Mr. Above, if this Parliament can agree on nothing when we have a clear decision to make, it can't fulfil its basic function.
Delay is a decision, and that is the decision parliament has taken. It is unlikely to be optimal but neither is it likely to be the worst case. It is the will of the people as expressed at the GE.
The will of the people at the GE can be viewed as having voted 4 to 1 for parties with a manifesto commitment to deliver on the referendum result.
I fail to see how this never-ending cycle of delay is achieving that
Well unless I am mistaken the parliament just voted for the deal but the govt have stalled it and want a 2 month delay to hold an election?
The day with the latest sunrise, the winter solstice, is December 22nd. I hadn’t realised until checking this that the earliest sunset and the latest sunrise do not happen on the same day.
A 15.51 sunset happens between December 8th - 17th in London and varies by less across the month (9 minutes - 16.00-15.51) than sunrise (23 Politicians fear of "people not voting in winter General Elections" is not supported by the facts.
To put it into some perspective: you’d have had a large number of pensioners who were WW1 veterans voting in 1974.
.
No, there were a lot of WWI veterans in 1974. This is fact. You can look it up.
Since you made the claim, could you supply the data please?
.
You’re the one who made the claim as “fact” but can’t or won’t look it up......
You’re the one who’s disputing a totally obvious fact but who can’t or won’t provide any evidence to dispute it. You’ve also proven by your posts this morning that you totally misunderstand life expectancy.
Pathetic.
You don’t think name calling is a sign of losing an argument?
I’m neither calling you names nor losing the argument.
I was just pointing out that yours was pathetic.
I rest my case. You said there were “facts” - but wouldn’t provide them, Thanks to others, it looks like there were several hundred thousand out of a total of 31 million Votes cast, when turnout increased by 3 million vs the previous election.
There’s no case to rest. You’re wrong, and I’m right.
There were millions of veterans votes in 1974 that drove a very different voting culture. You’ve switched to a straw man now because you can’t defeat the original point.
All you’ve done on here this morning is embarrass yourself. If you’re representative of the Tory point of view (and we’re supposed to be ON THE SAME SIDE) then Boris will get thumped.
I have no more time to waste on morons like you. I now have to go and do some work.
Who is switching cases? Your original claim was about WW1 veterans - which we’ve established was probably in the hundreds of thousands - but you’ve now switched to “Veterans“ this including WWII to bump the total up.
It is possible to disagree without being disagrable.
Mr. Above, if this Parliament can agree on nothing when we have a clear decision to make, it can't fulfil its basic function.
Delay is a decision, and that is the decision parliament has taken. It is unlikely to be optimal but neither is it likely to be the worst case. It is the will of the people as expressed at the GE.
The will of the people at the GE can be viewed as having voted 4 to 1 for parties with a manifesto commitment to deliver on the referendum result.
I fail to see how this never-ending cycle of delay is achieving that
Yes, but a minority of those who voted to deliver the referendum result voted for this kind of Leave. Many voted for a Labour leave, others for a Lib Dem leave, others again for a Green or UKIP leave. To say a "manifesto pledging a specific kind of leave" vote is a vote for THIS KIND of leave is preposterous.
Mr. Above, if the Commons refuse to back a deal, refuse to back a revocation, refuse to have a vote of no confidence in the Government, and refuse to agree anything else the logical conclusion is that this Commons is no good for anything but prevarication.
[Of course, the next Commons could be worse].
Clearly this parliament is not great. That is a separate issue to whether the PM should be able to decide when the election is, when the law is clear that is for parliament to decide, and the mandate from the people is for 5 years.
I disagree. Parliament is doing a splendid job of representing a divided nation unable to agree on anything.
An astronomical point of order: The latest sunrise is actually 5th Jan (St Swithin’s Day.). The solstice has neither the earliest sunset nor the latest sunrise, but has the shortest overall day.
Mr. Above, if the Commons refuse to back a deal, refuse to back a revocation, refuse to have a vote of no confidence in the Government, and refuse to agree anything else the logical conclusion is that this Commons is no good for anything but prevarication.
[Of course, the next Commons could be worse].
Clearly this parliament is not great. That is a separate issue to whether the PM should be able to decide when the election is, when the law is clear that is for parliament to decide, and the mandate from the people is for 5 years.
The law is clear, he can ask Parliament, which is what he is doing on Monday.
If there is no election agreed I am not sure what the EU will offer on the extension.
They know that Parliament will not agree on anything. There is a deal on offer. An election is off the menu. Not ideal for them.
The question they will want an answer to is: What is the point of and reason for the extension?
The answer to that will guide the decision they make. The EU is capable of making decisions that bring about a solution to a problem. Because of the (as we see it) democratic deficit difficult decisions are easier and far more anonymous than those made by a National Parliament.
I would not count out either a straight No or 2 to 4 weeks to pass the bill on offer.
Of course he can ask parliament. He can even sulk and go on strike if he wants. His opponents can respond as they please, if they do not want an election at this particular time that is within their rights and perfectly democratic.
It is in their rights. I just think it will have consequences for the way the EU react to the request for an extension.
Mr. B, every mandate to hold office is temporary. Both sides proclaimed that the referendum was a one-off and the result would be honoured.
An argument on this ground is not conducive to pro-EU types winning. They're much better off going with the informed consent line.
The argument that we need the public to vote on Brexit splits between the two camps:
The GE argument has the advantage that we regularly have elections, anyway. It has the disadvantage that it's about everything other than Brexit, that due to the FTPA, bringing it forward is (and should be) an exceptional occurrence, and that whoever wins will get a mandate to do lots of stuff and their Brexit mandate will certainly be on a minority of the vote.
The referendum argument has the advantage that if you're going to have a vote on Brexit you should make it - well - a vote on Brexit, and it would require a majority of the vote. It has the disadvantage that referendums are not regular occurrences and it is also an exceptional occurrence (mitigated somewhat by the fact that since 2010, we've had more referendums than General Elections).
Each side sees the democratic legitimacy being stronger for the one they think they're likeliest to win (funny, that). The argument that we shouldn't have another vote on Brexit is eradicated by the argument that we should have another vote on Brexit but of the type that we think we'll win (it gets down to pickiness of "no, that type of vote is undemocratic but this type of vote is democratic)
It's like one of those irregular verbs much loved on Yes Minister: I am democratic You are ignoring the people He is supporting the collapse of order in our country
Mr. Above, if the Commons refuse to back a deal, refuse to back a revocation, refuse to have a vote of no confidence in the Government, and refuse to agree anything else the logical conclusion is that this Commons is no good for anything but prevarication.
[Of course, the next Commons could be worse].
Clearly this parliament is not great. That is a separate issue to whether the PM should be able to decide when the election is, when the law is clear that is for parliament to decide, and the mandate from the people is for 5 years.
The law is clear, he can ask Parliament, which is what he is doing on Monday.
If there is no election agreed I am not sure what the EU will offer on the extension.
They know that Parliament will not agree on anything. There is a deal on offer. An election is off the menu. Not ideal for them.
The question they will want an answer to is: What is the point of and reason for the extension?
The answer to that will guide the decision they make. The EU is capable of making decisions that bring about a solution to a problem. Because of the (as we see it) democratic deficit difficult decisions are easier and far more anonymous than those made by a National Parliament.
I would not count out either a straight No or 2 to 4 weeks to pass the bill on offer.
Of course he can ask parliament. He can even sulk and go on strike if he wants. His opponents can respond as they please, if they do not want an election at this particular time that is within their rights and perfectly democratic.
It is in their rights. I just think it will have consequences for the way the EU react to the request for an extension.
As will Johnson politicising it. A few days ago I thought the EU would offer a one month extension only as that it is in their best interests. Now I think that is more difficult for them politically so may have to default to accepting the UK offer, whilst making it a flextension. But yes, actions have consequences, not always foreseen or as expected.
Off topic, passing through Brussels en route to Rotterdam. The sun is shining, the trains are on time, Brexit Britain feels a long way away although the train was only a couple of hours.
Mr. B, every mandate to hold office is temporary. Both sides proclaimed that the referendum was a one-off and the result would be honoured.
An argument on this ground is not conducive to pro-EU types winning. They're much better off going with the informed consent line.
The argument that we need the public to vote on Brexit splits between the two camps:
The GE argument has the advantage that we regularly have elections, anyway. It has the disadvantage that it's about everything other than Brexit, that due to the FTPA, bringing it forward is (and should be) an exceptional occurrence, and that whoever wins will get a mandate to do lots of stuff and their Brexit mandate will certainly be on a minority of the vote.
The referendum argument has the advantage that if you're going to have a vote on Brexit you should make it - well - a vote on Brexit, and it would require a majority of the vote. It has the disadvantage that referendums are not regular occurrences and it is also an exceptional occurrence (mitigated somewhat by the fact that since 2010, we've had more referendums than General Elections).
