-29 is remarkable
Hmm. The Secret History of the Troubles suggests different. And that his lot were, if anything, worse.
Unlikely the highest killer of Irish people was PIRA
Paisley posed as a man of religion while funding and backing terrorists, according to the first episode of that series. A total bloody hypocrite whose understanding of Jesus's message was about as great as my understanding of quantum physics.
I dont think people want boris, more they want brexit sorted one way or another and the only one promising that is boris (if you exclude the illberal democrat pledge to just ignore everything the referendum and hope that works).
The next purpose of that Lib Dem polling is to target SW1 journos laziness. They are already compiling a list of " seats to watch " for campaign coverage and that poll vaults it onto the list. The fact it's a good story and in London so cutting travel time adds to appeal for lazy journos. Whatever that poll cost has just bought the Lib Dem campaign vast quantities of free media. A value investment.
If EUCO is only giving a political " Yes " then the vote on Super Saturday can't be a MV. Clearly the Commons giving a political " Yes " to EUCO's political " Yes " would be a huge moment but the legal timetable has slipped.
I think you’re right, but the Commons political “yes” might come with a Benn amendment I suppose.
Agreed. It cuts both ways. The DUP/Spartans can vote for Boris' deal know the actual MV is a week later. Equally the rebels can vote for an amendment or two knowing it won't derail the whole process. A political vote as opposed to a MV on Super Saturday increases the chances of something passing but that something being caveated.
'New YouGov polling for The Times has shown Boris’s Tories soar higher to a 15 point lead, making up more than the Labour and Brexit Party vote shares combined.
Interestingly, the poll found that since July, the Brexit Party vote has fallen by almost two thirds among 2017 Tories, yet only by just 1% among 2017 Labour voters. Now the Brexit Party vote is almost evenly made up of voters who in 2017 went for the Tory (13%) and Labour (8%) parties, meaning it could be an electoral boost to the Tories in the next election, eating away at Labour voters who would never vote Tory. Jack Brereton, the new Tory MP for Stoke-on-Trent South is convinced he would not have won his seat in 2017 if UKIP had not stood against him, taking Labour votes. Meanwhile MPs like Stewart Jackson who UKIP did not stand against lost out by tiny margins…
Boris’s personal ratings have climbed higher too, being twice as popular as Corbyn in the Best Prime Minister question, with 43% to Corbyn’s 21%. And for the first time ever, Boris has overtaken Corbyn in all age brackets. Among those aged 18-24, Boris leads by 32 to 29.'
For me Boris overtaking Corbyn in the 18-24 bracket by 32-29 is remarkable
I really cant believe tories / boris will beat jezza / labour in the yuff vote. It just aint going to happen.
'New YouGov polling for The Times has shown Boris’s Tories soar higher to a 15 point lead, making up more than the Labour and Brexit Party vote shares combined.
Interestingly, the poll found that since July, the Brexit Party vote has fallen by almost two thirds among 2017 Tories, yet only by just 1% among 2017 Labour voters. Now the Brexit Party vote is almost evenly made up of voters who in 2017 went for the Tory (13%) and Labour (8%) parties, meaning it could be an electoral boost to the Tories in the next election, eating away at Labour voters who would never vote Tory. Jack Brereton, the new Tory MP for Stoke-on-Trent South is convinced he would not have won his seat in 2017 if UKIP had not stood against him, taking Labour votes. Meanwhile MPs like Stewart Jackson who UKIP did not stand against lost out by tiny margins…
Boris’s personal ratings have climbed higher too, being twice as popular as Corbyn in the Best Prime Minister question, with 43% to Corbyn’s 21%. And for the first time ever, Boris has overtaken Corbyn in all age brackets. Among those aged 18-24, Boris leads by 32 to 29.'
For me Boris overtaking Corbyn in the 18-24 bracket by 32-29 is remarkable
Almost all the talk was that BoJo would be a narcissistic clown who would be a rubbish PM. He hasn't really been that bad so may be benefiting on the upside?
Hmm. The Secret History of the Troubles suggests different. And that his lot were, if anything, worse.
Unlikely the highest killer of Irish people was PIRA
Paisley posed as a man of religion while funding and backing terrorists, according to the first episode of that series. A total bloody hypocrite whose understanding of Jesus's message was about as great as my understanding of quantum physics.
Mr Alanbrooke, did you really mean that post as written? And back in the mid 70's we were on holiday in the Republic. One evening I was in a bar with a priest, who asked me what I thought of Paisley, and opined that he was an extremely dangerous man.
Take it up with the Conservative PM at the time, who buggered off the second the results were in. He and his Conservative Government are the people who must answer to that. The legislation that PARLIAMENT passed said no such thing.
@MarqueeMark is making the very reasonable point that what David Cameron said could be relied upon, but what Boris, Gove, Raab, Farage etc said was obvious froth which no-one should have taken seriously.
What was his answer to Douglas Carswell at PMQs when Dougie asked if he would hang around to implement the result if Leave won?
I dont think people want boris, more they want brexit sorted one way or another and the only one promising that is boris (if you exclude the illberal democrat pledge to just ignore everything the referendum and hope that works).
Brexit won't be sorted by a deal on the Withdrawal Agreement, it will just be the start of another two years of haggling and crisis. Revoke on the other hand would result in "brexit sorted one way or another".
Hmm. The Secret History of the Troubles suggests different. And that his lot were, if anything, worse.
Unlikely the highest killer of Irish people was PIRA
Paisley posed as a man of religion while funding and backing terrorists, according to the first episode of that series. A total bloody hypocrite whose understanding of Jesus's message was about as great as my understanding of quantum physics.
