Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.
That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.
I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.
28th/29th October was a good time for them polling wise I suspect and maybe they realised they would get squeezed once the campaign started. By commissioning the polls then and drip feeding the public them it can help them stay in the debate.
Damn right we will be competitors after Brexit and too right too, that is the entire point.
Competition is a good thing, competition makes us healthier and better.
That is all very fine as a general statement.
But how politically acceptable do you think the measures needed to make this competition effective will be to the sorts of voters the Tories are targeting?
I hope they would be very acceptable and they would only occur post-Brexit if the population is carried to agree with the changes overall.
That is the whole point of taking back control, if the voters dislike what is proposed done they can prevent or reverse it.
To get away from generalities, what specific measures do you think should be taken to increase “agility” and “flexibility” that can’t now be taken, which groups of voters would benefit and what would the cost be and for whom?
I think we discussed this a few weeks back and the main upside was freedom to feed chickens our leftovers.
Since about 2015 I have been asking those who advocate leave what actual benefits will result. The only thing they can ever come up with is "sovereignty", which is, of course, guff. Brexit is fool's gold, unless you are Tory politician at the right wing of the spectrum, a journalist or a hedge fund manager. Everyone else loses out.
A number of us have regularly pointed out benefits but you have always chosen to ignore them or deride them. There gets a point where it is no longer worth taking your questions at face value as clearly you have no interest in the answers.
On the previous thread someone came up with seemed to be fairly complex, though clearly important, issue around insurance. Not sure it was ever explained properly.
Might have been of course I either missed it, or it was outside my experience and I therefore couldn't understand it.
TBP would rather we remained in the EU than let this deal go through. They genuinely believe it is a sellout and will see no logic in standing aside as do a lot of their supporters. His decision to not fight a seat is actually quite canny being able to campaign without being tied down and removing the media circus from a single constituency.
I'm not so sure that TBP as a whole are supportive of Farage's stance.
From the push-back in the media it would appear many candidates are unhappy with what seems to have become a rather reckless approach from Farage which risks Brexit in its entirety.
And I don't believe for a moment that Farage will want to be despised by remainers AND the majority of leavers.
My guess would be nearer the time he decides 'reluctantly but for the greater good' to focus TBP candidates a little more selectively.
Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.
That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.
I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.
Isn’t it only public because they decided to make it public?
BPC rules are getting somewhat abused here.
Lib Dems commission a bunch of private polls, release those whose results say what they want them to say - because they've been released Survation under BPC rules have to release the poll themselves too thus confirming the figures for the LDs to use them on their materials.
BPC rules should be tightened up. If parties are going to poll a bunch of constituencies and release some of the figures then the pollster should release all comparable polls they've done at the same time and not just the cherrypicked ones that have the results the party wants to get out there.
Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.
That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.
I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.
28th/29th October was a good time for them polling wise I suspect and maybe they realised they would get squeezed once the campaign started. By commissioning the polls then and drip feeding the public them it can help them stay in the debate.
They need to get the narrative that they can win out there to build momentum..this is part of that strategy
Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.
That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.
I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.
I think it is a private poll. However, when the LibDems as the client publish it this makes it public, when it ceases to be private, then the pollster is obliged to release the data, tables etc.
Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.
That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.
I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.
If you assume for the sake of argument that the vast majority of Liberal Democrat and Labour voters are primarily anti-Tory then the chief battle in lots of seats is establishing which of the two parties is ahead of the other - and therefore best able to defeat the Tory.
This isn't completely true, but it's not far off, and how else do you persuade voters you are ahead than with opinion polls and carefully curated presentations of previous election results?
Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.
That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.
I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.
Isn’t it only public because they decided to make it public?
Libdems need people to believe they can win.
Interesting when they decide to release the polls though. The Somerset North East one was released after some time
Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.
That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.
I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.
Isn’t it only public because they decided to make it public?
BPC rules are getting somewhat abused here.
Lib Dems commission a bunch of private polls, release those whose results say what they want them to say - because they've been released Survation under BPC rules have to release the poll themselves too thus confirming the figures for the LDs to use them on their materials.
BPC rules should be tightened up. If parties are going to poll a bunch of constituencies and release some of the figures then the pollster should release all comparable polls they've done at the same time and not just the cherrypicked ones that have the results the party wants to get out there.
I think that's worth an email to the BPC, at least.
Damn right we will be competitors after Brexit and too right too, that is the entire point.
Competition is a good thing, competition makes us healthier and better.
That is all very fine as a general statement.
But how politically acceptable do you think the measures needed to make this competition effective will be to the sorts of voters the Tories are targeting?
I hope they would be very acceptable and they would only occur post-Brexit if the population is carried to agree with the changes overall.
That is the whole point of taking back control, if the voters dislike what is proposed done they can prevent or reverse it.