Each side sees the democratic legitimacy being stronger for the one they think they're likeliest to win (funny, that). The argument that we shouldn't have another vote on Brexit is eradicated by the argument that we should have another vote on Brexit but of the type that we think we'll win (it gets down to pickiness of "no, that type of vote is undemocratic but this type of vote is democratic)
It's like one of those irregular verbs much loved on Yes Minister: I am democratic You are ignoring the people He is supporting the collapse of order in our country
I think this is pretty accurate. Politicians are aware they lack a mandate to continue at the moment, but don't really want to reclaim a mandate in a way that doesn't benefit them. So what is the answer?
Why not both, on the same day?
It would be interesting especially if the government that formed disagreed with the outcome of the new referendum (both a Con / Remain win, for example), but it could be interesting. It may allow people to vote how they want in a party political way without it being a reflection of Brexit policy. Say you're a Remain Tory. Well, you can vote Tory with a conscience, and vote remain at the ref. Leave Labour? The same.
Pollsters assuming that the Scots Tories will lose all their 2017 gains back to the SNP should think carefully. Most of the seats the Tories gained in 2017 were in constituencies where there was almost parity in the Brexit/remain splits and as most of them are either in NE Scotland where the fishing lobby is strong or along the Borders where the farming lobby is strong, they are hardly typical of Wee Nippy Sweeties fan club.
As far as I’m aware, pollsters *never* assume election results from a mere snap-shot poll. It would make them a laughing stock in the industry. I think you must be referring to some consumers of polling output, eg HY, who make some quite extraordinary leaps of the imagination.
Although I don’t condone you snide tone, I concur with your substantive point: I have yet to see convincing evidence of a SCon collapse, nor of an SNP surge. We simply do not have remotely enough polling data from north of the border to make anything other than tentative guesses.
What I would say is that any SLD surge (which seems at least plausible) would damage the SCons a heck of a lot more than the SNP.
Mr. Above, if the Commons refuse to back a deal, refuse to back a revocation, refuse to have a vote of no confidence in the Government, and refuse to agree anything else the logical conclusion is that this Commons is no good for anything but prevarication.
[Of course, the next Commons could be worse].
Clearly this parliament is not great. That is a separate issue to whether the PM should be able to decide when the election is, when the law is clear that is for parliament to decide, and the mandate from the people is for 5 years.
The law is clear, he can ask Parliament, which is what he is doing on Monday.
If there is no election agreed I am not sure what the EU will offer on the extension.
They know that Parliament will not agree on anything. There is a deal on offer. An election is off the menu. Not ideal for them.
The question they will want an answer to is: What is the point of and reason for the extension?
The answer to that will guide the decision they make. The EU is capable of making decisions that bring about a solution to a problem. Because of the (as we see it) democratic deficit difficult decisions are easier and far more anonymous than those made by a National Parliament.
I would not count out either a straight No or 2 to 4 weeks to pass the bill on offer.
Of course he can ask parliament. He can even sulk and go on strike if he wants. His opponents can respond as they please, if they do not want an election at this particular time that is within their rights and perfectly democratic.
It is in their rights. I just think it will have consequences for the way the EU react to the request for an extension.
As will Johnson politicising it. A few days ago I thought the EU would offer a one month extension only as that it is in their best interests. Now I think that is more difficult for them politically so may have to default to accepting the UK offer, whilst making it a flextension. But yes, actions have consequences, not always foreseen or as expected.
It would be far more sensible to say pause WA, Election then the new Parliament can take the deal forward, should it so wish.
Because almost all the MPs elected - even Wollaston, Soubry and Umunma - were elected on manifestos of respecting the referendum but now they're refusing to do so. They've breached what they were elected to do.
And the vote leave campaigners, Johnson, Gove, Cummings are putting forward a very different version of leave to that they campaigned on, they are trying to breach what they campaigned for.
That's fine but the Conservatives are offering their Brexit to voters, which seems pretty democratic. If you don't like what they offer don't vote for them. Soubry, Wollaston and Umunna have changed parties (more than once) and still are trying to hide away from letting the public have a say on what they stand for. Boris may be many things but in the eyes of the British public he isn't the one looking like a coward.
When people talk about the British public they tend to talk about the parts of the British public they agree with. I and many others think Johnson is a coward, he has sought the benefits of office whilst shirking the responsibilities that come with it his whole life.
I don't think the polling shares that view, cowards run away from elections rather than seek them.
Pollsters assuming that the Scots Tories will lose all their 2017 gains back to the SNP should think carefully. Most of the seats the Tories gained in 2017 were in constituencies where there was almost parity in the Brexit/remain splits and as most of them are either in NE Scotland where the fishing lobby is strong or along the Borders where the farming lobby is strong, they are hardly typical of Wee Nippy Sweeties fan club.
Good point. Also those Tory MPs may get a first-time incumbency bounce. I think the Conservative vote could hold up much better in the Aberdeenshire area than in the rest of Scotland.
These electors are supposed to be Labour's core vote.
Weren’t there similar polls in the past saying much the same about May? I may be wrong but I thought that was the source of all the hubris about winning long held Labour seats.
I think most sensible voters will conclude, prior to voting, that the Conservative Party is the worst political party, except for all the others.
I have long said I expect an NOM but not sure. Jezza really is playing it badly. As one of their MPs (I think) so aptly put it: they have convinced Leavers that they are for Remain and Remainers that they are for Leave. Perfectly put and likely to be very off-putting to just about anyone.
Because almost all the MPs elected - even Wollaston, Soubry and Umunma - were elected on manifestos of respecting the referendum but now they're refusing to do so. They've breached what they were elected to do.
And the vote leave campaigners, Johnson, Gove, Cummings are putting forward a very different version of leave to that they campaigned on, they are trying to breach what they campaigned for.
You what?
They campaigned that they would get a deal that would: Take back control of laws Take back control of money Take back control of borders Leave the ECJ Leave the Single Market Have a free trade deal with Europe Have our own trade policies with the rest of the world Maintain peace in Northern Ireland Extra money for the NHS
They've managed to get a deal that would: Take back control of laws Take back control of money Take back control of borders Leave the ECJ Leave the Single Market Have a free trade deal with Europe Have our own trade policies with the rest of the world Maintain peace in Northern Ireland Extra money for the NHS
If someone has a better way of meeting those promises I'd love to see it!
Take back control of laws - no, see Joint Committee and political declaration that will necessarily form the basis of any future FTA Take back control of money - huh? When were we in the Euro? Take back control of borders - we never joined Schengen, so no change at the actual border, in terms of immigration policy, that’s TBC Leave the ECJ - CJEI decisions are binding on the Joint Committee which is binding on the U.K. Also any FTA will need an enforcement mechanism (as all FTAs do) and, based on the Political Declaration, that will almost certainly be the CJEU Leave the Single Market - I’ll give you that, but what was promised was access as good as membership. We have that for transition but not thereafter Have a free trade deal with Europe - what Free Trade Deal? Did I miss something? Have our own trade policies with the rest of the world - must have missed them too Maintain peace in Northern Ireland - that is the biggest hostage to fortune I’ve ever read given Fosters recent meetings with the UVF Extra money for the NHS - how does that come from this deal? That could have happened anytime. Perhaps the money “spaffed” up the wall during the recently pulled Brexit advertising Blitz, or minting millions of commemorative 50p coins, could have been thus diverted.
If Parliament rejects an extension then the EU absolutely should reject an extension longer than a fortnight. Say "you have two weeks to ratify the deal, goodbye".
Dianne Abbott reportedly saying they want legislation taking no deal off the table
The deal is there to sign
What does she want? There is one temporary and two permanent ways of taking no deal off the table.
Temporary - Request an extension, already done! Just kicks the can, the deadline comes back later.
Permanent: Agree a deal (there's one to sign already) or revoke A50.
Which is her preference then?
"No Deal off the table" has just become a mantra for the mendacious.
No Deal off the table means we have to sign up to whatever the EU proposes. However extreme, however preposterous. THAT is what Abbott means us to have.
To put it into some perspective: you’d have had a large number of pensioners who were WW1 veterans voting in 1974.
.
No, there were a lot of WWI veterans in 1974. This is fact. You can look it up.
Since you made the claim, could you supply the dat
.
You’re the one who made the claim as “fact” but can’t or won’t look it up......
Y.
You don’t think name calling is a sign of losing an argument?
I’m neither calling you names nor losing the argument.
I was just pointing out that yours was pathetic.
I .
There’s no case to rest. You’re wrong, and I’m right.
There were millions of veterans votes in 1974 that drove a very different voting culture. You’ve switched to a straw man now because you can’t defeat the original point.
All you’ve done on here this morning is embarrass yourself. If you’re representative of the Tory point of view (and we’re supposed to be ON THE SAME SIDE) then Boris will get thumped.
I have no more time to waste on morons like you. I now have to go and do some work.
Who is switching cases? Your original claim was about WW1 veterans - which we’ve established was probably in the hundreds of thousands - but you’ve now switched to “Veterans“ this including WWII to bump the total up.