Ive watched the series too, primarily since I lived through a lot of it. Pointng put that PIRA killed most people isnt the same as condoing loyalist paramilitaries, its simply statistics.
I agree. I wasn't disagreeing with what you said. The IRA were revolting. I remember watching much of this with my father as a child. It was the start of my political awakening, the first time I became interested in current affairs. It was the topic of current affairs conversation in the family. And then it meshed with my interest in law through the various miscarriage of justice cases and the subsequent inquiries etc.
It came as a bit of a shock to me when my daughter told me that she was studying Irish history in the 20th century and the Troubles as part of her A-level history course. Made me feel very old I must say.
If EUCO is only giving a political " Yes " then the vote on Super Saturday can't be a MV. Clearly the Commons giving a political " Yes " to EUCO's political " Yes " would be a huge moment but the legal timetable has slipped.
I think you’re right, but the Commons political “yes” might come with a Benn amendment I suppose.
Agreed. It cuts both ways. The DUP/Spartans can vote for Boris' deal know the actual MV is a week later. Equally the rebels can vote for an amendment or two knowing it won't derail the whole process. A political vote as opposed to a MV on Super Saturday increases the chances of something passing but that something being caveated.
Ironically, if you had a working majority, you might choose to position it this way. “The Commons approved the outline deal but only with the provision about rice pudding non-tariff quotas - you really need to budge”.
Hmm. The Secret History of the Troubles suggests different. And that his lot were, if anything, worse.
Unlikely the highest killer of Irish people was PIRA
Paisley posed as a man of religion while funding and backing terrorists, according to the first episode of that series. A total bloody hypocrite whose understanding of Jesus's message was about as great as my understanding of quantum physics.
Ive watched the series too, primarily since I lived through a lot of it. Pointng put that PIRA killed most people isnt the same as condoing loyalist paramilitaries, its simply statistics.
It's interesting that in the series they refer to the IRA, never, IIRC, to the Provisionals. Plenty of pictures and clips have Adams and McGuinness, too.
I dont think people want boris, more they want brexit sorted one way or another and the only one promising that is boris (if you exclude the illberal democrat pledge to just ignore everything the referendum and hope that works).
Brexit won't be sorted by a deal on the Withdrawal Agreement, it will just be the start of another two years of haggling and crisis. Revoke on the other hand would result in "brexit sorted one way or another".
Revocation without a mandate from voters to do so is simply not feasible. Or sensible.
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
Didn't the vote to invoke A50 banish the desperate "advisory" comfort blanket?
Yes it did. MPs were daft to vote for it if they didn't want the referendum result implemented. Ken Clarke was always more honest about this than others.
There were perhaps two explanations for why they acted as they did: (1) they were scared of their voters if they voted against Art. 50; (2) they thought there would be a reasonable deal and therefore didn't realise they might be impaled on their vote later. (Or, I suppose, they voted that way with never any intention to enact it when it came to it.)
Fundamentally the problem always has been that having referenda in a system which is essentially based around Parliamentary democracy rather than direct democracy - as in the Swiss model - has created tensions which the government and MPs have been trying - and failing - to resolve ever since. The Swiss seem to manage referenda but they've had time to think about how to do it and their system of governance is different to ours. Little thought was given to how to bolt on a referendum on such an important question in our system and it has been showing the strain ever since.
It is a mess and if we do end up with a deal it will be agreed to out of exhaustion rather than any genuine belief that it is any good. Even Steve Barclay, the current Brexit Secretary, said in the last day, that the reason the proposed new deal is better than May's is because it can get the votes in Parliament. A quite extraordinary statement if you think about it. A deal is good not because of its own objective qualities or the benefits it brings to the citizens of this country but simply because some MPs can now be persuaded to vote for it.
How such a deal is meant to bring about a lasting settlement on Britain's relationship with the EU I don't know. But no-one seems to care about that. It is a plant with the shallowest of roots and, if you'll excuse the gardening metaphor, will be unlikely to survive any sort of adverse conditions.
All roads lead back to the MPs not being given a vote on the deal agreed by our PM and the EU in the first place
Hmm. The Secret History of the Troubles suggests different. And that his lot were, if anything, worse.
Unlikely the highest killer of Irish people was PIRA
Paisley posed as a man of religion while funding and backing terrorists, according to the first episode of that series. A total bloody hypocrite whose understanding of Jesus's message was about as great as my understanding of quantum physics.
Mr Alanbrooke, did you really mean that post as written? And back in the mid 70's we were on holiday in the Republic. One evening I was in a bar with a priest, who asked me what I thought of Paisley, and opined that he was an extremely dangerous man.
well if you watched the series Fr Ryan was also an extremely dangerous man men of the cloth regularly ignored their duties.
I simply pointed out that PIRA were the biggest killers - they killed more catholics that all the "crown forces" - and that saying IKP was worse than them was inaccurate. Its simply you feeding your own narrative of people you dont like but objectively its not the case.
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
Didn't the vote to invoke A50 banish the desperate "advisory" comfort blanket?
Yes it did. MPs were daft to vote for it if they didn't want the referendum result implemented. Ken Clarke was always more honest about this than others.
There were perhaps two explanations for why they acted as they did: (1) they were scared of their voters if they voted against Art. 50; (2) they thought there would be a reasonable deal and therefore didn't realise they might be impaled on their vote later. (Or, I suppose, they voted that way with never any intention to enact it when it came to it.)