To get away from generalities, what specific measures do you think should be taken to increase “agility” and “flexibility” that can’t now be taken, which groups of voters would benefit and what would the cost be and for whom?
One specific example I have oft-quoted is that we should with an independent trade policy look to liberalise trade with the rest of the world. We can get a trade deal with countries like the USA [which is bigger than the entire Single Market combined] and many more which the EU don't have a trade deal with.
The biggest advantage of leaving the EU, to me, is that it restores accountability in our democratic system. No longer will politicians be able to blame someone else. No longer will voters feel like they have no say over many of the rules that affect them.
(And I seriously doubt that the UK will end up in a free trade deal with the US any time soon. Simply, the price we'd have to pay in areas such as agriculture and intellectual property would be too high.)
Damn right we will be competitors after Brexit and too right too, that is the entire point.
Competition is a good thing, competition makes us healthier and better.
That is all very fine as a general statement.
But how politically acceptable do you think the measures needed to make this competition effective will be to the sorts of voters the Tories are targeting?
I hope they would be very acceptable and they would only occur post-Brexit if the population is carried to agree with the changes overall.
That is the whole point of taking back control, if the voters dislike what is proposed done they can prevent or reverse it.
But if the effect of taking back control, as you put it, is that voters then have a choice between significant economic damage on one hand, or accepting policies they don’t like in order to mitigate that damage on the other hand, doesn’t that suggest the cost of taking back control is too high? It looks a lot like an ideological benefit with no practical benefit at that point.
I never put the choice as that and I don't agree with such a negative attitude. I don't agree that the damage will be significant and I think the point of takin back control is not to "mitigate that damage" it is to cease currently neglected opportunities outside.
It comes back to the basic point that decreasing alignment with our EU neighbours will be damaging - it makes trade with those countries less free. The benefit of that dealignment could be to allow us to trade more freely with other countries but that means, in detail, thinking about what kind of divergence we need to take to get trade deals that EU membership precludes, and then whether the electorate would knowingly choose that divergence. For example, which food or environmental standards might we lower, how might we increase labour market flexibility (to use the positive spin phrase), what additionally non-EU immigration might we permit?
"TBP would rather we remained in the EU than let this deal go through. "
I don`t believe this is true. After all, the ERG accept that Boris`s deal qualifies as being Brexit - whereas May`s did not.
I think the truth is that Farage didn`t expect Boris to produce the deal that he did, and has now been forced to say things that he doesn`t truly believe - i.e. that the Boris deal is May`s deal re-heated.
For what it`s worth my in-laws (who are big leavers and fans of Farage), surprised me at the weekend by announcing that they would be voting for the Tory Party not the Brexit Party.
Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.
That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.
I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.
Isn’t it only public because they decided to make it public?
BPC rules are getting somewhat abused here.
Lib Dems commission a bunch of private polls, release those whose results say what they want them to say - because they've been released Survation under BPC rules have to release the poll themselves too thus confirming the figures for the LDs to use them on their materials.
BPC rules should be tightened up. If parties are going to poll a bunch of constituencies and release some of the figures then the pollster should release all comparable polls they've done at the same time and not just the cherrypicked ones that have the results the party wants to get out there.
I don't see why. People commission private polls all the time and only release the ones that benefit them. That doesn't seem evil (or even wrong) to me.
Interesting that Labour seem to be underperforming in some of these constituency polls. I wonder whether this poll is consistent with the Survation national polls? My model runs off the latter but gives the seat to Labour, albeit in a tight 3-way split with the three main parties all within 1.5pp of each other (ie any of them could win it). The Tory and Lib Dem shares are all within 2pp of my projection, but BXP and others are lower, with Labour the beneficiary.
That poll is almost a week old. Applying national poll changes there Labour could now be on 28% - with LDs on 26%.
Damn right we will be competitors after Brexit and too right too, that is the entire point.
Competition is a good thing, competition makes us healthier and better.
That is all very fine as a general statement.
But how politically acceptable do you think the measures needed to make this competition effective will be to the sorts of voters the Tories are targeting?
I hope they would be very acceptable and they would only occur post-Brexit if the population is carried to agree with the changes overall.
That is the whole point of taking back control, if the voters dislike what is proposed done they can prevent or reverse it.
To get away from generalities, what specific measures do you think should be taken to increase “agility” and “flexibility” that can’t now be taken, which groups of voters would benefit and what would the cost be and for whom?
I think we discussed this a few weeks back and the main upside was freedom to feed chickens our leftovers.
Since about 2015 I have been asking those who advocate leave what actual benefits will result. The only thing they can ever come up with is "sovereignty", which is, of course, guff. Brexit is fool's gold, unless you are Tory politician at the right wing of the spectrum, a journalist or a hedge fund manager. Everyone else loses out.
A number of us have regularly pointed out benefits but you have always chosen to ignore them or deride them. There gets a point where it is no longer worth taking your questions at face value as clearly you have no interest in the answers.