It is possible to disagree without being disagrable.
You’re switching cases. My point has been consistent throughout the morning.
You’re simply trying to modify and narrow the parameters of the point to win a technical debating victory, so you feel better about yourself.
It’s needy and pathetic.
My view is that WW1 veterans consisted a sizeable plurality of male pensioners in 1974. If you add WWII veterans the number is in the millions.
You can’t therefore go back to 1974 and say, ah! People will turn out to vote in large numbers if it’s important. The electorate and attitudes to politics are very different today.
FWIW i’d expect turnout in the 60-65% box, dependent on weather.
Mr. B, every mandate to hold office is temporary. Both sides proclaimed that the referendum was a one-off and the result would be honoured.
An argument on this ground is not conducive to pro-EU types winning. They're much better off going with the informed consent line.
The argument that we need the public to vote on Brexit splits between the two camps:
The GE argument has the advantage that we regularly have elections, anyway. It has the disadvantage that it's about everything other than Brexit, that due to the FTPA, bringing it forward is (and should be) an exceptional occurrence, and that whoever wins will get a mandate to do lots of stuff and their Brexit mandate will certainly be on a minority of the vote.
The referendum argument has the advantage that if you're going to have a vote on Brexit you should make it - well - a vote on Brexit, and it would require a majority of the vote. It has the disadvantage that referendums are not regular occurrences and it is also an exceptional occurrence (mitigated somewhat by the fact that since 2010, we've had more referendums than General Elections).
Each side sees the democratic legitimacy being stronger for the one they think they're likeliest to win (funny, that). The argument that we shouldn't have another vote on Brexit is eradicated by the argument that we should have another vote on Brexit but of the type that we think we'll win (it gets down to pickiness of "no, that type of vote is undemocratic but this type of vote is democratic)
It's like one of those irregular verbs much loved on Yes Minister: I am democratic You are ignoring the people He is supporting the collapse of order in our country
If Parliament rejects an extension then the EU absolutely should reject an extension longer than a fortnight. Say "you have two weeks to ratify the deal, goodbye".
And think of all the criticism if we had exited without information.
I expect I should ask him when he stopped betting his wife / husband (in these enlightened times, do we have to have a gender neutral way of phrasing that question?).
Dianne Abbott reportedly saying they want legislation taking no deal off the table
The deal is there to sign
What does she want? There is one temporary and two permanent ways of taking no deal off the table.
Temporary - Request an extension, already done! Just kicks the can, the deadline comes back later.
Permanent: Agree a deal (there's one to sign already) or revoke A50.
Which is her preference then?
"No Deal off the table" has just become a mantra for the mendacious.
No Deal off the table means we have to sign up to whatever the EU proposes. However extreme, however preposterous. THAT is what Abbott means us to have.
Which would be Boris's deal, so Abbott can do that already.
Dianne Abbott reportedly saying they want legislation taking no deal off the table
The deal is there to sign
What does she want? There is one temporary and two permanent ways of taking no deal off the table.
Temporary - Request an extension, already done! Just kicks the can, the deadline comes back later.
Permanent: Agree a deal (there's one to sign already) or revoke A50.
Which is her preference then?
I would think the ask is that Revoke be made the legal default in the event of no extension.
So the EU could deny the extension and Brexit gets cancelled automatically ? Then Johnson has to fight an election on going through the last three years all over again ?
Because almost all the MPs elected - even Wollaston, Soubry and Umunma - were elected on manifestos of respecting the referendum but now they're refusing to do so. They've breached what they were elected to do.
And the vote leave campaigners, Johnson, Gove, Cummings are putting forward a very different version of leave to that they campaigned on, they are trying to breach what they campaigned for.
That's fine but the Conservatives are offering their Brexit to voters, which seems pretty democratic. If you don't like what they offer don't vote for them. Soubry, Wollaston and Umunna have changed parties (more than once) and still are trying to hide away from letting the public have a say on what they stand for. Boris may be many things but in the eyes of the British public he isn't the one looking like a coward.
When people talk about the British public they tend to talk about the parts of the British public they agree with. I and many others think Johnson is a coward, he has sought the benefits of office whilst shirking the responsibilities that come with it his whole life.
I don't think the polling shares that view, cowards run away from elections rather than seek them.
So those who reject a People’s Vote (sic) are cowards?
If Parliament rejects an extension then the EU absolutely should reject an extension longer than a fortnight. Say "you have two weeks to ratify the deal, goodbye".
You want foreign powers to interfere with our elections?
The day with the latest sunrise, the winter solstice, is December 22nd. I hadn’t realised until checking this that the earliest sunset and the latest sunrise do not happen on the same day.
A 15.51 sunset happens between December 8th - 17th in London and varies by less across the month (9 minutes - 16.00-15.51) than sunrise (23 minutes, 07.43-08.06), so there's nothing particularly special about the 12th.
It's also worth noting that the last "winter" GE we had - February 1974 had a turnout of 78.8% - up 6.8% on the June 1970 election that saw Heath win - the highest turnout since 1951 and higher than any general election since then. Before that, the highest turnout (83.9%) had been February 1950.
If people want to vote, they will.
Top 5 UK General elections ranked by turnout since 1950:
February 1950 - 83.9% October 1951 - 82.6% February 1974 - 78.8% October 1959 - 78.7% October 1964 - 77.1%
The lowest turnout GE was in June 2001 (59.4%)
Politicians fear of "people not voting in winter General Elections" is not supported by the facts.
It’s not as much to do with politicians fearing people not turning out in the winter, it’s the politicians and their activists not wanting to be out knocking doors in the winter. There’s little sympathy from the public coming their way in the current environment.
The campaign wasn't in preparation for No Deal specifically, it was in preparation for leaving in general. So not entirely accurate from Sam Gyimah.
The ads I read detailed eventualities that would not have occurred during a transition period so they were largely aimed at a no deal. Under the transition that the deal implements we are effectively at a standstill until the end of next year.
To put it into some perspective: you’d have had a large number of pensioners who were WW1 veterans voting in 1974.
.
No, there were a lot of WWI veterans in 1974. This is fact. You can look it up.
Since you made the claim, could you supply the dat
.
You’re the one who made the claim as “fact” but can’t or won’t look it up......
Y.
You don’t think name calling is a sign of losing an argument?
I’m neither calling you names nor losing the argument.
I was just pointing out that yours was pathetic.
I .
There’s no case to rest. You’re wrong, and I’m right.
There were millions of veterans votes in 1974 that drove a very different voting culture. You’ve switched to a straw man now because you can’t defeat the original point.
All you’ve done on here this morning is embarrass yourself. If you’re representative of the Tory point of view (and we’re supposed to be ON THE SAME SIDE) then Boris will get thumped.
I have no more time to waste on morons like you. I now have to go and do some work.
Who is switching cases? Your original claim was about WW1 veterans - which we’ve established was probably in the hundreds of thousands - but you’ve now switched to “Veterans“ this including WWII to bump the total up.
It is possible to disagree without being disagrable.
It’s needy and pathetic.
As I wrote, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.....
Dianne Abbott reportedly saying they want legislation taking no deal off the table
The deal is there to sign
What does she want? There is one temporary and two permanent ways of taking no deal off the table.
Temporary - Request an extension, already done! Just kicks the can, the deadline comes back later.
Permanent: Agree a deal (there's one to sign already) or revoke A50.
Which is her preference then?
"No Deal off the table" has just become a mantra for the mendacious.
No Deal off the table means we have to sign up to whatever the EU proposes. However extreme, however preposterous. THAT is what Abbott means us to have.
Which would be Boris's deal, so Abbott can do that already.
The problem is you're saying the choice is between this deal or no deal (the same argument May made). As Johnson and the ERG argued then, this is a false dichotomy, because why not renegotiate a different deal that can pass the house instead? Now Johnson has proved it can be done, why can't anyone else claim the EU would have to reopen it for them? Elsewise would be the EU playing favourites with political parties in a specific country.
The day with the latest sunrise, the winter solstice, is December 22nd. I hadn’t realised until checking this that the earliest sunset and the latest sunrise do not happen on the same day.
Politicians fear of "people not voting in winter General Elections" is not supported by the facts.
Whilst that’s true, 1974 was a very long time ago.
The UK and people attitude to duty, deference and obligation have changed an awful lot in the last 45 years.
To put it into some perspective: you’d have had a large number of pensioners who were WW1 veterans voting in 1974.
Probably not - average UK life
No, there were a lot of WWI veterans in 1974. This is fact. You can look it up.
Since you made the claim, could you supply the data please?
You have to decide what constitutes "a lot" in this context before looking at the data,
Yes, and you’d have a much larger number of WWII veterans on top.
My point is that in understanding such a high turnout we have to understand that it was also informed by millions of voters who’d personally served in the cause of defending democracy by force of arms, and saw voting in all weathers as a duty.