Fundamentally the problem always has been that having referenda in a system which is essentially based around Parliamentary democracy rather than direct democracy - as in the Swiss model - has created tensions which the government and MPs have been trying - and failing - to resolve ever since. The Swiss seem to manage referenda but they've had time to think about how to do it and their system of governance is different to ours. Little thought was given to how to bolt on a referendum on such an important question in our system and it has been showing the strain ever since.
It is a mess and if we do end up with a deal it will be agreed to out of exhaustion rather than any genuine belief that it is any good. Even Steve Barclay, the current Brexit Secretary, said in the last day, that the reason the proposed new deal is better than May's is because it can get the votes in Parliament. A quite extraordinary statement if you think about it. A deal is good not because of its own objective qualities or the benefits it brings to the citizens of this country but simply because some MPs can now be persuaded to vote for it.
How such a deal is meant to bring about a lasting settlement on Britain's relationship with the EU I don't know. But no-one seems to care about that. It is a plant with the shallowest of roots and, if you'll excuse the gardening metaphor, will be unlikely to survive any sort of adverse conditions.
All roads lead back to the MPs not being given a vote on the deal agreed by our PM and the EU in the first place
Sorry - which deal did you mean? May's deal was put to a vote.
Hmm. The Secret History of the Troubles suggests different. And that his lot were, if anything, worse.
Unlikely the highest killer of Irish people was PIRA
Paisley posed as a man of religion while funding and backing terrorists, according to the first episode of that series. A total bloody hypocrite whose understanding of Jesus's message was about as great as my understanding of quantum physics.
Ive watched the series too, primarily since I lived through a lot of it. Pointng put that PIRA killed most people isnt the same as condoing loyalist paramilitaries, its simply statistics.
I agree. I wasn't disagreeing with what you said. The IRA were revolting. I remember watching much of this with my father as a child. It was the start of my political awakening, the first time I became interested in current affairs. It was the topic of current affairs conversation in the family. And then it meshed with my interest in law through the various miscarriage of justice cases and the subsequent inquiries etc.
It came as a bit of a shock to me when my daughter told me that she was studying Irish history in the 20th century and the Troubles as part of her A-level history course. Made me feel very old I must say.
Not sure what my grandson is studying in A level history. At some point in the GCSE course he was looking at the Cold War. I don't think he believed me when I said that in the early to mid 50's there was some at least pro-Soviet opinion.
Tory 15 point lead....i have a feeling jezza will be doing everything possible to avoid an election now.
Maybe waiting until the lead is as large as Theresa had?
The thing is, elsewhere it’s a 2-5% lead isn’t it? From there you can see him as PM. I don’t expect a labour majority, but I expect to cash out well on my 30-1 bet from earlier in the year. At some stage in a campaign, it’ll look close.
Hmm. The Secret History of the Troubles suggests different. And that his lot were, if anything, worse.
Unlikely the highest killer of Irish people was PIRA
Paisley posed as a man of religion while funding and backing terrorists, according to the first episode of that series. A total bloody hypocrite whose understanding of Jesus's message was about as great as my understanding of quantum physics.
Ive watched the series too, primarily since I lived through a lot of it. Pointng put that PIRA killed most people isnt the same as condoing loyalist paramilitaries, its simply statistics.
It's interesting that in the series they refer to the IRA, never, IIRC, to the Provisionals. Plenty of pictures and clips have Adams and McGuinness, too.
The IRA split with the Officals giving up the gun in the early 70s and turning to politics. The Provisionals in effect became the armed IRA.
Hmm. The Secret History of the Troubles suggests different. And that his lot were, if anything, worse.
Unlikely the highest killer of Irish people was PIRA
Paisley posed as a man of religion while funding and backing terrorists, according to the first episode of that series. A total bloody hypocrite whose understanding of Jesus's message was about as great as my understanding of quantum physics.
Mr Alanbrooke, did you really mean that post as written? And back in the mid 70's we were on holiday in the Republic. One evening I was in a bar with a priest, who asked me what I thought of Paisley, and opined that he was an extremely dangerous man.
well if you watched the series Fr Ryan was also an extremely dangerous man men of the cloth regularly ignored their duties.
I simply pointed out that PIRA were the biggest killers - they killed more catholics that all the "crown forces" - and that saying IKP was worse than them was inaccurate. Its simply you feeding your own narrative of people you dont like but objectively its not the case.
He is nothing if not a Corbynite after all. And a Corbynite is very much at home with an armalite, as we know.
Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?
The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.
Didn't the vote to invoke A50 banish the desperate "advisory" comfort blanket?
Yes it did. MPs were daft to vote for it if they didn't want the referendum result implemented. Ken Clarke was always more honest about this than others.
There were perhaps two explanations for why they acted as they did: (1) they were scared of their voters if they voted against Art. 50; (2) they thought there would be a reasonable deal and therefore didn't realise they might be impaled on their vote later. (Or, I suppose, they voted that way with never any intention to enact it when it came to it.)
Fundamentally the problem always has been that having referenda in a system which is essentially based around Parliamentary democracy rather than direct democracy - as in the Swiss model - has created tensions which the government and MPs have been trying - and failing - to resolve ever since. The Swiss seem to manage referenda but they've had time to think about how to do it and their system of governance is different to ours. Little thought was given to how to bolt on a referendum on such an important question in our system and it has been showing the strain ever since.