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
Not diehard then? But an interesting suggestion care to elaborate?
TBP is a fool's errand which risks the very thing that the party claims to want.
A No deal exit will never happen which only leaves the deal available as a route to exiting the EU.
If I was a hardcore remainer i'd be loving the opportunity to campaign vociferously for TBP in the knowledge that if the party was successful it would ensure Brexit didn't happen for a long, long time...if ever.
Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.
That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.
I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.
Isn’t it only public because they decided to make it public?
Libdems need people to believe they can win.
Interesting when they decide to release the polls though. The Somerset North East one was released after some time
I would have thought they'll dribble them out between now and the beginning of December, only in the seats where they show something "encouraging", so as to maximize publicity.
The biggest advantage of leaving the EU, to me, is that it restores accountability in our democratic system. No longer will politicians be able to blame someone else. No longer will voters feel like they have no say over many of the rules that affect them.
Of course they'll be able to blame someone else. They'll blame immigrants, Jewish bankers, some vaguely-defined elite...
"TBP would rather we remained in the EU than let this deal go through. "
I don`t believe this is true. After all, the ERG accept that Boris`s deal qualifies as being Brexit - whereas May`s did not.
I think the truth is that Farage didn`t expect Boris to produce the deal that he did, and has now been forced to say things that he doesn`t truly believe - i.e. that the Boris deal is May`s deal re-heated.
For what it`s worth my in-laws (who are big leavers and fans of Farage), surprised me at the weekend by announcing that they would be voting for the Tory Party not the Brexit Party.
Myself and my wife voted BXP in the Euros. I wouldn't even consider doing that now since Boris has come back with this deal.
I didn't want the Speaker Election happening today but I do think it is a fitting touch for Ken Clarke to go out with hosting this as his final act to mark his half century in Parliament.
If he gets one it will be a further boost for the LDs. People might be able to hold their nose and vote Tory, but a toxic Tory/BXP alliance might be too much to swallow. I guess this has already been considered by the Tories.
"TBP would rather we remained in the EU than let this deal go through. "
I don`t believe this is true. After all, the ERG accept that Boris`s deal qualifies as being Brexit - whereas May`s did not.
I think the truth is that Farage didn`t expect Boris to produce the deal that he did, and has now been forced to say things that he doesn`t truly believe - i.e. that the Boris deal is May`s deal re-heated.
For what it`s worth my in-laws (who are big leavers and fans of Farage), surprised me at the weekend by announcing that they would be voting for the Tory Party not the Brexit Party.
Myself and my wife voted BXP in the Euros. I wouldn't even consider doing that now since Boris has come back with this deal.
The biggest advantage of leaving the EU, to me, is that it restores accountability in our democratic system. No longer will politicians be able to blame someone else. No longer will voters feel like they have no say over many of the rules that affect them.
Of course they'll be able to blame someone else. They'll blame immigrants, Jewish bankers, some vaguely-defined elite...
They will continue to blame Europe - and this time they might be correct. We will have to do as we are told and have no influence.
Damn right we will be competitors after Brexit and too right too, that is the entire point.
Competition is a good thing, competition makes us healthier and better.
That is all very fine as a general statement.
But how politically acceptable do you think the measures needed to make this competition effective will be to the sorts of voters the Tories are targeting?
I hope they would be very acceptable and they would only occur post-Brexit if the population is carried to agree with the changes overall.
That is the whole point of taking back control, if the voters dislike what is proposed done they can prevent or reverse it.
But if the effect of taking back control, as you put it, is that voters then have a choice between significant economic damage on one hand, or accepting policies they don’t like in order to mitigate that damage on the other hand, doesn’t that suggest the cost of taking back control is too high? It looks a lot like an ideological benefit with no practical benefit at that point.
I never put the choice as that and I don't agree with such a negative attitude. I don't agree that the damage will be significant and I think the point of takin back control is not to "mitigate that damage" it is to cease currently neglected opportunities outside.
It comes back to the basic point that decreasing alignment with our EU neighbours will be damaging - it makes trade with those countries less free. The benefit of that dealignment could be to allow us to trade more freely with other countries but that means, in detail, thinking about what kind of divergence we need to take to get trade deals that EU membership precludes, and then whether the electorate would knowingly choose that divergence. For example, which food or environmental standards might we lower, how might we increase labour market flexibility (to use the positive spin phrase), what additionally non-EU immigration might we permit?
Why would decreasng alignment with our EU neighbours be damaging? If you assume it will be damaging, then yes it will, but you haven't justified such an assumption.
We don't necessarily need to lower food or environmental standards, but we can lower tariffs and other non-tariff barriers.
I didn't want the Speaker Election happening today but I do think it is a fitting touch for Ken Clarke to go out with hosting this as his final act to mark his half century in Parliament.