So we must be careful of comparing them and us today directly.
The numbers of WW2 veterans who made for such high turnouts in 1950 would have been huge still in 1974. This interviews filmed in 63 and 64 are with a fairly spritely bunch. Many more would still be around a decade later.
I remember admitting WW1 vets and chatting with them well into the nineties.
I envy you. I’d have loved to have had that opportunity.
Admitting patients, and getting to know them is one of the great pleasures of my job. Very few elderly people have never done something of interest, and hearing their tales is a window into real history.
I remember chatting to one retired insurance agent from suburban Leicester, one of 4 from 36 in his Fleet Air Arm training squadron who survived, another who got an MC at Imphal as a junior officer, a Dunkirk veteran from the RA telling how they destroyed their guns on the beach before getting out by taking key parts and chucking them in the sea etc etc.
Because almost all the MPs elected - even Wollaston, Soubry and Umunma - were elected on manifestos of respecting the referendum but now they're refusing to do so. They've breached what they were elected to do.
David Allen Green. Started off interesting but like so many driven mad by Brexit, now just another deeply partisan hack
Mr. B, every mandate to hold office is temporary. Both sides proclaimed that the referendum was a one-off and the result would be honoured.
An argument on this ground is not conducive to pro-EU types winning. They're much better off going with the informed consent line.
The argument that we need the public to vote on Brexit splits between the two camps:
The GE argument has the advantage that we regularly have elections, anyway. It has the disadvantage that it's about everything other than Brexit, that due to the FTPA, bringing it forward is (and should be) an exceptional occurrence, and that whoever wins will get a mandate to do lots of stuff and their Brexit mandate will certainly be on a minority of the vote.
The referendum argument has the advantage that if you're going to have a vote on Brexit you should make it - well - a vote on Brexit, and it would require a majority of the vote. It has the disadvantage that referendums are not regular occurrences and it is also an exceptional occurrence (mitigated somewhat by the fact that since 2010, we've had more referendums than General Elections).
Each side sees the democratic legitimacy being stronger for the one they think they're likeliest to win (funny, that). The argument that we shouldn't have another vote on Brexit is eradicated by the argument that we should have another vote on Brexit but of the type that we think we'll win (it gets down to pickiness of "no, that type of vote is undemocratic but this type of vote is democratic)
It's like one of those irregular verbs much loved on Yes Minister: I am democratic You are ignoring the people He is supporting the collapse of order in our country
The problem with a referendum is that opinion is heavily split on whether or not Remain should be on the ballot paper. Probably around half of people believe it shouldn't be, because we already voted against it in 2016, and therefore any further referendum should be on the type of Leave. But the other half (or thereabouts) think Remain should be on the ballot paper because the reason the want another referendum in the first place is because Remain is their favoured outcome.
To put it into some perspective: you’d have had a large number of pensioners who were WW1 veterans voting in 1974.
.
No, there were a lot of WWI veterans in 1974. This is fact. You can look it up.
Since you made the claim, could you supply the dat
.
You’re the one who made the claim as “fact” but can’t or won’t look it up......
Y.
You don’t think name calling is a sign of losing an argument?
I’m neither calling you names nor losing the argument.
I was just pointing out that yours was pathetic.
I .
There’s no case to rest. You’re wrong, and I’m right.
There were millions of veterans votes in 1974 that drove a very different voting culture. You’ve switched to a straw man now because you can’t defeat the original point.
All you’ve done on here this morning is embarrass yourself. If you’re representative of the Tory point of view (and we’re supposed to be ON THE SAME SIDE) then Boris will get thumped.
I have no more time to waste on morons like you. I now have to go and do some work.
Who is switching cases? Your original claim was about WW1 veterans - which we’ve established was probably in the hundreds of thousands - but you’ve now switched to “Veterans“ this including WWII to bump the total up.
It is possible to disagree without being disagrable.
It’s needy and pathetic.
As I wrote, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.....
Then perhaps think about that next time before being so petty and pedantic.
Mr. B, every mandate to hold office is temporary. Both sides proclaimed that the referendum was a one-off and the result would be honoured.
An argument on this ground is not conducive to pro-EU types winning. They're much better off going with the informed consent line.
The argument that we need the public to vote on Brexit splits between the two camps:
The GE argument has the advantage that we regularly have elections, anyway. It has the disadvantage that it's about everything other than Brexit, that due to the FTPA, bringing it forward is (and should be) an exceptional occurrence, and that whoever wins will get a mandate to do lots of stuff and their Brexit mandate will certainly be on a minority of the vote.
The referendum argument has the advantage that if you're going to have a vote on Brexit you should make it - well - a vote on Brexit, and it would require a majority of the vote. It has the disadvantage that referendums are not regular occurrences and it is also an exceptional occurrence (mitigated somewhat by the fact that since 2010, we've had more referendums than General Elections).
Each side sees the democratic legitimacy being stronger for the one they think they're likeliest to win (funny, that). The argument that we shouldn't have another vote on Brexit is eradicated by the argument that we should have another vote on Brexit but of the type that we think we'll win (it gets down to pickiness of "no, that type of vote is undemocratic but this type of vote is democratic)
It's like one of those irregular verbs much loved on Yes Minister: I am democratic You are ignoring the people He is supporting the collapse of order in our country
I think this is pretty accurate. Politicians are aware they lack a mandate to continue at the moment, but don't really want to reclaim a mandate in a way that doesn't benefit them. So what is the answer?
Why not both, on the same day?
It would be interesting especially if the government that formed disagreed with the outcome of the new referendum (both a Con / Remain win, for example), but it could be interesting. It may allow people to vote how they want in a party political way without it being a reflection of Brexit policy. Say you're a Remain Tory. Well, you can vote Tory with a conscience, and vote remain at the ref. Leave Labour? The same.
In a 'the food has rotted in the fields' update Morrisons are selling whole cabbages, whole swedes, 500g carrots, 500g onions and 500g parsnips for 30p each.
But what was unusual was that the cabbages weren't displaying a union flag but a Lincolnshire flag instead.
Is there some sort of Lincolnshire independence movement which has prompted this ?
Because almost all the MPs elected - even Wollaston, Soubry and Umunma - were elected on manifestos of respecting the referendum but now they're refusing to do so. They've breached what they were elected to do.
And the vote leave campaigners, Johnson, Gove, Cummings are putting forward a very different version of leave to that they campaigned on, they are trying to breach what they campaigned for.
That's fine but the Conservatives are offering their Brexit to voters, which seems pretty democratic. If you don't like what they offer don't vote for them. Soubry, Wollaston and Umunna have changed parties (more than once) and still are trying to hide away from letting the public have a say on what they stand for. Boris may be many things but in the eyes of the British public he isn't the one looking like a coward.
When people talk about the British public they tend to talk about the parts of the British public they agree with. I and many others think Johnson is a coward, he has sought the benefits of office whilst shirking the responsibilities that come with it his whole life.
I don't think the polling shares that view, cowards run away from elections rather than seek them.
So those who reject a People’s Vote (sic) are cowards?
A people's vote isn't about individuals is it? In fact its a cowardly way of individuals trying to avoid putting themselves in front of the public. No wonder the likes of Soubry want one, it's the only mechanism she has to cling on to her seat for another year.
Because almost all the MPs elected - even Wollaston, Soubry and Umunma - were elected on manifestos of respecting the referendum but now they're refusing to do so. They've breached what they were elected to do.
And the vote leave campaigners, Johnson, Gove, Cummings are putting forward a very different version of leave to that they campaigned on, they are trying to breach what they campaigned for.
That's fine but the Conservatives are offering their Brexit to voters, which seems pretty democratic. If you don't like what they offer don't vote for them. Soubry, Wollaston and Umunna have changed parties (more than once) and still are trying to hide away from letting the public have a say on what they stand for. Boris may be many things but in the eyes of the British public he isn't the one looking like a coward.
When people talk about the British public they tend to talk about the parts of the British public they agree with. I and many others think Johnson is a coward, he has sought the benefits of office whilst shirking the responsibilities that come with it his whole life.
I don't think the polling shares that view, cowards run away from elections rather than seek them.
So those who reject a People’s Vote (sic) are cowards?
If by People's Vote you mean General Election then yes.
Because almost all the MPs elected - even Wollaston, Soubry and Umunma - were elected on manifestos of respecting the referendum but now they're refusing to do so. They've breached what they were elected to do.
David Allen Green. Started off interesting but like so many driven mad by Brexit, now just another deeply partisan hack
I assumed it was a parody account. Can imagine him foaming at the mouth as his tweets.
Because almost all the MPs elected - even Wollaston, Soubry and Umunma - were elected on manifestos of respecting the referendum but now they're refusing to do so. They've breached what they were elected to do.
And the vote leave campaigners, Johnson, Gove, Cummings are putting forward a very different version of leave to that they campaigned on, they are trying to breach what they campaigned for.
That's fine but the Conservatives are offering their Brexit to voters, which seems pretty democratic. If you don't like what they offer don't vote for them. Soubry, Wollaston and Umunna have changed parties (more than once) and still are trying to hide away from letting the public have a say on what they stand for. Boris may be many things but in the eyes of the British public he isn't the one looking like a coward.
When people talk about the British public they tend to talk about the parts of the British public they agree with. I and many others think Johnson is a coward, he has sought the benefits of office whilst shirking the responsibilities that come with it his whole life.
I don't think the polling shares that view, cowards run away from elections rather than seek them.
So those who reject a People’s Vote (sic) are cowards?
If by People's Vote you mean General Election then yes.
Because almost all the MPs elected - even Wollaston, Soubry and Umunma - were elected on manifestos of respecting the referendum but now they're refusing to do so. They've breached what they were elected to do.
David Allen Green. Started off interesting but like so many driven mad by Brexit, now just another deeply partisan hack
I mean, considering he is Eurosceptic who would have voted for the May deal, I just think he is someone who points out the hypocrisy of the government a lot (which is kinda his bag as a lawyer and constitution geek)
To put it into some perspective: you’d have had a large number of pensioners who were WW1 veterans voting in 1974.
.
No, there were a lot of WWI veterans in 1974. This is fact. You can look it up.
Since you made the claim, could you supply the dat
.
You’re the one who made the claim as “fact” but can’t or won’t look it up......
Y.
You don’t think name calling is a sign of losing an argument?
I’m neither calling you names nor losing the argument.
I was just pointing out that yours was pathetic.
I .
There’s no case to rest. You’re wrong, and I’m right.
There were millions of veterans votes in 1974 that drove a very different voting culture. You’ve switched to a straw man now because you can’t defeat the original point.
All you’ve done on here this morning is embarrass yourself. If you’re representative of the Tory point of view (and we’re supposed to be ON THE SAME SIDE) then Boris will get thumped.
I have no more time to waste on morons like you. I now have to go and do some work.
Who is switching cases? Your original claim was about WW1 veterans - which we’ve established was probably in the hundreds of thousands - but you’ve now switched to “Veterans“ this including WWII to bump the total up.
It is possible to disagree without being disagrable.
It’s needy and pathetic.
As I wrote, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.....
Then perhaps think about that next time before being so petty and pedantic.
Pollsters assuming that the Scots Tories will lose all their 2017 gains back to the SNP should think carefully. Most of the seats the Tories gained in 2017 were in constituencies where there was almost parity in the Brexit/remain splits and as most of them are either in NE Scotland where the fishing lobby is strong or along the Borders where the farming lobby is strong, they are hardly typical of Wee Nippy Sweeties fan club.
No one is predicting they lose 12 of their 13 seats.
An unwind of the previous election's SLD to SCon swing would hurt the Cons badly in Scotland.
In a 'the food has rotted in the fields' update Morrisons are selling whole cabbages, whole swedes, 500g carrots, 500g onions and 500g parsnips for 30p each.
But what was unusual was that the cabbages weren't displaying a union flag but a Lincolnshire flag instead.
Is there some sort of Lincolnshire independence movement which has prompted this ?
Off topic, passing through Brussels en route to Rotterdam. The sun is shining, the trains are on time, Brexit Britain feels a long way away although the train was only a couple of hours.
Thousands of Dutch farmers drove their tractors on Tuesday to a huge protest against government climate policies, causing the country' biggest ever traffic jams, officials said.
The farmers travelled from all over the country to The Hague for the four-wheeled demonstration, saying they had been unfairly blamed for emissions that cause climate change.
The tailbacks caused by the tractors were a total of 1,136 kilometres (705 miles) long, making it the "busiest ever morning rush hour", according to Dutch traffic organisation the ANWB.
Pollsters assuming that the Scots Tories will lose all their 2017 gains back to the SNP should think carefully. Most of the seats the Tories gained in 2017 were in constituencies where there was almost parity in the Brexit/remain splits and as most of them are either in NE Scotland where the fishing lobby is strong or along the Borders where the farming lobby is strong, they are hardly typical of Wee Nippy Sweeties fan club.
No one is predicting they lose 12 of their 13 seats.
An unwind of the previous election's SLD to SCon swing would hurt the Cons badly in Scotland.
How many Scottish Tory seats are not in the north-east, Borders, or Ayrshire? I can only think of Stirling. That's probably the one they're most likely to lose.
Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out as haven't had a chance to catch up on the threads between, but re that poll about violence to MPs yesterday..
Remainers think it's much more likely, whatever the Brexit outcome
Violence to MPs likely if UK leaves EU: Remainers - 69% Leavers - 35%
Violence to MPs likely if UK remains in EU: Remainers - 61% Leavers - 54%
They also think that protests where the public get injured are more likely if we leave, though tied on remain
Public injured in protests if UK leaves: Remainers - 70% Leavers - 32%
Public injured in protests if UK remains: Remainers - 54% Leavers - 54%
"Is there some sort of Lincolnshire independence movement which has prompted this ?"
Whenever I go back to Boston, I pass a few blue and green quartered flags on the way. I don't remember seeing any as a child. They're not happy bunnies, but it's not yet a serious movement.
I think there is a difference between an election in February or October and one in mid-December, less than 2 weeks till Christmas. My work Xmas party is the next day, for instance (could make for a very awkward evening). Nobody will thank the Tories for this, I think Labour should go for it.
The last time a PM went to the country in December it backfired for him horribly. I predict a repeat.
When was that?
6th December 1923
The PM Stanley Baldwin started the campaign with 344 seats and ended it by losing 86 of them.
So, 4 years short of a century ago. Yep - that’s a telling precedent.....
If you were HYUFD, you'd be claiming it was an iron rule.
The only phrase I can say in a Belfast accent is “the iron law of historical necessity” - paisleys justification for saying NO
Have you decided whether to be Irish or not yet?
I’m in no hurry to do so. Having two passports isn’t something that should be done lightly. I just mentioned it was an option if things become intolerable
You're lucky. Some of us didn't vote for Brexit and have no such option.
If you can prove some familial connection to Charles from 5 centuries ago, he'll see what he can do on the old influence front.
Mr. B, every mandate to hold office is temporary. Both sides proclaimed that the referendum was a one-off and the result would be honoured.
An argument on this ground is not conducive to pro-EU types winning. They're much better off going with the informed consent line.
The argument that we need the public to vote on Brexit splits between the two camps:
The GE argument has the advantage that we regularly have elections, anyway. It has the disadvantage that it's about everything other than Brexit, that due to the FTPA, bringing it forward is (and should be) an exceptional occurrence, and that whoever wins will get a mandate to do lots of stuff and their Brexit mandate will certainly be on a minority of the vote.
The referendum argument has the advantage that if you're going to have a vote on Brexit you should make it - well - a vote on Brexit, and it would require a majority of the vote. It has the disadvantage that referendums are not regular occurrences and it is also an exceptional occurrence (mitigated somewhat by the fact that since 2010, we've had more referendums than General Elections).
Each side sees the democratic legitimacy being stronger for the one they think they're likeliest to win (funny, that). The argument that we shouldn't have another vote on Brexit is eradicated by the argument that we should have another vote on Brexit but of the type that we think we'll win (it gets down to pickiness of "no, that type of vote is undemocratic but this type of vote is democratic)
It's like one of those irregular verbs much loved on Yes Minister: I am democratic You are ignoring the people He is supporting the collapse of order in our country
I think this is pretty accurate. Politicians are aware they lack a mandate to continue at the moment, but don't really want to reclaim a mandate in a way that doesn't benefit them. So what is the answer?
Why not both, on the same day?
It would be interesting especially if the government that formed disagreed with the outcome of the new referendum (both a Con / Remain win, for example), but it could be interesting. It may allow people to vote how they want in a party political way without it being a reflection of Brexit policy. Say you're a Remain Tory. Well, you can vote Tory with a conscience, and vote remain at the ref. Leave Labour? The same.
Yep, simultaneous referendum and GE works for me.
Surely a GE manifesto with a Brexit position is sufficient?
Off topic, passing through Brussels en route to Rotterdam. The sun is shining, the trains are on time, Brexit Britain feels a long way away although the train was only a couple of hours.
Thousands of Dutch farmers drove their tractors on Tuesday to a huge protest against government climate policies, causing the country' biggest ever traffic jams, officials said.
The farmers travelled from all over the country to The Hague for the four-wheeled demonstration, saying they had been unfairly blamed for emissions that cause climate change.
The tailbacks caused by the tractors were a total of 1,136 kilometres (705 miles) long, making it the "busiest ever morning rush hour", according to Dutch traffic organisation the ANWB.
I think there is a difference between an election in February or October and one in mid-December, less than 2 weeks till Christmas. My work Xmas party is the next day, for instance (could make for a very awkward evening). Nobody will thank the Tories for this, I think Labour should go for it.
The last time a PM went to the country in December it backfired for him horribly. I predict a repeat.
When was that?
6th December 1923
The PM Stanley Baldwin started the campaign with 344 seats and ended it by losing 86 of them.
So, 4 years short of a century ago. Yep - that’s a telling precedent.....
If you were HYUFD, you'd be claiming it was an iron rule.
And think of all the criticism if we had exited without information.
I expect I should ask him when he stopped betting his wife / husband (in these enlightened times, do we have to have a gender neutral way of phrasing that question?).
I am fed up to the back teeth of all the incessant whining from all sides to events that have arisen because of situations they themselves have helped to create.
The argument that we need the public to vote on Brexit splits between the two camps:
The GE argument has the advantage that we regularly have elections, anyway. It has the disadvantage that it's about everything other than Brexit, that due to the FTPA, bringing it forward is (and should be) an exceptional occurrence, and that whoever wins will get a mandate to do lots of stuff and their Brexit mandate will certainly be on a minority of the vote.
The referendum argument has the advantage that if you're going to have a vote on Brexit you should make it - well - a vote on Brexit, and it would require a majority of the vote. It has the disadvantage that referendums are not regular occurrences and it is also an exceptional occurrence (mitigated somewhat by the fact that since 2010, we've had more referendums than General Elections).
Each side sees the democratic legitimacy being stronger for the one they think they're likeliest to win (funny, that). The argument that we shouldn't have another vote on Brexit is eradicated by the argument that we should have another vote on Brexit but of the type that we think we'll win (it gets down to pickiness of "no, that type of vote is undemocratic but this type of vote is democratic)
It's like one of those irregular verbs much loved on Yes Minister: I am democratic You are ignoring the people He is supporting the collapse of order in our country
I think this is pretty accurate. Politicians are aware they lack a mandate to continue at the moment, but don't really want to reclaim a mandate in a way that doesn't benefit them. So what is the answer?
Why not both, on the same day?
It would be interesting especially if the government that formed disagreed with the outcome of the new referendum (both a Con / Remain win, for example), but it could be interesting. It may allow people to vote how they want in a party political way without it being a reflection of Brexit policy. Say you're a Remain Tory. Well, you can vote Tory with a conscience, and vote remain at the ref. Leave Labour? The same.
Yep, simultaneous referendum and GE works for me.
Only issue I see is if a party ran on a platform of ignoring the 2nd ref and won, and the 2nd ref was won for Remain. That conflict of mandate would be constitutionally tricky...
But it is interesting. Do manifesto pledges trump referendum? LDs suggest yes. I think if Tories lost a GE and Lab could form a government on a manifesto pledge of 2nd ref with remain as an option, then many would cry not...
I think there is a difference between an election in February or October and one in mid-December, less than 2 weeks till Christmas. My work Xmas party is the next day, for instance (could make for a very awkward evening). Nobody will thank the Tories for this, I think Labour should go for it.
The last time a PM went to the country in December it backfired for him horribly. I predict a repeat.
When was that?
6th December 1923
The PM Stanley Baldwin started the campaign with 344 seats and ended it by losing 86 of them.
So, 4 years short of a century ago. Yep - that’s a telling precedent.....
If you were HYUFD, you'd be claiming it was an iron rule.
The only phrase I can say in a Belfast accent is “the iron law of historical necessity” - paisleys justification for saying NO
Have you decided whether to be Irish or not yet?
I’m in no hurry to do so. Having two passports isn’t something that should be done lightly. I just mentioned it was an option if things become intolerable
You're lucky. Some of us didn't vote for Brexit and have no such option.
If you can prove some familial connection to Charles from 5 centuries ago, he'll see what he can do on the old influence front.
On topic, and by way of light relief from politics, the date of the latest sunrise is not the solstice (21st) December but the 30th. This is because there's a discrepancy between clock time (where the day is invariably 24 hours) and astronomical time (where the length of the day varies). The difference between the two - the equation of time - has been known for centuries and explains the variation between clocks and sundials - sometimes as much as 20 minutes positive or negative. The principal causes are (a) the earth's elliptical orbit around the sun and (b) wobbles in the axis of tilt, and, unlike Brexit, are reassuringly predictable.
Mr. Above, if the Commons refuse to back a deal, refuse to back a revocation, refuse to have a vote of no confidence in the Government, and refuse to agree anything else the logical conclusion is that this Commons is no good for anything but prevarication.
[Of course, the next Commons could be worse].
Clearly this parliament is not great. That is a separate issue to whether the PM should be able to decide when the election is, when the law is clear that is for parliament to decide, and the mandate from the people is for 5 years.
The issue is that Parliament is not doing its job
It is preventing the executive from doing its but is not willing to replace the executive
Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out as haven't had a chance to catch up on the threads between, but re that poll about violence to MPs yesterday..
Remainers think it's much more likely, whatever the Brexit outcome
Violence to MPs likely if UK leaves EU: Remainers - 69% Leavers - 35%
Violence to MPs likely if UK remains in EU: Remainers - 61% Leavers - 54%
They also think that protests where the public get injured are more likely if we leave, though tied on remain
Public injured in protests if UK leaves: Remainers - 70% Leavers - 32%
Public injured in protests if UK remains: Remainers - 54% Leavers - 54%
Mr. Above, if the Commons refuse to back a deal, refuse to back a revocation, refuse to have a vote of no confidence in the Government, and refuse to agree anything else the logical conclusion is that this Commons is no good for anything but prevarication.
[Of course, the next Commons could be worse].
Clearly this parliament is not great. That is a separate issue to whether the PM should be able to decide when the election is, when the law is clear that is for parliament to decide, and the mandate from the people is for 5 years.
The issue is that Parliament is not doing its job
It is preventing the executive from doing its but is not willing to replace the executive
Parliament passed the WA and it is the executive who have stalled it specifically for seeking political advantage.
I think most sensible voters will conclude, prior to voting, that the Conservative Party is the worst political party, except for all the others.
I have long said I expect an NOM but not sure. Jezza really is playing it badly. As one of their MPs (I think) so aptly put it: they have convinced Leavers that they are for Remain and Remainers that they are for Leave. Perfectly put and likely to be very off-putting to just about anyone.
The only people who could have any enthusiasm for voting Labour right now are those who think this Govt. is all about letting the poor starve and die from lack of care. And yet even they must be concerned that Labour is keeping this Govt. in office to, er, let the poor starve and die from lack of care.
Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out as haven't had a chance to catch up on the threads between, but re that poll about violence to MPs yesterday..
Remainers think it's much more likely, whatever the Brexit outcome
Violence to MPs likely if UK leaves EU: Remainers - 69% Leavers - 35%
Violence to MPs likely if UK remains in EU: Remainers - 61% Leavers - 54%
They also think that protests where the public get injured are more likely if we leave, though tied on remain
Public injured in protests if UK leaves: Remainers - 70% Leavers - 32%
Public injured in protests if UK remains: Remainers - 54% Leavers - 54%
Who's predicting violence here then?
61% of Remainers & 54% of Leavers if Leavers don't get their way it would appear. I'm assuming both are united in thinking it would come from Leavers?
If Boris wants a GE, then hold off on Brexit plans and state that it wont happen before 31 Jan(which it may not anyway). Corbyn has no reason to refuse since by winning the election he can decide on his EU position then.
In a 'the food has rotted in the fields' update Morrisons are selling whole cabbages, whole swedes, 500g carrots, 500g onions and 500g parsnips for 30p each.
But what was unusual was that the cabbages weren't displaying a union flag but a Lincolnshire flag instead.
Is there some sort of Lincolnshire independence movement which has prompted this ?
Forgive my ignorance but what does one do with rotted veg? Can it be turned into tasty soups? Or is this for throwing at local politicians perhaps?
Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out as haven't had a chance to catch up on the threads between, but re that poll about violence to MPs yesterday..
Remainers think it's much more likely, whatever the Brexit outcome
Violence to MPs likely if UK leaves EU: Remainers - 69% Leavers - 35%
Violence to MPs likely if UK remains in EU: Remainers - 61% Leavers - 54%
They also think that protests where the public get injured are more likely if we leave, though tied on remain
Public injured in protests if UK leaves: Remainers - 70% Leavers - 32%
Public injured in protests if UK remains: Remainers - 54% Leavers - 54%
Who's predicting violence here then?
A lot of people are questioning this survey.
What I read yesterday was people raising the other half of the survey, ie would the violence be a risk worth taking - to which those that thinks it's not at all likely would surely be more likely to agree.
Off topic, passing through Brussels en route to Rotterdam. The sun is shining, the trains are on time, Brexit Britain feels a long way away although the train was only a couple of hours.
Thousands of Dutch farmers drove their tractors on Tuesday to a huge protest against government climate policies, causing the country' biggest ever traffic jams, officials said.
The farmers travelled from all over the country to The Hague for the four-wheeled demonstration, saying they had been unfairly blamed for emissions that cause climate change.
The tailbacks caused by the tractors were a total of 1,136 kilometres (705 miles) long, making it the "busiest ever morning rush hour", according to Dutch traffic organisation the ANWB.
The argument that we need the public to vote on Brexit splits between the two camps:
The GE argument has the advantage that we regularly have elections, anyway. It has the disadvantage that it's about everything other than Brexit, that due to the FTPA, bringing it forward is (and should be) an exceptional occurrence, and that whoever wins will get a mandate to do lots of stuff and their Brexit mandate will certainly be on a minority of the vote.
The referendum argument has the advantage that if you're going to have a vote on Brexit you should make it - well - a vote on Brexit, and it would require a majority of the vote. It has the disadvantage that referendums are not regular occurrences and it is also an exceptional occurrence (mitigated somewhat by the fact that since 2010, we've had more referendums than General Elections).
Each side sees the democratic legitimacy being stronger for the one they think they're likeliest to win (funny, that). The argument that we shouldn't have another vote on Brexit is eradicated by the argument that we should have another vote on Brexit but of the type that we think we'll win (it gets down to pickiness of "no, that type of vote is undemocratic but this type of vote is democratic)
It's like one of those irregular verbs much loved on Yes Minister: I am democratic You are ignoring the people He is supporting the collapse of order in our country
I think this is pretty accurate. Politicians are aware they lack a mandate to continue at the moment, but don't really want to reclaim a mandate in a way that doesn't benefit them. So what is the answer?
Why not both, on the same day?
It would be interesting especially if the government that formed disagreed with the outcome of the new referendum (both a Con / Remain win, for example), but it could be interesting. It may allow people to vote how they want in a party political way without it being a reflection of Brexit policy. Say you're a Remain Tory. Well, you can vote Tory with a conscience, and vote remain at the ref. Leave Labour? The same.
Yep, simultaneous referendum and GE works for me.
Surely a GE manifesto with a Brexit position is sufficient?
If some would be uncomfortable with LDs revoke position should they get a majority, for example, it is useful to have that double mandate.
It is also a useful way to separate the Single issue of Brexit from other politics. It sounds like many PBers would vote Conservative, for example, were it not for Brexit.
By returning Brexit to a referendum at the same time as a GE there are two separate mandates: what do you want re Brexit, and who do you want to implement it.
Mr. Above, if the Commons refuse to back a deal, refuse to back a revocation, refuse to have a vote of no confidence in the Government, and refuse to agree anything else the logical conclusion is that this Commons is no good for anything but prevarication.
[Of course, the next Commons could be worse].
Clearly this parliament is not great. That is a separate issue to whether the PM should be able to decide when the election is, when the law is clear that is for parliament to decide, and the mandate from the people is for 5 years.
I disagree. Parliament is doing a splendid job of representing a divided nation unable to agree on anything.
how would you know when they have not been asked, crystal ball?
I think there is a difference between an election in February or October and one in mid-December, less than 2 weeks till Christmas. My work Xmas party is the next day, for instance (could make for a very awkward evening). Nobody will thank the Tories for this, I think Labour should go for it.
The last time a PM went to the country in December it backfired for him horribly. I predict a repeat.
When was that?
6th December 1923
The PM Stanley Baldwin started the campaign with 344 seats and ended it by losing 86 of them.
So, 4 years short of a century ago. Yep - that’s a telling precedent.....
If you were HYUFD, you'd be claiming it was an iron rule.
The only phrase I can say in a Belfast accent is “the iron law of historical necessity” - paisleys justification for saying NO
Have you decided whether to be Irish or not yet?
I’m in no hurry to do so. Having two passports isn’t something that should be done lightly. I just mentioned it was an option if things become intolerable
Another Leaver considering ways out of his decision.
No, you are misrepresenting what I said
The Irish government has written to us asking us to take up our right to citizenship
I have not declined their kind invitation. That doesn’t mean I am considering it, actively or not.
I think there is a difference between an election in February or October and one in mid-December, less than 2 weeks till Christmas. My work Xmas party is the next day, for instance (could make for a very awkward evening). Nobody will thank the Tories for this, I think Labour should go for it.
The last time a PM went to the country in December it backfired for him horribly. I predict a repeat.
When was that?
6th December 1923
The PM Stanley Baldwin started the campaign with 344 seats and ended it by losing 86 of them.
So, 4 years short of a century ago. Yep - that’s a telling precedent.....
If you were HYUFD, you'd be claiming it was an iron rule.
The only phrase I can say in a Belfast accent is “the iron law of historical necessity” - paisleys justification for saying NO
Have you decided whether to be Irish or not yet?
I’m in no hurry to do so. Having two passports isn’t something that should be done lightly. I just mentioned it was an option if things become intolerable
Another Leaver considering ways out of his decision.
No, you are misrepresenting what I said
The Irish government has written to us asking us to take up our right to citizenship
I have not declined their kind invitation. That doesn’t mean I am considering it, actively or not.
I think there is a difference between an election in February or October and one in mid-December, less than 2 weeks till Christmas. My work Xmas party is the next day, for instance (could make for a very awkward evening). Nobody will thank the Tories for this, I think Labour should go for it.
The last time a PM went to the country in December it backfired for him horribly. I predict a repeat.
When was that?
6th December 1923
The PM Stanley Baldwin started the campaign with 344 seats and ended it by losing 86 of them.
So, 4 years short of a century ago. Yep - that’s a telling precedent.....
If you were HYUFD, you'd be claiming it was an iron rule.
The only phrase I can say in a Belfast accent is “the iron law of historical necessity” - paisleys justification for saying NO
Have you decided whether to be Irish or not yet?
I’m in no hurry to do so. Having two passports isn’t something that should be done lightly. I just mentioned it was an option if things become intolerable
You're lucky. Some of us didn't vote for Brexit and have no such option.
If you can prove some familial connection to Charles from 5 centuries ago, he'll see what he can do on the old influence front.
Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out as haven't had a chance to catch up on the threads between, but re that poll about violence to MPs yesterday..
Remainers think it's much more likely, whatever the Brexit outcome
Violence to MPs likely if UK leaves EU: Remainers - 69% Leavers - 35%
Violence to MPs likely if UK remains in EU: Remainers - 61% Leavers - 54%
They also think that protests where the public get injured are more likely if we leave, though tied on remain
Public injured in protests if UK leaves: Remainers - 70% Leavers - 32%
Public injured in protests if UK remains: Remainers - 54% Leavers - 54%
Who's predicting violence here then?
A lot of people are questioning this survey.
What I read yesterday was people raising the other half of the survey, ie would the violence be a risk worth taking - to which those that thinks it's not at all likely would surely be more likely to agree.
Would, say, throwing rotten fruit at politicians count as violence? That used to be a traditional way of expressing disappointment with people (like actors and actresses at music hall performances for instance). Or throwing a milkshake at someone, as happened to Farage. I don't know what the definition is. Not a nice subject though. Hopefully the survey is not accurate.
I think there is a difference between an election in February or October and one in mid-December, less than 2 weeks till Christmas. My work Xmas party is the next day, for instance (could make for a very awkward evening). Nobody will thank the Tories for this, I think Labour should go for it.
The last time a PM went to the country in December it backfired for him horribly. I predict a repeat.
When was that?
6th December 1923
The PM Stanley Baldwin started the campaign with 344 seats and ended it by losing 86 of them.
So, 4 years short of a century ago. Yep - that’s a telling precedent.....
If you were HYUFD, you'd be claiming it was an iron rule.
The only phrase I can say in a Belfast accent is “the iron law of historical necessity” - paisleys justification for saying NO
Have you decided whether to be Irish or not yet?
I’m in no hurry to do so. Having two passports isn’t something that should be done lightly. I just mentioned it was an option if things become intolerable
Another Leaver considering ways out of his decision.
No, you are misrepresenting what I said
The Irish government has written to us asking us to take up our right to citizenship
I have not declined their kind invitation. That doesn’t mean I am considering it, actively or not.
Not declining it is surely inactively considering it?
Pollsters assuming that the Scots Tories will lose all their 2017 gains back to the SNP should think carefully. Most of the seats the Tories gained in 2017 were in constituencies where there was almost parity in the Brexit/remain splits and as most of them are either in NE Scotland where the fishing lobby is strong or along the Borders where the farming lobby is strong, they are hardly typical of Wee Nippy Sweeties fan club.
No one is predicting they lose 12 of their 13 seats.
An unwind of the previous election's SLD to SCon swing would hurt the Cons badly in Scotland.
How many Scottish Tory seats are not in the north-east, Borders, or Ayrshire? I can only think of Stirling. That's probably the one they're most likely to lose.
The dummies in the NE must by now be waking from the dream that the Tories would do anything other than shaft them. Now the Messiah is gone , how can the sheep left be of any value other than as lapdogs for London, not a backbone among them.
Mr. Above, if the Commons refuse to back a deal, refuse to back a revocation, refuse to have a vote of no confidence in the Government, and refuse to agree anything else the logical conclusion is that this Commons is no good for anything but prevarication.
[Of course, the next Commons could be worse].
Clearly this parliament is not great. That is a separate issue to whether the PM should be able to decide when the election is, when the law is clear that is for parliament to decide, and the mandate from the people is for 5 years.
I disagree. Parliament is doing a splendid job of representing a divided nation unable to agree on anything.
how would you know when they have not been asked, crystal ball?
*whispers*: They were asked in a referendum that produced a polarising 52/48 result, and then again in an election which produced a hung parliament...
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out as haven't had a chance to catch up on the threads between, but re that poll about violence to MPs yesterday..
Remainers think it's much more likely, whatever the Brexit outcome
Violence to MPs likely if UK leaves EU: Remainers - 69% Leavers - 35%
Violence to MPs likely if UK remains in EU: Remainers - 61% Leavers - 54%
They also think that protests where the public get injured are more likely if we leave, though tied on remain
Public injured in protests if UK leaves: Remainers - 70% Leavers - 32%
Public injured in protests if UK remains: Remainers - 54% Leavers - 54%
Who's predicting violence here then?
61% of Remainers & 54% of Leavers if Leavers don't get their way it would appear. I'm assuming both are united in thinking it would come from Leavers?
69% of Remainers think there'll be violence to MPs if they don't get their way.
Do you think they think this violence will also come from Leavers who are getting their way?
In a 'the food has rotted in the fields' update Morrisons are selling whole cabbages, whole swedes, 500g carrots, 500g onions and 500g parsnips for 30p each.
But what was unusual was that the cabbages weren't displaying a union flag but a Lincolnshire flag instead.
Is there some sort of Lincolnshire independence movement which has prompted this ?
Forgive my ignorance but what does one do with rotted veg? Can it be turned into tasty soups? Or is this for throwing at local politicians perhaps?
I imagine most people just throw it in the bin.
But as so much fruit and vegetables are thrown away its certainly a worthwhile question.
During rationing wasn't it collected and fed to pigs or added to compost heaps ?
Comments
It is possible to disagree without being disagrable.
And then there's the guy who's PM.
The GE argument has the advantage that we regularly have elections, anyway. It has the disadvantage that it's about everything other than Brexit, that due to the FTPA, bringing it forward is (and should be) an exceptional occurrence, and that whoever wins will get a mandate to do lots of stuff and their Brexit mandate will certainly be on a minority of the vote.
The referendum argument has the advantage that if you're going to have a vote on Brexit you should make it - well - a vote on Brexit, and it would require a majority of the vote. It has the disadvantage that referendums are not regular occurrences and it is also an exceptional occurrence (mitigated somewhat by the fact that since 2010, we've had more referendums than General Elections).
Each side sees the democratic legitimacy being stronger for the one they think they're likeliest to win (funny, that). The argument that we shouldn't have another vote on Brexit is eradicated by the argument that we should have another vote on Brexit but of the type that we think we'll win (it gets down to pickiness of "no, that type of vote is undemocratic but this type of vote is democratic)
It's like one of those irregular verbs much loved on Yes Minister:
I am democratic
You are ignoring the people
He is supporting the collapse of order in our country
Why not both, on the same day?
It would be interesting especially if the government that formed disagreed with the outcome of the new referendum (both a Con / Remain win, for example), but it could be interesting. It may allow people to vote how they want in a party political way without it being a reflection of Brexit policy. Say you're a Remain Tory. Well, you can vote Tory with a conscience, and vote remain at the ref. Leave Labour? The same.
Although I don’t condone you snide tone, I concur with your substantive point: I have yet to see convincing evidence of a SCon collapse, nor of an SNP surge. We simply do not have remotely enough polling data from north of the border to make anything other than tentative guesses.
What I would say is that any SLD surge (which seems at least plausible) would damage the SCons a heck of a lot more than the SNP.
https://twitter.com/uk_domain_names/status/1187627543807057920
I have long said I expect an NOM but not sure. Jezza really is playing it badly. As one of their MPs (I think) so aptly put it: they have convinced Leavers that they are for Remain and Remainers that they are for Leave. Perfectly put and likely to be very off-putting to just about anyone.
Take back control of laws - no, see Joint Committee and political declaration that will necessarily form the basis of any future FTA
Take back control of money - huh? When were we in the Euro?
Take back control of borders - we never joined Schengen, so no change at the actual border, in terms of immigration policy, that’s TBC
Leave the ECJ - CJEI decisions are binding on the Joint Committee which is binding on the U.K. Also any FTA will need an enforcement mechanism (as all FTAs do) and, based on the Political Declaration, that will almost certainly be the CJEU
Leave the Single Market - I’ll give you that, but what was promised was access as good as membership. We have that for transition but not thereafter
Have a free trade deal with Europe - what Free Trade Deal? Did I miss something?
Have our own trade policies with the rest of the world - must have missed them too
Maintain peace in Northern Ireland - that is the biggest hostage to fortune I’ve ever read given Fosters recent meetings with the UVF
Extra money for the NHS - how does that come from this deal? That could have happened anytime. Perhaps the money “spaffed” up the wall during the recently pulled Brexit advertising Blitz, or minting millions of commemorative 50p coins, could have been thus diverted.
No Deal off the table means we have to sign up to whatever the EU proposes. However extreme, however preposterous. THAT is what Abbott means us to have.
You’re simply trying to modify and narrow the parameters of the point to win a technical debating victory, so you feel better about yourself.
It’s needy and pathetic.
My view is that WW1 veterans consisted a sizeable plurality of male pensioners in 1974. If you add WWII veterans the number is in the millions.
You can’t therefore go back to 1974 and say, ah! People will turn out to vote in large numbers if it’s important. The electorate and attitudes to politics are very different today.
FWIW i’d expect turnout in the 60-65% box, dependent on weather.
I expect I should ask him when he stopped betting his wife / husband (in these enlightened times, do we have to have a gender neutral way of phrasing that question?).
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/10/the-winners-and-losers-of-a-christmas-general-election/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Are you a traitor or a saboteur?
But what was unusual was that the cabbages weren't displaying a union flag but a Lincolnshire flag instead.
Is there some sort of Lincolnshire independence movement which has prompted this ?
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1167332510461833216
An unwind of the previous election's SLD to SCon swing would hurt the Cons badly in Scotland.
The farmers travelled from all over the country to The Hague for the four-wheeled demonstration, saying they had been unfairly blamed for emissions that cause climate change.
The tailbacks caused by the tractors were a total of 1,136 kilometres (705 miles) long, making it the "busiest ever morning rush hour", according to Dutch traffic organisation the ANWB.
https://www.france24.com/en/20191001-tractor-protest-sparks-biggest-dutch-traffic-jam
NO!!!!
There should be a comma after 'whatever'
Another thickie thread opener
Remainers think it's much more likely, whatever the Brexit outcome
Violence to MPs likely if UK leaves EU:
Remainers - 69%
Leavers - 35%
Violence to MPs likely if UK remains in EU:
Remainers - 61%
Leavers - 54%
They also think that protests where the public get injured are more likely if we leave, though tied on remain
Public injured in protests if UK leaves:
Remainers - 70%
Leavers - 32%
Public injured in protests if UK remains:
Remainers - 54%
Leavers - 54%
Who's predicting violence here then?
"Is there some sort of Lincolnshire independence movement which has prompted this ?"
Whenever I go back to Boston, I pass a few blue and green quartered flags on the way. I don't remember seeing any as a child. They're not happy bunnies, but it's not yet a serious movement.
Last time we were in the Netherlands a clog maker (no stereotyping) told us that he hated the EU and loved Brexit. We respectfully disagreed.
I would be in favour of automatic voter registration. it's actually ridiculous the UK doesn't already do it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/27/more-than-9-million-eligible-voters-not-correctly-registered
But it is interesting. Do manifesto pledges trump referendum? LDs suggest yes. I think if Tories lost a GE and Lab could form a government on a manifesto pledge of 2nd ref with remain as an option, then many would cry not...
It is preventing the executive from doing its but is not willing to replace the executive
Labour - huh - what is it good for?
Absolutely nothin'.....
It is also a useful way to separate the Single issue of Brexit from other politics. It sounds like many PBers would vote Conservative, for example, were it not for Brexit.
By returning Brexit to a referendum at the same time as a GE there are two separate mandates: what do you want re Brexit, and who do you want to implement it.
The Irish government has written to us asking us to take up our right to citizenship
I have not declined their kind invitation. That doesn’t mean I am considering it, actively or not.
The Irish government has written to us asking us to take up our right to citizenship
I have not declined their kind invitation. That doesn’t mean I am considering it, actively or not.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
Do you think they think this violence will also come from Leavers who are getting their way?
But as so much fruit and vegetables are thrown away its certainly a worthwhile question.
During rationing wasn't it collected and fed to pigs or added to compost heaps ?