It is a mess and if we do end up with a deal it will be agreed to out of exhaustion rather than any genuine belief that it is any good. Even Steve Barclay, the current Brexit Secretary, said in the last day, that the reason the proposed new deal is better than May's is because it can get the votes in Parliament. A quite extraordinary statement if you think about it. A deal is good not because of its own objective qualities or the benefits it brings to the citizens of this country but simply because some MPs can now be persuaded to vote for it.
How such a deal is meant to bring about a lasting settlement on Britain's relationship with the EU I don't know. But no-one seems to care about that. It is a plant with the shallowest of roots and, if you'll excuse the gardening metaphor, will be unlikely to survive any sort of adverse conditions.
All roads lead back to the MPs not being given a vote on the deal agreed by our PM and the EU in the first place
Sorry - which deal did you mean? May's deal was put to a vote.
When are Labour going to wake up to the fact that Corbyn is a disaster? The Tories are led by a mendacious buffoon that has promoted and tried to further the most disastrous policy in the post war period, and Labour are not only not in front, they are 15 points behind!
Yes it did. MPs were daft to vote for it if they didn't want the referendum result implemented. Ken Clarke was always more honest about this than others.
There were perhaps two explanations for why they acted as they did: (1) they were scared of their voters if they voted against Art. 50; (2) they thought there would be a reasonable deal and therefore didn't realise they might be impaled on their vote later. (Or, I suppose, they voted that way with never any intention to enact it when it came to it.)
Fundamentally the problem always has been that having referenda in a system which is essentially based around Parliamentary democracy rather than direct democracy - as in the Swiss model - has created tensions which the government and MPs have been trying - and failing - to resolve ever since. The Swiss seem to manage referenda but they've had time to think about how to do it and their system of governance is different to ours. Little thought was given to how to bolt on a referendum on such an important question in our system and it has been showing the strain ever since.
It is a mess and if we do end up with a deal it will be agreed to out of exhaustion rather than any genuine belief that it is any good. Even Steve Barclay, the current Brexit Secretary, said in the last day, that the reason the proposed new deal is better than May's is because it can get the votes in Parliament. A quite extraordinary statement if you think about it. A deal is good not because of its own objective qualities or the benefits it brings to the citizens of this country but simply because some MPs can now be persuaded to vote for it.
How such a deal is meant to bring about a lasting settlement on Britain's relationship with the EU I don't know. But no-one seems to care about that. It is a plant with the shallowest of roots and, if you'll excuse the gardening metaphor, will be unlikely to survive any sort of adverse conditions.
All roads lead back to the MPs not being given a vote on the deal agreed by our PM and the EU in the first place
Sorry - which deal did you mean? May's deal was put to a vote.
Not sure what my grandson is studying in A level history. At some point in the GCSE course he was looking at the Cold War. I don't think he believed me when I said that in the early to mid 50's there was some at least pro-Soviet opinion.
Early to mid 50s? There was support for the Soviet Union much later than that, most notably in the circle of the current Labour leadership.
More seriously you’d hope it was a leading indicator that we might have a Secretary of State and team with some level of understanding of how the internet works. Bodes well for some of the counter-terror stuff.
When are Labour going to wake up to the fact that Corbyn is a disaster? The Tories are led by a mendacious buffoon that has promoted and tried to further the most disastrous policy in the post war period, and Labour are not only not in front, they are 15 points behind!
It's a suicide cult. The Tories are in danger of going the same way; something only Brexit (any Brexit) can prevent, IMO.
Membership of, and success within, either party depends on adherence to either the Doctrine of St Jeremy, or to to the Doctrine of the Malevolent EU.
'New YouGov polling for The Times has shown Boris’s Tories soar higher to a 15 point lead, making up more than the Labour and Brexit Party vote shares combined.
Interestingly, the poll found that since July, the Brexit Party vote has fallen by almost two thirds among 2017 Tories, yet only by just 1% among 2017 Labour voters. Now the Brexit Party vote is almost evenly made up of voters who in 2017 went for the Tory (13%) and Labour (8%) parties, meaning it could be an electoral boost to the Tories in the next election, eating away at Labour voters who would never vote Tory. Jack Brereton, the new Tory MP for Stoke-on-Trent South is convinced he would not have won his seat in 2017 if UKIP had not stood against him, taking Labour votes. Meanwhile MPs like Stewart Jackson who UKIP did not stand against lost out by tiny margins…
Boris’s personal ratings have climbed higher too, being twice as popular as Corbyn in the Best Prime Minister question, with 43% to Corbyn’s 21%. And for the first time ever, Boris has overtaken Corbyn in all age brackets. Among those aged 18-24, Boris leads by 32 to 29.'
For me Boris overtaking Corbyn in the 18-24 bracket by 32-29 is remarkable
I really cant believe tories / boris will beat jezza / labour in the yuff vote. It just aint going to happen.
Boris is optimistic, upbeat, believes in what Britain and its people have to offer. Boris is fun. Unlike that old sour-puss Corbyn. No wonder the yoof are flocking to Boris.....
Not sure what my grandson is studying in A level history. At some point in the GCSE course he was looking at the Cold War. I don't think he believed me when I said that in the early to mid 50's there was some at least pro-Soviet opinion.
Early to mid 50s? There was support for the Soviet Union much later than that, most notably in the circle of the current Labour leadership.
Yes it did. MPs were daft to vote for it if they didn't want the referendum result implemented. Ken Clarke was always more honest about this than others.
There were perhaps two explanations for why they acted as they did: (1) they were scared of their voters if they voted against Art. 50; (2) they thought there would be a reasonable deal and therefore didn't realise they might be impaled on their vote later. (Or, I suppose, they voted that way with never any intention to enact it when it came to it.)