Agreed, but very sad that Dominic Cummings dictated to Bozo that a man who has given so much to his party should lose the whip. Still, everyone knows that Ken is worth more than Cummings, Bozo and the whole intellectually challenged ERG put together.
"TBP would rather we remained in the EU than let this deal go through. "
I don`t believe this is true. After all, the ERG accept that Boris`s deal qualifies as being Brexit - whereas May`s did not.
I think the truth is that Farage didn`t expect Boris to produce the deal that he did, and has now been forced to say things that he doesn`t truly believe - i.e. that the Boris deal is May`s deal re-heated.
For what it`s worth my in-laws (who are big leavers and fans of Farage), surprised me at the weekend by announcing that they would be voting for the Tory Party not the Brexit Party.
Myself and my wife voted BXP in the Euros. I wouldn't even consider doing that now since Boris has come back with this deal.
"TBP would rather we remained in the EU than let this deal go through. "
I don`t believe this is true. After all, the ERG accept that Boris`s deal qualifies as being Brexit - whereas May`s did not.
I think the truth is that Farage didn`t expect Boris to produce the deal that he did, and has now been forced to say things that he doesn`t truly believe - i.e. that the Boris deal is May`s deal re-heated.
For what it`s worth my in-laws (who are big leavers and fans of Farage), surprised me at the weekend by announcing that they would be voting for the Tory Party not the Brexit Party.
Myself and my wife voted BXP in the Euros. I wouldn't even consider doing that now since Boris has come back with this deal.
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
You and I went through this cycle of discussion a few weeks ago. It took several days and in the end came to nothing. You simply do not share the values or the views of anyone who voted Leave and are incapable of understanding their reasons. Nor are you apparently even willing to countenance there might be good reasons for it. Hence the reason going through the whole cycle again is utterly pointless.
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
The error bars not being symmetric is super important, not only was the Con maximum upside higher it had a much smaller down side that its upside. And the SNP downside was larger than its upside.
Damn right we will be competitors after Brexit and too right too, that is the entire point.
Competition is a good thing, competition makes us healthier and better.
That is all very fine as a general statement.
But how politically acceptable do you think the measures needed to make this competition effective will be to the sorts of voters the Tories are targeting?
I hope they would be very acceptable and they would only occur post-Brexit if the population is carried to agree with the changes overall.
That is the whole point of taking back control, if the voters dislike what is proposed done they can prevent or reverse it.
To get away from generalities, what specific measures do you think should be taken to increase “agility” and “flexibility” that can’t now be taken, which groups of voters would benefit and what would the cost be and for whom?
One specific example I have oft-quoted is that we should with an independent trade policy look to liberalise trade with the rest of the world. We can get a trade deal with countries like the USA [which is bigger than the entire Single Market combined] and many more which the EU don't have a trade deal with.
The biggest advantage of leaving the EU, to me, is that it restores accountability in our democratic system. No longer will politicians be able to blame someone else. No longer will voters feel like they have no say over many of the rules that affect them.
(And I seriously doubt that the UK will end up in a free trade deal with the US any time soon. Simply, the price we'd have to pay in areas such as agriculture and intellectual property would be too high.)
Well it is an argument I suppose, though not a very strong one. Not sure it will stop them still blaming the EU, or other foreigners or some other bogie man that voters might be gullible enough to accept are the root of our ills. We will be begging the US for a deal from a very weak position. That, of course, in the minds of the Brexiteers will be the fault of the EU.
I didn't want the Speaker Election happening today but I do think it is a fitting touch for Ken Clarke to go out with hosting this as his final act to mark his half century in Parliament.
Has a speaker ever been elected so soon before a dissolution?
The biggest advantage of leaving the EU, to me, is that it restores accountability in our democratic system. No longer will politicians be able to blame someone else. No longer will voters feel like they have no say over many of the rules that affect them.
Of course they'll be able to blame someone else. They'll blame immigrants, Jewish bankers, some vaguely-defined elite...
Quite how anyone can think that once Brexit has been done our politicians will accept blame or responsibility for any of their policy outcomes is, frankly, beyond belief.
"TBP would rather we remained in the EU than let this deal go through. "
I don`t believe this is true. After all, the ERG accept that Boris`s deal qualifies as being Brexit - whereas May`s did not.
I think the truth is that Farage didn`t expect Boris to produce the deal that he did, and has now been forced to say things that he doesn`t truly believe - i.e. that the Boris deal is May`s deal re-heated.
For what it`s worth my in-laws (who are big leavers and fans of Farage), surprised me at the weekend by announcing that they would be voting for the Tory Party not the Brexit Party.
Myself and my wife voted BXP in the Euros. I wouldn't even consider doing that now since Boris has come back with this deal.
Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.
That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.
I'd be surprised if, by December, there are more than 50 'active' BXP candidates, possibly hurting lab more than con.