Fundamentally the problem always has been that having referenda in a system which is essentially based around Parliamentary democracy rather than direct democracy - as in the Swiss model - has created tensions which the government and MPs have been trying - and failing - to resolve ever since. The Swiss seem to manage referenda but they've had time to think about how to do it and their system of governance is different to ours. Little thought was given to how to bolt on a referendum on such an important question in our system and it has been showing the strain ever since.
I
All roads lead back to the MPs not being given a vote on the deal agreed by our PM and the EU in the first place
Sorry - which deal did you mean? May's deal was put to a vote.
Putting it to a vote was the mistake
Why?
Because, given the chance, MPs were always going to be unable to resist thinking they knew best, and to ignore the fact the public had been sold the referendum on the basis of their decision being final. It created the problem you describe of DD vs RD.
If a deal were good enough for the elected PM of our country, a remainer, and the EU, then that should have been that. Would we be better or worse off now do you think?
This is very interesting. Not only will one of the biggest benefits cuts - non indexation - end but look how well state pensioners will do out of the Triple Lock this year.
Hmm. The Secret History of the Troubles suggests different. And that his lot were, if anything, worse.
Unlikely the highest killer of Irish people was PIRA
Paisley posed as a man of religion while funding and backing terrorists, according to the first episode of that series. A total bloody hypocrite whose understanding of Jesus's message was about as great as my understanding of quantum physics.
Mr Alanbrooke, did you really mean that post as written? And back in the mid 70's we were on holiday in the Republic. One evening I was in a bar with a priest, who asked me what I thought of Paisley, and opined that he was an extremely dangerous man.
well if you watched the series Fr Ryan was also an extremely dangerous man men of the cloth regularly ignored their duties.
I simply pointed out that PIRA were the biggest killers - they killed more catholics that all the "crown forces" - and that saying IKP was worse than them was inaccurate. Its simply you feeding your own narrative of people you dont like but objectively its not the case.
Fr Ryan was indeed a nasty piece of work, and IIRC, not alone among Catholic priests. I don't think 'Rev' Ian P was any 'better' or 'worse' than such Catholic opposite numbers. Last night's episode strongly suggested that UVF etc killers were under instruction from the authorities, to 'encourage' the IRA to the negotiating table.
I'm unlikely to be alive when, if ever, the whole ghastly truth comes out, but I think that when it does there'll be a lot more villains than heroes, and indeed, there'll be very very few good people involved.
And if we are being pedantic it was your post that suggested the PIRA/IRA were not the biggest killers etc, etc.
Yes it did. MPs were daft to vote for it if they didn't want the referendum result implemented. Ken Clarke was always more honest about this than others.
There were perhaps two explanations for why they acted as they did: (1) they were scared of their voters if they voted against Art. 50; (2) they thought there would be a reasonable deal and therefore didn't realise they might be impaled on their vote later. (Or, I suppose, they voted that way with never any intention to enact it when it came to it.)
Fundamentally the problem always has been that having referenda in a system which is essentially based around Parliamentary democracy rather than direct democracy - as in the Swiss model - has created tensions which the government and MPs have been trying - and failing - to resolve ever since. The Swiss seem to manage referenda but they've had time to think about how to do it and their system of governance is different to ours. Little thought was given to how to bolt on a referendum on such an important question in our system and it has been showing the strain ever since.
I
All roads lead back to the MPs not being given a vote on the deal agreed by our PM and the EU in the first place
Sorry - which deal did you mean? May's deal was put to a vote.
Putting it to a vote was the mistake
Why?
Because, given the chance, MPs were always going to be unable to resist thinking they knew best, and to ignore the fact the public had been sold the referendum on the basis of their decision being final. It created the problem you describe of DD vs RD.
If a deal were good enough for the elected PM of our country, a remainer, and the EU, then that should have been that. Would we be better or worse off now do you think?
As I've pointed out ad nauseam, May went about the process entirely wrong. She should first have found out what a majority of MPs (including Labour) would support, and then gone to the EU to do the paperwork. Labour were never going to support a deal that they'd had no input into.
All roads lead back to the MPs not being given a vote on the deal agreed by our PM and the EU in the first place
Sorry - which deal did you mean? May's deal was put to a vote.
Putting it to a vote was the mistake
Why?
Because, given the chance, MPs were always going to be unable to resist thinking they knew best, and to ignore the fact the public had been sold the referendum on the basis of their decision being final. It created the problem you describe of DD vs RD.
If a deal were good enough for the elected PM of our country, a remainer, and the EU, then that should have been that. Would we be better or worse off now do you think?
I don't think PM's should be allowed to make decisions on their own as you suggest. We have a Parliamentary democracy. The PM is not some sort of monarch.
If we joined the EU on the basis of a vote in Parliament then I think that the decision to leave the EU and the terms on which we did so should also be on the basis of a vote in Parliament. And that is important because the greatest possible consensus is needed if such a decision is going to last and form the basis of a new relationship with the EU.
As it is there will be little consensus, little discussion about the revised terms and their implications and I fear that when anything goes wrong which is in anyway attributable to the terms of departure such consensus as there is will vanish, we will back into the blame game and it will lead to more division and tension and difficulties.
It seems to me that we are in a difficult position because the vote was close, the subsequent GE effectively made it even closer and the government and MPs are not taking that into account in trying to come to a sensible way of leaving.
Anyway, I have to do other stuff now. So thank you for the debate.
Tory 15 point lead....i have a feeling jezza will be doing everything possible to avoid an election now.
or 2 point Tory lead.
That wasn't a voting intention poll.....
True, but they still had to get the weighting right in order to calculate the Brexit figures. And other polls have shown a Tory lead in the 3-6% range.
Whether the large Tory leads shown by YouGov and Opinium are correct or not, I expect the Labour vote share to go up when an election is called, because there'll be a massive tactical-voting campaign.
As this deal goes to and fro I believe that many EU members are heartily sick of the whole thing not least of all France and the rumour that the EU will only allow a short extension for technical detail or a GE seems to me very likely and that the EU do not want to provide time for a referendum as no doubt many EU countries would nor want a reluctant UK at their table causing mayhem
In this scenario the choice must be deal or revoke
Furthermore if the discussions go into next week and Boris writes the letter, the latest on Sky is that the EU will not respond on an extension until after a vote in the HOC. If you add in the time scale then the deal would before the HOC on Saturday 23rd and the very real choice by then could well be between deal or no deal on the 31st October
That would concentrate minds
A belated welcome back to these shores. While you were enjoying the Atlantic, for Mrs Stodge and I it was the Adriatic - a very pleasant amble down the eastern shores - places like Korcula, Kotor and Split to be enjoyed, Dubrovnik to be avoided.
I've often observed fatigue or exhaustion leads to tired people making bad decisions. As you observe, everyone is "tired" and wants this "over with" but we are dealing with the economic and trading future of this country and cannot afford to get this wrong.
We seems to have moved from "No Deal is better than a bad deal" to "Any Deal will do". Those who vehemently opposed the original WA from the LEAVE side seem better disposed toward what is being cooked up. It might not be wholly unreasonable to ask why they like this WA so much when they were so hostile toward a WA which appeared nearer to their sentiments.
Hmm. The Secret History of the Troubles suggests different. And that his lot were, if anything, worse.
Unlikely the highest killer of Irish people was PIRA
Paisley posed as a man of religion while funding and backing terrorists, according to the first episode of that series. A total bloody hypocrite whose understanding of Jesus's message was about as great as my understanding of quantum physics.
Ive watched the series too, primarily since I lived through a lot of it. Pointng put that PIRA killed most people isnt the same as condoing loyalist paramilitaries, its simply statistics.
I agree. I wasn't disagreeing with what you said. The IRA were revolting. I remember watching much of this with my father as a child. It was the start of my political awakening, the first time I became interested in current affairs. It was the topic of current affairs conversation in the family. And then it meshed with my interest in law through the various miscarriage of justice cases and the subsequent inquiries etc.
It came as a bit of a shock to me when my daughter told me that she was studying Irish history in the 20th century and the Troubles as part of her A-level history course. Made me feel very old I must say.
I remember my father questioning whether World War Two was history. At the time it had probably finished 30 years previously. A couple of weeks ago I was in Berlin and in November they will be celebrating the 30th anniversary of Mauerfall. I think I now understand what he meant.
Tory 15 point lead....i have a feeling jezza will be doing everything possible to avoid an election now.
or 2 point Tory lead.
Justin, your posts just aren't objective. As remainer and LD supporter I have to accept that currently the Tories have a good lead and it has grown a little over the past few weeks. As events unfurl I hope that will change, but let's not be blind to the facts even if we don't like them.
If VI choices are strongly guided by Brexit choices, the choice for Con DKs is essentially between Con and LD (for Remainers) and Con and BXP (for Leavers). The choice for Lab DKs is between Lab and Con or BXP (for Leavers) and Lab and LD or Green (for Remainers).
In summary, the alternatives involve multiple choices for 2017 Labour voters, which is one reason that could explain why the Lab DKs are a bit higher than the Tories currently.
Given the IOPC entirely whitewashed police wrongdoing revealed by the Henriques report, am I wrong in being entirely cynical when interpreting this request ?
Haven't the LibDems fallen back nationally somewhat in the couple of weeks since that Finchley and Golders Green polling was done? And the Tories advanced? They could easily both be in the 30s now.
If only 11% of Labour voters think Brexit is right, why is there so much angst about satisfying their opinion?
Labour MPs think they need their votes to stay in their seats. Your question, plus the fact that a fair chunk of Labour leavers would still vote Labour even if the party advocated remain, is why their concerns are misplaced.
Haven't the LibDems fallen back nationally somewhat in the couple of weeks since that Finchley and Golders Green polling was done? And the Tories advanced? They could easily both be in the 30s now.
Yes to all those points. But what is the point in pointing it out? Aren't you doing what Justin is doing? It is grasping at straws by just picking up the positives and ignoring the negatives.
'New YouGov polling for The Times has shown Boris’s Tories soar higher to a 15 point lead, making up more than the Labour and Brexit Party vote shares combined.
Interestingly, the poll found that since July, the Brexit Party vote has fallen by almost two thirds among 2017 Tories, yet only by just 1% among 2017 Labour voters. Now the Brexit Party vote is almost evenly made up of voters who in 2017 went for the Tory (13%) and Labour (8%) parties, meaning it could be an electoral boost to the Tories in the next election, eating away at Labour voters who would never vote Tory. Jack Brereton, the new Tory MP for Stoke-on-Trent South is convinced he would not have won his seat in 2017 if UKIP had not stood against him, taking Labour votes. Meanwhile MPs like Stewart Jackson who UKIP did not stand against lost out by tiny margins…
Boris’s personal ratings have climbed higher too, being twice as popular as Corbyn in the Best Prime Minister question, with 43% to Corbyn’s 21%. And for the first time ever, Boris has overtaken Corbyn in all age brackets. Among those aged 18-24, Boris leads by 32 to 29.'