From a libdem perspective though, the more the merrier. From a betting perspective I have no idea, though I shall be trawling here for clues.
I suspect it's how many that are on the ballot paper that matters, not how active they are. BXP are simply going for a national campaign fronted by Farage.
There is a logic to the BXP standing against the tories down south. If the goal is for BXP to hold the balance of power, forcing Boris to go to then to stay in government, it needs a hung parliament. If Tories get a majority and BXP take 15 seats off Labour, that still means a tory majority for Johnson's deal, and BXP irrelevance. Better for the tories to lose some seats because of the BXP and be forced to go to Farage for support. Of course, if the tories do too badly then Labour get in with SNPs and LDs and Brexit could be lost for good.
So it's simply a question of gambling that the final result is the BXP sweet spot. No more crazy than no dealers or Remainers in Parliament gambling on voting down May's deal
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.
The biggest advantage of leaving the EU, to me, is that it restores accountability in our democratic system. No longer will politicians be able to blame someone else. No longer will voters feel like they have no say over many of the rules that affect them.
Of course they'll be able to blame someone else. They'll blame immigrants, Jewish bankers, some vaguely-defined elite...
Quite how anyone can think that once Brexit has been done our politicians will accept blame or responsibility for any of their policy outcomes is, frankly, beyond belief.
Particularly those who were vociferously in favour of Brexit.
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
Think bigger. Our land could be the whole of Europe.
The Brexit party is ensuring that Brexit doesn't happen.
Not really. If the seats Con lose in nice middle-class neighbourhoods in the South-East are outweighed by those they gain in rufty-tufty working-class neighbourhoods in the North/Midlands, then it's to Cons benefit
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.
I don't share that concern but if that was the argument then presumably we should be seeking to share sovereignty with America? As the organisations that affect our lives are more American than European?
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
Think bigger. Our land could be the whole of Europe.
Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.
That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.
I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.
Isn’t it only public because they decided to make it public?
BPC rules are getting somewhat abused here.
Lib Dems commission a bunch of private polls, release those whose results say what they want them to say - because they've been released Survation under BPC rules have to release the poll themselves too thus confirming the figures for the LDs to use them on their materials.
BPC rules should be tightened up. If parties are going to poll a bunch of constituencies and release some of the figures then the pollster should release all comparable polls they've done at the same time and not just the cherrypicked ones that have the results the party wants to get out there.
I don't see why. People commission private polls all the time and only release the ones that benefit them. That doesn't seem evil (or even wrong) to me.
Do you not see anything wrong in running 10 different polls asking the same question in the same region/constituency and then publish just one, the one that has the best results for you?
I see quite a lot wrong in that, and for clinical trials there is a strong push by Ben Goldacre and many others to make this illegal
Are you seriously suggesting that Farage cannot find 650 crazies? Out of 65 million people? It is only 0.001%
I wouldn't be surprised if a number of candidates are hardcore remainers.
As long as they ensure Boris leads a minority govt, I am OK with that. Brexit turns everything upside-down - I finally have a use for Nigel Farage and his party
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
Think bigger. Our land could be the whole of Europe.
Why Europe, why not the whole world? A whole Empire?
1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero. 2. Droit de Suite (you can google it). 3. Er... 4. That's it.
ps. We were always sovereign
Always sovereign de jure, perhaps. In reality laws and regulations were made in Brussels.
We proved we were sovereign by voting to Leave. Oh you mean the laws and regulations that we, as part of the organisation, had a hand in devising, and thought on balance were better for the country than otherwise? Those laws and regulations?
I mean even though it doesn't seem right I do think that sometimes people should be denied the vote if they are too dim to understand how the modern world works.
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.
I don't share that concern but if that was the argument then presumably we should be seeking to share sovereignty with America? As the organisations that affect our lives are more American than European?
We are long way from the US, both geographically and, in many respects, socially. Health policies are a case in point.
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
Think bigger. Our land could be the whole of Europe.
What’s wrong with having distinct countries?
The concept of "distinct" countries has caused a lot of populations a lot of grief. A notable one is the Kurdish population, but there are dozens of cases in Africa where the indiginous populations got cut off by colonialists drawing straight lines on maps.
Quite how anyone can think that once Brexit has been done our politicians will accept blame or responsibility for any of their policy outcomes is, frankly, beyond belief.
It will certainly be more difficult for them to avoid taking responsibility although in fairness I can't remember many PM's blaming the EU for domestic policy decisions gone wrong.
Even after we leave the EU will still play a huge part in our politics as parties wrestle with their approach to our future relationship.
Not so much for the Tories as the ratchet will only turn one way in terms of how we relate to the EU but for Labour it presents a huge problem with the party needing to make a decision on promoting rejoining or not.
1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero. 2. Droit de Suite (you can google it). 3. Er... 4. That's it.
ps. We were always sovereign
Always sovereign de jure, perhaps. In reality laws and regulations were made in Brussels.
We proved we were sovereign by voting to Leave. Oh you mean the laws and regulations that we, as part of the organisation, had a hand in devising, and thought on balance were better for the country than otherwise? Those laws and regulations?
I mean even though it doesn't seem right I do think that sometimes people should be denied the vote if they are too dim to understand how the modern world works.
Immediately with the condescending reply, thanks.
What the UK thinks is immaterial in a lot of areas now, and that list Is only growing with the desire to have everything decided under QMV. Of courses we had influence in those decisions, but not a right to ignore the decisions if we had wished to remain a member.
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
Think bigger. Our land could be the whole of Europe.
Why Europe, why not the whole world? A whole Empire?
Nah, I'm happy with my own country thanks.
You'll be agin that whole Anglosphere gubbins then...
1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero. 2. Droit de Suite (you can google it). 3. Er... 4. That's it.
ps. We were always sovereign
Always sovereign de jure, perhaps. In reality laws and regulations were made in Brussels.
We proved we were sovereign by voting to Leave. Oh you mean the laws and regulations that we, as part of the organisation, had a hand in devising, and thought on balance were better for the country than otherwise? Those laws and regulations?
I mean even though it doesn't seem right I do think that sometimes people should be denied the vote if they are too dim to understand how the modern world works.
Immediately with the condescending reply, thanks.
What the UK thinks is immaterial in a lot of areas now, and that list Is only growing with the desire to have everything decided under QMV. Of courses shadbush influence in those decisions, but not a right to ignore the decisions if we had wished to remain a member.
What in your mind is the primary example of where we have had a decision go against us which cemented your views that we were better off out?
Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.
That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.
I'd be surprised if, by December, there are more than 50 'active' BXP candidates, possibly hurting lab more than con.
From a libdem perspective though, the more the merrier. From a betting perspective I have no idea, though I shall be trawling here for clues.
I suspect it's how many that are on the ballot paper that matters, not how active they are. BXP are simply going for a national campaign fronted by Farage.
Exactly they will use national newspapers for advertising, street stalls to create the impression of presence and limited canvassing.
1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero. 2. Droit de Suite (you can google it). 3. Er... 4. That's it.
ps. We were always sovereign
Always sovereign de jure, perhaps. In reality laws and regulations were made in Brussels.
To which we were about 87% in agreement iirc
Yes, only the contentious ones are the issue. I’m sure both parties in the UK would agree with a very large fraction of what is currently on the statute book.
Harriet Harman: An extra deputy speaker from the minority parties.
If that happened it would increase the government's majority wouldn't it? Speaker and deputy speakers don't vote but they are balanced between government and opposition - if the minority parties got a deputy then unless that was offset by another government deputy speaker then if the deputies continue to not vote that would affect the votes. Has she thought that one through?
Quite how anyone can think that once Brexit has been done our politicians will accept blame or responsibility for any of their policy outcomes is, frankly, beyond belief.
It will certainly be more difficult for them to avoid taking responsibility although in fairness I can't remember many PM's blaming the EU for domestic policy decisions gone wrong.
Even after we leave the EU will still play a huge part in our politics as parties wrestle with their approach to our future relationship.
Not so much for the Tories as the ratchet will only turn one way in terms of how we relate to the EU but for Labour it presents a huge problem with the party needing to make a decision on promoting rejoining or not.
The irony is that whereas I agree with you that I can't recall any PM blaming the EU, from Brexit onwards, if things go badly for any reason then it will be because of the EU. Far from UK politicians accepting responsibility it will be a get out of jail free card for them to use the whole time. Analagously to the "there's no money left" note.
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.
I don't share that concern but if that was the argument then presumably we should be seeking to share sovereignty with America? As the organisations that affect our lives are more American than European?
We are long way from the US, both geographically and, in many respects, socially. Health policies are a case in point.
That's not what you said though, you said about business. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Walmart (ASDA) and many other companies affecting our daily lives are not German, French etc
1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero. 2. Droit de Suite (you can google it). 3. Er... 4. That's it.
ps. We were always sovereign
Always sovereign de jure, perhaps. In reality laws and regulations were made in Brussels.
We proved we were sovereign by voting to Leave. Oh you mean the laws and regulations that we, as part of the organisation, had a hand in devising, and thought on balance were better for the country than otherwise? Those laws and regulations?
I mean even though it doesn't seem right I do think that sometimes people should be denied the vote if they are too dim to understand how the modern world works.
Immediately with the condescending reply, thanks.
What the UK thinks is immaterial in a lot of areas now, and that list Is only growing with the desire to have everything decided under QMV. Of courses shadbush influence in those decisions, but not a right to ignore the decisions if we had wished to remain a member.
What in your mind is the primary example of where we have had a decision go against us which cemented your views that we were better off out?
I don’t think any were particularly critical in cementing my view. The obvious example of a decision is that of the VAT rules. Yes, we may have agreed with a lot of things before, but that was in the era of the veto, so we had to agree.
Sinn Fein standing down to help Sylvia Hermon is quite startling, and a very good move in terms of getting Northern Irish politics a little more like our normal, sober political system (well...). Seriously, it's great.
Harriet Harman: An extra deputy speaker from the minority parties.
If that happened it would increase the government's majority wouldn't it? Speaker and deputy speakers don't vote but they are balanced between government and opposition - if the minority parties got a deputy then unless that was offset by another government deputy speaker then if the deputies continue to not vote that would affect the votes. Has she thought that one through?
I viewed it as an appeal to the SNP. They have an absolute majority of minority seats, I think.
Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.
That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.
I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.
Isn’t it only public because they decided to make it public?
BPC rules are getting somewhat abused here.
Lib Dems commission a bunch of private polls, release those whose results say what they want them to say - because they've been released Survation under BPC rules have to release the poll themselves too thus confirming the figures for the LDs to use them on their materials.
BPC rules should be tightened up. If parties are going to poll a bunch of constituencies and release some of the figures then the pollster should release all comparable polls they've done at the same time and not just the cherrypicked ones that have the results the party wants to get out there.
I don't see why. People commission private polls all the time and only release the ones that benefit them. That doesn't seem evil (or even wrong) to me.
Suppose the Lib Dems have conducted opinion polls in 100 constituencies. Five of these, entirely randomly, will give the Lib Dems really good results. Because of the small sample size of these opinion polls, really, *really* good results.
If they then only publish those five opinion polls, and shred the other 95, they present a completely false picture of their electoral prospects. It's the sort of statistical dishonesty that BPC rules are meant to prevent.
On the other hand, if the Lib Dems conduct constituency polls in 100 constituencies and publish all of them, then you get to see the full range of random sample bias, in all its absurd glory. Also, if it turns out that the Lib Dems genuinely only conduct five constituency opinion polls, publish them all, and they *all* look good for the Lib Dems, that gives you greater confidence in their collective result.
1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero. 2. Droit de Suite (you can google it). 3. Er... 4. That's it.
ps. We were always sovereign
Always sovereign de jure, perhaps. In reality laws and regulations were made in Brussels.
We proved we were sovereign by voting to Leave. Oh you mean the laws and regulations that we, as part of the organisation, had a hand in devising, and thought on balance were better for the country than otherwise? Those laws and regulations?
I mean even though it doesn't seem right I do think that sometimes people should be denied the vote if they are too dim to understand how the modern world works.
Immediately with the condescending reply, thanks.
What the UK thinks is immaterial in a lot of areas now, and that list Is only growing with the desire to have everything decided under QMV. Of courses shadbush influence in those decisions, but not a right to ignore the decisions if we had wished to remain a member.
What in your mind is the primary example of where we have had a decision go against us which cemented your views that we were better off out?
I don’t think any were particularly critical in cementing my view. The obvious example of a decision is that of the VAT rules. Yes, we may have agreed with a lot of things before, but that was in the era of the veto, so we had to agree.
So you voted to leave the EU because the UK couldn't reduce VAT on home energy supplies from 5% to zero? In which party's manifesto was that commitment? Cons presumably? The Cons, of course, who put it up from zero all those years ago.
Tell me also, if you would, why our standard rate of VAT is 20% when we are able to reduce it to 15% if we wanted?
I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.
It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.
I don't share that concern but if that was the argument then presumably we should be seeking to share sovereignty with America? As the organisations that affect our lives are more American than European?
We are long way from the US, both geographically and, in many respects, socially. Health policies are a case in point.
That's not what you said though, you said about business. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Walmart (ASDA) and many other companies affecting our daily lives are not German, French etc
Our way of dealing with them, though is likely to be closer to the German French etc fashion that the American. That was what I meant and why I instanced health policy..
Harriet Harman: An extra deputy speaker from the minority parties.
If that happened it would increase the government's majority wouldn't it? Speaker and deputy speakers don't vote but they are balanced between government and opposition - if the minority parties got a deputy then unless that was offset by another government deputy speaker then if the deputies continue to not vote that would affect the votes. Has she thought that one through?
I viewed it as an appeal to the SNP. They have an absolute majority of minority seats, I think.
Who aren't in the Commons today to vote. They're off campaigning.
Comments
Might have been of course I either missed it, or it was outside my experience and I therefore couldn't understand it.
From the push-back in the media it would appear many candidates are unhappy with what seems to have become a rather reckless approach from Farage which risks Brexit in its entirety.
And I don't believe for a moment that Farage will want to be despised by remainers AND the majority of leavers.
My guess would be nearer the time he decides 'reluctantly but for the greater good' to focus TBP candidates a little more selectively.
Lib Dems commission a bunch of private polls, release those whose results say what they want them to say - because they've been released Survation under BPC rules have to release the poll themselves too thus confirming the figures for the LDs to use them on their materials.
BPC rules should be tightened up. If parties are going to poll a bunch of constituencies and release some of the figures then the pollster should release all comparable polls they've done at the same time and not just the cherrypicked ones that have the results the party wants to get out there.
However, when the LibDems as the client publish it this makes it public, when it ceases to be private, then the pollster is obliged to release the data, tables etc.
I think...
And is this relevant
ERG Brokering Brexit Party Stand Down Terms with Downing Street https://t.co/8fbqh2KPjT https://t.co/XQ3Ob3BNL3
This isn't completely true, but it's not far off, and how else do you persuade voters you are ahead than with opinion polls and carefully curated presentations of previous election results?
Interesting when they decide to release the polls though. The Somerset North East one was released after some time
I would have had Dumfreis and Galloway well down the list of SNP targets.
https://twitter.com/TomEden11/status/1191355266698272768?s=19
(And I seriously doubt that the UK will end up in a free trade deal with the US any time soon. Simply, the price we'd have to pay in areas such as agriculture and intellectual property would be too high.)
Of course, the Prime Minister never goes back on his word on such deadlines.
"TBP would rather we remained in the EU than let this deal go through. "
I don`t believe this is true. After all, the ERG accept that Boris`s deal qualifies as being Brexit - whereas May`s did not.
I think the truth is that Farage didn`t expect Boris to produce the deal that he did, and has now been forced to say things that he doesn`t truly believe - i.e. that the Boris deal is May`s deal re-heated.
For what it`s worth my in-laws (who are big leavers and fans of Farage), surprised me at the weekend by announcing that they would be voting for the Tory Party not the Brexit Party.
A No deal exit will never happen which only leaves the deal available as a route to exiting the EU.
If I was a hardcore remainer i'd be loving the opportunity to campaign vociferously for TBP in the knowledge that if the party was successful it would ensure Brexit didn't happen for a long, long time...if ever.
I expect them to have minimal effect.
"Taking back control"? Don't make me laugh....
We don't necessarily need to lower food or environmental standards, but we can lower tariffs and other non-tariff barriers.
I got 40/1 too.
Was it you who put this up last night? If he wins - thanks. If he loses - damn you!
Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.
https://twitter.com/twitonatrain/status/1191352370917265408?s=19
The error bars not being symmetric is super important, not only was the Con maximum upside higher it had a much smaller down side that its upside. And the SNP downside was larger than its upside.
Sorry didn’t mean to excite
1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero.
2. Droit de Suite (you can google it).
3. Er...
4. That's it.
ps. We were always sovereign
So it's simply a question of gambling that the final result is the BXP sweet spot. No more crazy than no dealers or Remainers in Parliament gambling on voting down May's deal
I see quite a lot wrong in that, and for clinical trials there is a strong push by Ben Goldacre and many others to make this illegal
Nah, I'm happy with my own country thanks.
I mean even though it doesn't seem right I do think that sometimes people should be denied the vote if they are too dim to understand how the modern world works.
Good - I think that there should be some sort of legislation passed to make clear that Bercow`s antics do not set precedent for the future.
Even after we leave the EU will still play a huge part in our politics as parties wrestle with their approach to our future relationship.
Not so much for the Tories as the ratchet will only turn one way in terms of how we relate to the EU but for Labour it presents a huge problem with the party needing to make a decision on promoting rejoining or not.
What the UK thinks is immaterial in a lot of areas now, and that list Is only growing with the desire to have everything decided under QMV. Of courses we had influence in those decisions, but not a right to ignore the decisions if we had wished to remain a member.
If that happened it would increase the government's majority wouldn't it? Speaker and deputy speakers don't vote but they are balanced between government and opposition - if the minority parties got a deputy then unless that was offset by another government deputy speaker then if the deputies continue to not vote that would affect the votes. Has she thought that one through?
Compelling.
"I oppose sexism, and should have this job because of my gender."
Suppose the Lib Dems have conducted opinion polls in 100 constituencies. Five of these, entirely randomly, will give the Lib Dems really good results. Because of the small sample size of these opinion polls, really, *really* good results.
If they then only publish those five opinion polls, and shred the other 95, they present a completely false picture of their electoral prospects. It's the sort of statistical dishonesty that BPC rules are meant to prevent.
On the other hand, if the Lib Dems conduct constituency polls in 100 constituencies and publish all of them, then you get to see the full range of random sample bias, in all its absurd glory. Also, if it turns out that the Lib Dems genuinely only conduct five constituency opinion polls, publish them all, and they *all* look good for the Lib Dems, that gives you greater confidence in their collective result.
Tell me also, if you would, why our standard rate of VAT is 20% when we are able to reduce it to 15% if we wanted?