For me Boris overtaking Corbyn in the 18-24 bracket by 32-29 is remarkable
Almost all the talk was that BoJo would be a narcissistic clown who would be a rubbish PM. He hasn't really been that bad so may be benefiting on the upside?
He may well still be a narcissistic clown who is a rubbish PM in the conventional sense, but someone who nonetheless has an electoral appeal capable of doubling the Conservatives' YouGov polling ratings from a nadir of 18% in June to 37% now. In that at least I give him some grudging respect, as someone who would never vote for his party.
Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.
Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling
Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...
The Barnett formula - designed to equalise spending per head between the nations of the UK - is the most misunderstood thing in British politics.
That's probably because it 'equalises' spending per head in much the same sense as the whinging WASPIs advocate 'equality' in the state pension age.
Even you don't understand it. What chance does everyone else have?
The Barnett formula would have worked perfectly, almost entirely equalizing per head public spending - thanks to rampant inflation - had Scotland's population not continued to decline as a proportion of the whole UK.
If Scotland's population had increased more quickly than England's then the Barnett formula would have led to higher expenditure per head in England.
We are hypocrites and we will go on being hypocrites. Love us.
It's 'the tragedy of the commons'. Better to be hypocrites and to know that you are - and to want to do something about it - rather than being a climate change denier like Trump. We need our politicians to take a lead, there's only a certain amount that an individual can do.
Eh? The EU is famous for its compromises and fudges. It's the only way 28 countries and a Parliament elected by PR can agree. He's just projecting our own divisions.
Eh? The EU is famous for its compromises and fudges. It's the only way 28 countries and a Parliament elected by PR can agree. He's just projecting our own divisions.
I think you need to read the whole hilarious thread!
Eh? The EU is famous for its compromises and fudges. It's the only way 28 countries and a Parliament elected by PR can agree. He's just projecting our own divisions.
It's a joke thread ridiculing the anthropological nature of media around these complex geopolitical issues when they happen in Middle East / Africa... But sure...
Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.
Was the sample size really 400?
Yes, MOE of 4.9%
These "margin of error" values are based on the assumption a representative sample. I am, let say, sceptical that a sample size of 400 in a poll comissioned from a political party is very representative of the whole constiteuncy.
The statistical assumption is that the sample is random, which is even harder to achieve than representativeness.
I've not seen a calculation of the margin of error for a representative sample. My instinct is that it would be larger, as essentially a combination of many smaller not-quite-random samples.
It's a wonder that opinion polls aren't completely useless. Only almost completely useless.
The detailed tabs say the MoE is 4.9%
That's the result of the calculation assuming a random sample. Given the low response rates (I think the rate is below 5%) how confident can you be that those who respond are selected randomly?
We are hypocrites and we will go on being hypocrites. Love us.
It's 'the tragedy of the commons'. Better to be hypocrites and to know that you are - and to want to do something about it - rather than being a climate change denier like Trump. We need our politicians to take a lead, there's only a certain amount that an individual can do.
There is no way to live a perfectly environmentally sustainable life at the moment. Accepting that is the first step. Then we have to go from that to understanding we're doing bad, trying to live better, but that trying is all most people can do. It may be hypocrisy, but it is more useful than denialism, nihilism, accelerationism or apathy.
Haven't the LibDems fallen back nationally somewhat in the couple of weeks since that Finchley and Golders Green polling was done? And the Tories advanced? They could easily both be in the 30s now.
Yes to all those points. But what is the point in pointing it out? Aren't you doing what Justin is doing? It is grasping at straws by just picking up the positives and ignoring the negatives.
Time will tell whether it was taken at peak LibDem.....
The government was forced to make sense of Koizumi’s recent vow to make Japan’s fight against climate change “sexy” after an opposition lawmaker requested an official interpretation of his remarks....
Eh? The EU is famous for its compromises and fudges. It's the only way 28 countries and a Parliament elected by PR can agree. He's just projecting our own divisions.
I think you need to read the whole hilarious thread!
Nick wouldn't be the only person to dismiss a document out of hand without having read it first.
Did you know that some academic literally once claimed that the Israel Palestine conflict was due to a lack of zinc or something and could be solved by making people in the region eat Marmite, and the important people considered it for a while because when some old white dude says something authoritatively you have to pretend it's important?
Comments
'New YouGov polling for The Times has shown Boris’s Tories soar higher to a 15 point lead, making up more than the Labour and Brexit Party vote shares combined.
Interestingly, the poll found that since July, the Brexit Party vote has fallen by almost two thirds among 2017 Tories, yet only by just 1% among 2017 Labour voters. Now the Brexit Party vote is almost evenly made up of voters who in 2017 went for the Tory (13%) and Labour (8%) parties, meaning it could be an electoral boost to the Tories in the next election, eating away at Labour voters who would never vote Tory. Jack Brereton, the new Tory MP for Stoke-on-Trent South is convinced he would not have won his seat in 2017 if UKIP had not stood against him, taking Labour votes. Meanwhile MPs like Stewart Jackson who UKIP did not stand against lost out by tiny margins…
Boris’s personal ratings have climbed higher too, being twice as popular as Corbyn in the Best Prime Minister question, with 43% to Corbyn’s 21%. And for the first time ever, Boris has overtaken Corbyn in all age brackets. Among those aged 18-24, Boris leads by 32 to 29.'
For me Boris overtaking Corbyn in the 18-24 bracket by 32-29 is remarkable
Revoke on the other hand would result in "brexit sorted one way or another".
It came as a bit of a shock to me when my daughter told me that she was studying Irish history in the 20th century and the Troubles as part of her A-level history course. Made me feel very old I must say.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50066623
I simply pointed out that PIRA were the biggest killers - they killed more catholics that all the "crown forces" - and that saying IKP was worse than them was inaccurate. Its simply you feeding your own narrative of people you dont like but objectively its not the case.
https://twitter.com/DannyShawBBC/status/1184419010856837120
“The government.... will not be commencing Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 concerning age verification for online pornography.”
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/porn-block-uk-ban-government-bill-website-delay-sex-a9158396.html%3famp
More seriously you’d hope it was a leading indicator that we might have a Secretary of State and team with some level of understanding of how the internet works. Bodes well for some of the counter-terror stuff.
Membership of, and success within, either party depends on adherence to either the Doctrine of St Jeremy, or to to the Doctrine of the Malevolent EU.
If a deal were good enough for the elected PM of our country, a remainer, and the EU, then that should have been that. Would we be better or worse off now do you think?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/16/benefits-to-rise-17-with-inflation-in-first-increase-in-five-years
Last night's episode strongly suggested that UVF etc killers were under instruction from the authorities, to 'encourage' the IRA to the negotiating table.
I'm unlikely to be alive when, if ever, the whole ghastly truth comes out, but I think that when it does there'll be a lot more villains than heroes, and indeed, there'll be very very few good people involved.
And if we are being pedantic it was your post that suggested the PIRA/IRA were not the biggest killers etc, etc.
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1184430941885911040
https://twitter.com/tomgara/status/1184451017678700545
Reading between the lines, the "diplomat" seems to have been of a very particular type - hence the US response to the incident.
Would make sense - time pressure, she has the whip hand, and EU+UK+Ireland willing to throw money at it.
If we joined the EU on the basis of a vote in Parliament then I think that the decision to leave the EU and the terms on which we did so should also be on the basis of a vote in Parliament. And that is important because the greatest possible consensus is needed if such a decision is going to last and form the basis of a new relationship with the EU.
As it is there will be little consensus, little discussion about the revised terms and their implications and I fear that when anything goes wrong which is in anyway attributable to the terms of departure such consensus as there is will vanish, we will back into the blame game and it will lead to more division and tension and difficulties.
It seems to me that we are in a difficult position because the vote was close, the subsequent GE effectively made it even closer and the government and MPs are not taking that into account in trying to come to a sensible way of leaving.
Anyway, I have to do other stuff now. So thank you for the debate.
The pickled egg is the sticking point.
Whether the large Tory leads shown by YouGov and Opinium are correct or not, I expect the Labour vote share to go up when an election is called, because there'll be a massive tactical-voting campaign.
The $6400 question is Farage.
I've often observed fatigue or exhaustion leads to tired people making bad decisions. As you observe, everyone is "tired" and wants this "over with" but we are dealing with the economic and trading future of this country and cannot afford to get this wrong.
We seems to have moved from "No Deal is better than a bad deal" to "Any Deal will do". Those who vehemently opposed the original WA from the LEAVE side seem better disposed toward what is being cooked up. It might not be wholly unreasonable to ask why they like this WA so much when they were so hostile toward a WA which appeared nearer to their sentiments.
In summary, the alternatives involve multiple choices for 2017 Labour voters, which is one reason that could explain why the Lab DKs are a bit higher than the Tories currently.
This was run by the top pollster from GE2017 using their methodology for single seat polling. Any complaints should be directed at them.
Survation's name is on the poll and its reputation is at stake.
Police watchdog asks Johnson-Arcuri inquiries to hold back
IOPC is considering whether to launch case into alleged misconduct in public office
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/16/police-watchdog-asks-johnson-arcuri-inquiries-to-hold-back
Let Tories assume they are keeping the seat and no need to campaign there.
We are hypocrites and we will go on being hypocrites. Love us.
It's a pretty implausible thread.
This bit is just hilarious:
https://twitter.com/KarlreMarks/status/1181911675743674368
The Barnett formula would have worked perfectly, almost entirely equalizing per head public spending - thanks to rampant inflation - had Scotland's population not continued to decline as a proportion of the whole UK.
If Scotland's population had increased more quickly than England's then the Barnett formula would have led to higher expenditure per head in England.
Better to be hypocrites and to know that you are - and to want to do something about it - rather than being a climate change denier like Trump.
We need our politicians to take a lead, there's only a certain amount that an individual can do.
Warren rakes in tech donations as she pledges to break up donors’ companies
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/16/warren-tech-donations-debate-048194
While Steyer appears to have spent well over $40m of his own cash in the last quarter to get to the debate:
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/president/democratic-primary/candidates/fundraising-and-campaign-finance-tracker/
"Never never never stick your head out of the window of a moving train" - R Dahl
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/10/16/national/politics-diplomacy/shinjiro-koizumis-sexy-fight-climate-change-untranslatable-japans-government-says/
The Japanese government has officially determined that environment minister Shinjiro Koizumi’s recent use of the English word “sexy” in a reference to climate change is “difficult to accurately translate” into Japanese, avoiding issuing an official rendering of the young scion’s tricky choice of vocabulary.
The government was forced to make sense of Koizumi’s recent vow to make Japan’s fight against climate change “sexy” after an opposition lawmaker requested an official interpretation of his remarks....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcoWdrerLdU