I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Until the Reformation most Lords were Bishops, only after did they become majority hereditary and only now are they majority life peer.
The Archbishops position is not opposition to Brexit per se, only the internal markets bill, so on that is no different to Biden's or Pelosi's or even Theresa May's.
Indeed if the Internal Markets Bill passes and Biden becomes President you can be sure there is zero chance of a US and UK trade deal.
Though it must be said that a majority of Anglicans, 66%, voted for Brexit so the Bishops have to be careful not to be seen to be careful to still respect the delivery of Brexit even if they disagree with the Internal Markets Bill
In the Dark Ages most people were serfs and couldn't vote so I'm not sure what your point is.
You may model yourself on Jacob Rees Mogg but we are not pre-Reformation anymore, this is 2020 and we are a secular, religiously diverse nation: The clerics belong in the past not the Legislature.
As long as we have an appointed upper house the Bishops belong there, along with a few rabbis and imams and other life peers from business, academia, science, sport, the arts, politics, the law etc who have played a key role in our national life.
Unless you go for an all elected upper house then the Bishops should stay
Like Botham and Fox?
Yes
What key roles have those two played in our lives?
Botham is one of our greatest ever cricketers and has done a huge amount for charity, Fox is founder of the Ideas think tank and a former MEP
Their only qualification is that they support brexit, nothing else
We cannot back down over fishing, we can on state aid, there was nothing specific about state aid in the winning 2019 Tory manifesto unlike on reclaiming our fishing waters
I think Pesto had it right before with his near 100% assessment of deal likelihood. And you might be right on Fish being the key issue. There are umpteen billions of them on this Earth but in one very important respect (specifically us reclaiming our exclusive rights to catch them in our waters) they are a very rare creature indeed - an actual possible minor but tangible benefit of Brexit.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I don't support them blocking you having another referendum. I don't support the Tories on everything and I've made it clear I would oppose Westminster blocking another referendum if you win the Holyrood election next year.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Until the Reformation most Lords were Bishops, only after did they become majority hereditary and only now are they majority life peer.
The Archbishops position is not opposition to Brexit per se, only the internal markets bill, so on that is no different to Biden's or Pelosi's or even Theresa May's.
Indeed if the Internal Markets Bill passes and Biden becomes President you can be sure there is zero chance of a US and UK trade deal.
Though it must be said that a majority of Anglicans, 66%, voted for Brexit so the Bishops have to be careful not to be seen to be careful to still respect the delivery of Brexit even if they disagree with the Internal Markets Bill
In the Dark Ages most people were serfs and couldn't vote so I'm not sure what your point is.
You may model yourself on Jacob Rees Mogg but we are not pre-Reformation anymore, this is 2020 and we are a secular, religiously diverse nation: The clerics belong in the past not the Legislature.
As long as we have an appointed upper house the Bishops belong there, along with a few rabbis and imams and other life peers from business, academia, science, sport, the arts, politics, the law etc who have played a key role in our national life.
Unless you go for an all elected upper house then the Bishops should stay
Like Botham and Fox?
Yes
What key roles have those two played in our lives?
Botham is one of our greatest ever cricketers and has done a huge amount for charity, Fox is founder of the Ideas think tank and a former MEP
Their only qualification is that they support brexit, nothing else
The Lords as a whole seem to be far less supportive of Brexit than the country so if that was the qualification it would be one that makes them more representative.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
If you think I created the idea of us going to the ballot box to elect MPs, or that I created the idea that it is our MPs that are democratically elected, then I think you are giving me far more credit than I deserve. Thank you for the unintended compliment but I am not responsible for creating the idea that MPs are democratically elected.
That the UK is flawed does not discount the flaws in other entities like the EU. I have never pretended the UK is not flawed, not for one second. I'll give you a clue for future reference in case you think this is a smoking gun: I also believe that Johnson is flawed, I believe Sunak is flawed, I believe the Conservative Party is flawed, I believe Gove is flawed and I believe that I am flawed. I believe everyone has flaws. If you think that is a smoking gun because you think you are divine and without flaws then that says more about your own narcissism than it does about me.
Er, thanks for the outpouring.
Here's what I think - that you railed against the EU because it was anti-democratic. You are now railing against the UK because it is anti-democratic.
Hence we can discount your views about anything being anti-democratic including, obvs, the EU.
One does not follow from the other.
I'm not railing against the UK anyway, I rail against the Lords and I am far, far from the only person to do so. I'm far from the only person in this thread to do so.
The Lords have been largely neutered anyway by both convention and the Parliament Act while Her Majesty has been entirely neutered into an apolitical figurehead. In my ideal world the Lords would be as neutered as Her Majesty is, they should be there to advise but not decide. If it was up to me I would amend the Parliament Act to reduce the Lords power of delay from one year to one week of 'ping pong'. The Lords should be able to advise the Commons but if after a week the Commons don't want to take their advice then the elected chamber should be supreme.
Again, all consistent but at least we know what we're dealing with. Someone who wants to dismantle our system of government and voting to leave the EU was a necessary first step along this path.
It's fine to want to dismantle our system of government. But it also puts into context the motivation for leaving the EU. Not so that the UK parliamentary system can act unhindered as a principle of democratic accountability, but as part of a process whereby many elements of our parliamentary system are dismantled and recast in a form that you believe is better.
I don't want to dismantle our system of government. Our system of government is the Commons and the government stems from that.
Lords reform has been on the agenda since before I was old enough to vote. So don't blame me for thinking Lords reform is a reasonable position to have.
Nah. Our system of government is our system of government.
Is this one of those VAT is 20% always when VAT is actually 5% on a large number of items discussions?
I don't have time for that although I appreciate you do!
The Commons is our government yes and the Lords respects the Commons almost all the time. If they didn't then Lords reform would come much quicker.
Only you were obsessing that VAT was 20% "always" and obsessing over exceptions when everyone else knew, understood and appreciated that the 5% are the exception and it is the main rate that can't under EU law go below 15%. The exception is not the rule, especially when exceptions are very restricted. 🙄
Remember that there are two ways that the government can make any plan Lords-proof.
One is to put it explicitly in a manifesto. The other is to wait a year.
Those are both quite useful rules. The first encourages parties to be upfront about their plans in their manifesto, which is good for democracy. The second gives cooling-off time if- purely hypothetically- a Prime Minister is prone to throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. (Keeping a tantrum up for a week is easy-peasy. Doing so for a year isn't.)
If a government has a vital bill that it doesn't put in a manifesto and doesn't introduce in time... well, is their lack of planning and candour our emergency?
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I don't support them blocking you having another referendum. I don't support the Tories on everything and I've made it clear I would oppose Westminster blocking another referendum if you win the Holyrood election next year.
Lol
ARE YOU LISTENING BORIS, ARE YOU LISTENING DOM?!
What do you expect me to say? I'm just one voter, not a mouthpiece for Boris or Dom. Just because I support them on other issues doesn't mean anything when it comes to this issue. 🤷🏻♂️
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
Oh I think you will find there are a very large number of people - perhaps even the majority - who feel that, for many diverse and different reasons, the UK is not democratic. Many Scots feel that way because of the English dominance of Parliament. Many feel that way because of the electoral systems we use. Others like me because of the Lords and because of the overly centralised nature of our system. So I am afraid that you are in good company with those children in Beziers. Clearly you and they both know very little about the rights and wrongs of democracy in this country.
There is no such thing as a democratic practice which is immune from the criticism that in some respect it is not democratic. There is no ideal standpoint from which to evaluate them. All democracies that work have been have involved an organic process of development, which like all evolutions leave traces of the past lying around, and weaknesses in the current state of play.
But as with evolution the most destructive thing is to destroy the species in the hope of starting afresh.
Yes. In the vague hope of seeking consensus, wouldn't it be the case that there is no such thing as a perfect democracy, and hasn't been for centuries - if ever? Both the UK and the EU are flawed democracies, and it is a matter of personal preference which of these has the most egregious flaws.
Though I do suspect that some democracies have fewer flaws than either the UK or the EU. New Zealand last week seemed to work pretty well in valuing everybody's vote, for example.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Until the Reformation most Lords were Bishops, only after did they become majority hereditary and only now are they majority life peer.
The Archbishops position is not opposition to Brexit per se, only the internal markets bill, so on that is no different to Biden's or Pelosi's or even Theresa May's.
Indeed if the Internal Markets Bill passes and Biden becomes President you can be sure there is zero chance of a US and UK trade deal.
Though it must be said that a majority of Anglicans, 66%, voted for Brexit so the Bishops have to be careful not to be seen to be careful to still respect the delivery of Brexit even if they disagree with the Internal Markets Bill
In the Dark Ages most people were serfs and couldn't vote so I'm not sure what your point is.
You may model yourself on Jacob Rees Mogg but we are not pre-Reformation anymore, this is 2020 and we are a secular, religiously diverse nation: The clerics belong in the past not the Legislature.
As long as we have an appointed upper house the Bishops belong there, along with a few rabbis and imams and other life peers from business, academia, science, sport, the arts, politics, the law etc who have played a key role in our national life.
Unless you go for an all elected upper house then the Bishops should stay
Like Botham and Fox?
Yes
What key roles have those two played in our lives?
Botham is one of our greatest ever cricketers and has done a huge amount for charity, Fox is founder of the Ideas think tank and a former MEP
Their only qualification is that they support brexit, nothing else
The Lords as a whole seem to be far less supportive of Brexit than the country so if that was the qualification it would be one that makes them more representative.
There’s enough stupid people supporting brexit to add more of them
And further to Trump and Betfair, I must fess up to having called things badly wrong. Important to do this given I am not shy about informing people when I get stuff right. I thought, and have repeatedly opined in the most strident fashion, that if the national polling were to still show him facing a big deficit at this juncture the penny would be dropping with punters and his price would start collapsing towards something like 5 on eve on poll. Well there is little sign of this. The opposite if anything. He's 2.5 as compared to around 3 a couple of weeks ago. Unsmug City.
Yes, but the question is: why? It makes no sense that the markets are moving towards Trump. They should be heading towards what the polls indicate, as the election gets closer and so many votes are already cast.
I'm happy to hold my hands up admitting to be equally as wrong as kinabalu, and as puzzled as you.
Having said that, it's entirely possible for the weight of money on two horse contests like this to bear little relation to the final outcome. And after all, however accurate the polls are, you have at least 40% of the population on either side, and there are probably more punters impervious to evidence in the Trump camp.
We cannot back down over fishing, we can on state aid, there was nothing specific about state aid in the winning 2019 Tory manifesto unlike on reclaiming our fishing waters
The manifesto made it clear we were taking back control of our laws and our money.
"State aid" is about control of our laws and money. Does everything need to be made explicit for you.
So long as we have control over our laws and money then we are OK according to the manifesto, if we do not have control over our laws and money then the manifesto has been breached.
For once @HYUFD has a very good point. Of course in the overall scheme of things the state aid question is more important, but, politically, voters don't understand it anyway and it has no emotional salience, whereas the (largely mythical) narrative of our doughty fisherman having been shafted by the evil EU nicking their fish does. You can just imagine Farage making a big play of fishermen being 'betrayed', it's harder for him or anyone else to make a big play of the UK government not being able to go back to the pre-Thatcher practice of wasting taxpayers' money on subsidising losers and failing to pick winners. Even the current lot of Conservative MPs are not fans of that kind of Cummings nonsense.
Therefore, if Boris does want a deal, then he needs something he can portray as a great victory for our intrepid fishermen. There doesn't need to be much reality to it, of course, and whatever it is, it will also have to leave room for Macron and the other leaders of the coastal states to claim it's a great victory for their fishermen. Tricky, but probably not impossible, if the UK government hasn't gone completely bonkers.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I don't support them blocking you having another referendum. I don't support the Tories on everything and I've made it clear I would oppose Westminster blocking another referendum if you win the Holyrood election next year.
Lol
ARE YOU LISTENING BORIS, ARE YOU LISTENING DOM?!
Boris will be looking at how the Scots Tories do in 2021. It's quite possible that they will do relatively well by consolidating the Unionist vote, even if there is an overall pro-Indy majority. In those circumstances, which I consider quite likely, the chances of a Section 30 are close to zero.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
Oh I think you will find there are a very large number of people - perhaps even the majority - who feel that, for many diverse and different reasons, the UK is not democratic. Many Scots feel that way because of the English dominance of Parliament. Many feel that way because of the electoral systems we use. Others like me because of the Lords and because of the overly centralised nature of our system. So I am afraid that you are in good company with those children in Beziers. Clearly you and they both know very little about the rights and wrongs of democracy in this country.
That would be the same Scots who elect both MPs at Westminster and MSPs to their own Parliament at Holyrood, while English voters elect MPs only and do not have a Parliament of their own?
Biggest decision this 'country' has made in decades and a great flowering of popular democracy, as the Brexit obsessives would have it.
England Leave 53% Remain 47%
Scotland Leave 38% Remain 62%
Shut up Jocks and do what we say.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
In neither case was turnout a relevant factor. There were no thresholds. If we are going to get into the business of attaching significance to turnout, we end up in pointless discussions that can never be settled. You might think that: 1. Scotland cared less about Leave/Remain than it did about Yes/No but someone might counter that: 2. Scotland knew its choice probably wouldn't make a difference to the overall result or even: 3. There was significant voter fatigue, following the Holyrood election a few weeks earlier.
Both narratives are opinions that can never really be proven to the satisfaction of your opponents. It's probably best to stick with the facts: Scotland's decision in 2014 was No to independence; Scotland's decision in 2016 was Remain in the EU. Anything beyond that requires some level of evidence to support your opinion, for example election results.
FWIW, the general election results in Scotland say this to me: 2017: we still might turn Brexit around, so let's not rush into any further divisions now 2019: ok, England's too far gone, let's talk about another referendum
Personally, I don't find turnout to be a particularly convincing part of any narrative.
We cannot back down over fishing, we can on state aid, there was nothing specific about state aid in the winning 2019 Tory manifesto unlike on reclaiming our fishing waters
The manifesto made it clear we were taking back control of our laws and our money.
"State aid" is about control of our laws and money. Does everything need to be made explicit for you.
So long as we have control over our laws and money then we are OK according to the manifesto, if we do not have control over our laws and money then the manifesto has been breached.
For once @HYUFD has a very good point. Of course in the overall scheme of things the state aid question is more important, but, politically, voters don't understand it anyway and it has no emotional salience, whereas the (largely mythical) narrative of our doughty fisherman having been shafted by the evil EU nicking their fish does. You can just imagine Farage making a big play of fishermen being 'betrayed', it's harder for him or anyone else to make a big play of the UK government not being able to go back to the pre-Thatcher practice of wasting taxpayers' money on subsidising losers and failing to pick winners. Even the current lot of Conservative MPs are not fans of that kind of Cummings nonsense.
Therefore, it Boris does want a deal, then he needs something he can portray as a great victory for our intrepid fishermen. There doesn't need to be much reality to it, of course, and whatever it is, it will also have to leave from for Macron and the other leaders of the coastal states to claim it's a great victory for their fishermen. Tricky, but probably not impossible, if the UK government hasn't gone completely bonkers.
Though of course Philip did not vote for Hague in 2001 but did vote for Farage in May 2019 so if he is determined to refuse to compromise with the EU on anything, even state aid, I am sure Philip can go back to voting Brexit Party and will receive a warm welcome from Nigel Farage
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I don't support them blocking you having another referendum. I don't support the Tories on everything and I've made it clear I would oppose Westminster blocking another referendum if you win the Holyrood election next year.
Lol
ARE YOU LISTENING BORIS, ARE YOU LISTENING DOM?!
I don't think you give Philip enough credit; he is not a Tory loyalist in the manner of HYUFD, and the inconsistencies in his political positions are entirely his own.
And further to Trump and Betfair, I must fess up to having called things badly wrong. Important to do this given I am not shy about informing people when I get stuff right. I thought, and have repeatedly opined in the most strident fashion, that if the national polling were to still show him facing a big deficit at this juncture the penny would be dropping with punters and his price would start collapsing towards something like 5 on eve on poll. Well there is little sign of this. The opposite if anything. He's 2.5 as compared to around 3 a couple of weeks ago. Unsmug City.
And further to Trump and Betfair, I must fess up to having called things badly wrong. Important to do this given I am not shy about informing people when I get stuff right. I thought, and have repeatedly opined in the most strident fashion, that if the national polling were to still show him facing a big deficit at this juncture the penny would be dropping with punters and his price would start collapsing towards something like 5 on eve on poll. Well there is little sign of this. The opposite if anything. He's 2.5 as compared to around 3 a couple of weeks ago. Unsmug City.
Yes, but the question is: why? It makes no sense that the markets are moving towards Trump. They should be heading towards what the polls indicate, as the election gets closer and so many votes are already cast.
Weren't there some quite dramatic changes in 2016, where Trump was written off almost completely in the betting (e.g. after the Access Hollywood tapes), but bounced back?
We've then had four years, where even if you have the lowest of expectations and try to ignore the guy, he still comes out with something jaw droppingly shocking every few weeks.
He's made the unbelievable believable, and I wonder if that's affecting the betting?
And further to Trump and Betfair, I must fess up to having called things badly wrong. Important to do this given I am not shy about informing people when I get stuff right. I thought, and have repeatedly opined in the most strident fashion, that if the national polling were to still show him facing a big deficit at this juncture the penny would be dropping with punters and his price would start collapsing towards something like 5 on eve on poll. Well there is little sign of this. The opposite if anything. He's 2.5 as compared to around 3 a couple of weeks ago. Unsmug City.
Yes, but the question is: why? It makes no sense that the markets are moving towards Trump. They should be heading towards what the polls indicate, as the election gets closer and so many votes are already cast.
I'm happy to hold my hands up admitting to be equally as wrong as kinabalu, and as puzzled as you.
Having said that, it's entirely possible for the weight of money on two horse contests like this to bear little relation to the final outcome. And after all, however accurate the polls are, you have at least 40% of the population on either side, and there are probably more punters impervious to evidence in the Trump camp.
Well they don’t demonstrate high analytical capability and can swallow bullshit by the bucket so it’s no wonder they think he’s going to win.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I don't support them blocking you having another referendum. I don't support the Tories on everything and I've made it clear I would oppose Westminster blocking another referendum if you win the Holyrood election next year.
Lol
ARE YOU LISTENING BORIS, ARE YOU LISTENING DOM?!
Boris will be looking at how the Scots Tories do in 2021. It's quite possible that they will do relatively well by consolidating the Unionist vote, even if there is an overall pro-Indy majority. In those circumstances, which I consider quite likely, the chances of a Section 30 are close to zero.
Does your 'relatively well' mean gains or limiting losses?
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
If you think I created the idea of us going to the ballot box to elect MPs, or that I created the idea that it is our MPs that are democratically elected, then I think you are giving me far more credit than I deserve. Thank you for the unintended compliment but I am not responsible for creating the idea that MPs are democratically elected.
That the UK is flawed does not discount the flaws in other entities like the EU. I have never pretended the UK is not flawed, not for one second. I'll give you a clue for future reference in case you think this is a smoking gun: I also believe that Johnson is flawed, I believe Sunak is flawed, I believe the Conservative Party is flawed, I believe Gove is flawed and I believe that I am flawed. I believe everyone has flaws. If you think that is a smoking gun because you think you are divine and without flaws then that says more about your own narcissism than it does about me.
Er, thanks for the outpouring.
Here's what I think - that you railed against the EU because it was anti-democratic. You are now railing against the UK because it is anti-democratic.
Hence we can discount your views about anything being anti-democratic including, obvs, the EU.
One does not follow from the other.
I'm not railing against the UK anyway, I rail against the Lords and I am far, far from the only person to do so. I'm far from the only person in this thread to do so.
The Lords have been largely neutered anyway by both convention and the Parliament Act while Her Majesty has been entirely neutered into an apolitical figurehead. In my ideal world the Lords would be as neutered as Her Majesty is, they should be there to advise but not decide. If it was up to me I would amend the Parliament Act to reduce the Lords power of delay from one year to one week of 'ping pong'. The Lords should be able to advise the Commons but if after a week the Commons don't want to take their advice then the elected chamber should be supreme.
Again, all consistent but at least we know what we're dealing with. Someone who wants to dismantle our system of government and voting to leave the EU was a necessary first step along this path.
It's fine to want to dismantle our system of government. But it also puts into context the motivation for leaving the EU. Not so that the UK parliamentary system can act unhindered as a principle of democratic accountability, but as part of a process whereby many elements of our parliamentary system are dismantled and recast in a form that you believe is better.
I don't want to dismantle our system of government. Our system of government is the Commons and the government stems from that.
Lords reform has been on the agenda since before I was old enough to vote. So don't blame me for thinking Lords reform is a reasonable position to have.
Nah. Our system of government is our system of government.
Is this one of those VAT is 20% always when VAT is actually 5% on a large number of items discussions?
I don't have time for that although I appreciate you do!
The Commons is our government yes and the Lords respects the Commons almost all the time. If they didn't then Lords reform would come much quicker.
Only you were obsessing that VAT was 20% "always" and obsessing over exceptions when everyone else knew, understood and appreciated that the 5% are the exception and it is the main rate that can't under EU law go below 15%. The exception is not the rule, especially when exceptions are very restricted. 🙄
Yes I understand. The VAT rate is 20% except when it is not. And that proves that we can't change our VAT rate from 20%. Except when we can and have.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
= 5% VAT rate. But the VAT rate is 20%.
And on government, our parliamentary democracy consists of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
And further to Trump and Betfair, I must fess up to having called things badly wrong. Important to do this given I am not shy about informing people when I get stuff right. I thought, and have repeatedly opined in the most strident fashion, that if the national polling were to still show him facing a big deficit at this juncture the penny would be dropping with punters and his price would start collapsing towards something like 5 on eve on poll. Well there is little sign of this. The opposite if anything. He's 2.5 as compared to around 3 a couple of weeks ago. Unsmug City.
Yes, but the question is: why? It makes no sense that the markets are moving towards Trump. They should be heading towards what the polls indicate, as the election gets closer and so many votes are already cast.
That is indeed the question. My answer thus far has been that people have last time on the brain and it's clouding their thinking. Rather like with our GE19. But it's becoming such a disconnect, despite the election being close and all the early voting, that I wonder if we could be missing some other big factor. What do you think?
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I don't support them blocking you having another referendum. I don't support the Tories on everything and I've made it clear I would oppose Westminster blocking another referendum if you win the Holyrood election next year.
Lol
ARE YOU LISTENING BORIS, ARE YOU LISTENING DOM?!
Boris will be looking at how the Scots Tories do in 2021. It's quite possible that they will do relatively well by consolidating the Unionist vote, even if there is an overall pro-Indy majority. In those circumstances, which I consider quite likely, the chances of a Section 30 are close to zero.
This is the sort of thing that could transpire.
Ellon & District By-election (15 October 2020) - 1 Seat Party SNP Louise Mcallister 42.4% 1,683 Conservative John Crawley 41.7% 1,658 Liberal Democrats Trevor Mason 10.2% 405 Labour John Bennett 2.9% 114 Scottish Green Peter Kennedy 2.8% 112 Electorate: 11,893 Valid: 3,972 Spoilt: 34 Quota: NA Turnout: 33.7%
(By-election that took place last week in Aberdeenshire). SNP up 10%, Tory vote up marginally, Lab and LibDem down badly - compared to 2017 local elections.
That would represent an uplift in Tory performance from 2016 when the last Scottish Parliament elections took place.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I don't support them blocking you having another referendum. I don't support the Tories on everything and I've made it clear I would oppose Westminster blocking another referendum if you win the Holyrood election next year.
Lol
ARE YOU LISTENING BORIS, ARE YOU LISTENING DOM?!
Boris will be looking at how the Scots Tories do in 2021. It's quite possible that they will do relatively well by consolidating the Unionist vote, even if there is an overall pro-Indy majority. In those circumstances, which I consider quite likely, the chances of a Section 30 are close to zero.
Does your 'relatively well' mean gains or limiting losses?
Gains. I think that is quite possible following an election campaign focused on the constitution.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I don't support them blocking you having another referendum. I don't support the Tories on everything and I've made it clear I would oppose Westminster blocking another referendum if you win the Holyrood election next year.
Lol
ARE YOU LISTENING BORIS, ARE YOU LISTENING DOM?!
Boris will be looking at how the Scots Tories do in 2021. It's quite possible that they will do relatively well by consolidating the Unionist vote, even if there is an overall pro-Indy majority. In those circumstances, which I consider quite likely, the chances of a Section 30 are close to zero.
This is the sort of thing that could transpire.
Ellon & District By-election (15 October 2020) - 1 Seat Party SNP Louise Mcallister 42.4% 1,683 Conservative John Crawley 41.7% 1,658 Liberal Democrats Trevor Mason 10.2% 405 Labour John Bennett 2.9% 114 Scottish Green Peter Kennedy 2.8% 112 Electorate: 11,893 Valid: 3,972 Spoilt: 34 Quota: NA Turnout: 33.7%
(By-election that took place last week in Aberdeenshire). SNP up 10%, Tory vote up marginally, Lab and LibDem down badly - compared to 2017 local elections.
That would represent an uplift in Tory performance from 2016 when the last Scottish Parliament elections took place.
Plus the Tories currently only hold 7 Holyrood constituencies anyway, most of which they won in 2019, plus Moray and Banff and Buchan are Tory held at Westminster but not Holyrood and possible Tory gains from the SNP in 2021.
More important for Unionists is getting SLab to gain SNP seats in the central belt and the SLDs to gain SNP seats in the Highlands through Tory tactical voting next year
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
If you think I created the idea of us going to the ballot box to elect MPs, or that I created the idea that it is our MPs that are democratically elected, then I think you are giving me far more credit than I deserve. Thank you for the unintended compliment but I am not responsible for creating the idea that MPs are democratically elected.
That the UK is flawed does not discount the flaws in other entities like the EU. I have never pretended the UK is not flawed, not for one second. I'll give you a clue for future reference in case you think this is a smoking gun: I also believe that Johnson is flawed, I believe Sunak is flawed, I believe the Conservative Party is flawed, I believe Gove is flawed and I believe that I am flawed. I believe everyone has flaws. If you think that is a smoking gun because you think you are divine and without flaws then that says more about your own narcissism than it does about me.
Er, thanks for the outpouring.
Here's what I think - that you railed against the EU because it was anti-democratic. You are now railing against the UK because it is anti-democratic.
Hence we can discount your views about anything being anti-democratic including, obvs, the EU.
One does not follow from the other.
I'm not railing against the UK anyway, I rail against the Lords and I am far, far from the only person to do so. I'm far from the only person in this thread to do so.
The Lords have been largely neutered anyway by both convention and the Parliament Act while Her Majesty has been entirely neutered into an apolitical figurehead. In my ideal world the Lords would be as neutered as Her Majesty is, they should be there to advise but not decide. If it was up to me I would amend the Parliament Act to reduce the Lords power of delay from one year to one week of 'ping pong'. The Lords should be able to advise the Commons but if after a week the Commons don't want to take their advice then the elected chamber should be supreme.
Again, all consistent but at least we know what we're dealing with. Someone who wants to dismantle our system of government and voting to leave the EU was a necessary first step along this path.
It's fine to want to dismantle our system of government. But it also puts into context the motivation for leaving the EU. Not so that the UK parliamentary system can act unhindered as a principle of democratic accountability, but as part of a process whereby many elements of our parliamentary system are dismantled and recast in a form that you believe is better.
I don't want to dismantle our system of government. Our system of government is the Commons and the government stems from that.
Lords reform has been on the agenda since before I was old enough to vote. So don't blame me for thinking Lords reform is a reasonable position to have.
Nah. Our system of government is our system of government.
Is this one of those VAT is 20% always when VAT is actually 5% on a large number of items discussions?
I don't have time for that although I appreciate you do!
The Commons is our government yes and the Lords respects the Commons almost all the time. If they didn't then Lords reform would come much quicker.
Only you were obsessing that VAT was 20% "always" and obsessing over exceptions when everyone else knew, understood and appreciated that the 5% are the exception and it is the main rate that can't under EU law go below 15%. The exception is not the rule, especially when exceptions are very restricted. 🙄
Yes I understand. The VAT rate is 20% except when it is not. And that proves that we can't change our VAT rate from 20%. Except when we can and have.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
= 5% VAT rate. But the VAT rate is 20%.
And on government, our parliamentary democracy consists of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
No you're wrong, we couldn't lower our VAT rate below 15% besides limited exceptions, we could change it from 20% but not below 15%. As for hospitality I'm not sure if that is a normally included exception or if that is only OK because of the temporary lifting of rules due to COVID19.
The Lords are not democratic. They may be part of our Parliament but they are not a part of our democracy.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Until the Reformation most Lords were Bishops, only after did they become majority hereditary and only now are they majority life peer.
The Archbishops position is not opposition to Brexit per se, only the internal markets bill, so on that is no different to Biden's or Pelosi's or even Theresa May's.
Indeed if the Internal Markets Bill passes and Biden becomes President you can be sure there is zero chance of a US and UK trade deal.
Though it must be said that a majority of Anglicans, 66%, voted for Brexit so the Bishops have to be careful not to be seen to be careful to still respect the delivery of Brexit even if they disagree with the Internal Markets Bill
In the Dark Ages most people were serfs and couldn't vote so I'm not sure what your point is.
You may model yourself on Jacob Rees Mogg but we are not pre-Reformation anymore, this is 2020 and we are a secular, religiously diverse nation: The clerics belong in the past not the Legislature.
As long as we have an appointed upper house the Bishops belong there, along with a few rabbis and imams and other life peers from business, academia, science, sport, the arts, politics, the law etc who have played a key role in our national life.
Unless you go for an all elected upper house then the Bishops should stay
Like Botham and Fox?
Yes
What key roles have those two played in our lives?
Botham is one of our greatest ever cricketers and has done a huge amount for charity, Fox is founder of the Ideas think tank and a former MEP
Their only qualification is that they support brexit, nothing else
Quite so. As far as I can establish, Botham and Rachel Heyhoe Flint are the only cricketers elevated to the Lords since Cowdrey in 1992. There's been an awful lot of cricketers who have made as big, or bigger, a contribution than Botham in that time. Though I can't think of any others who have been vocal in support of Brexit.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Until the Reformation most Lords were Bishops, only after did they become majority hereditary and only now are they majority life peer.
The Archbishops position is not opposition to Brexit per se, only the internal markets bill, so on that is no different to Biden's or Pelosi's or even Theresa May's.
Indeed if the Internal Markets Bill passes and Biden becomes President you can be sure there is zero chance of a US and UK trade deal.
Though it must be said that a majority of Anglicans, 66%, voted for Brexit so the Bishops have to be careful not to be seen to be careful to still respect the delivery of Brexit even if they disagree with the Internal Markets Bill
In the Dark Ages most people were serfs and couldn't vote so I'm not sure what your point is.
You may model yourself on Jacob Rees Mogg but we are not pre-Reformation anymore, this is 2020 and we are a secular, religiously diverse nation: The clerics belong in the past not the Legislature.
As long as we have an appointed upper house the Bishops belong there, along with a few rabbis and imams and other life peers from business, academia, science, sport, the arts, politics, the law etc who have played a key role in our national life.
Unless you go for an all elected upper house then the Bishops should stay
Like Botham and Fox?
Yes
What key roles have those two played in our lives?
Botham is one of our greatest ever cricketers and has done a huge amount for charity, Fox is founder of the Ideas think tank and a former MEP
Their only qualification is that they support brexit, nothing else
The Lords as a whole seem to be far less supportive of Brexit than the country so if that was the qualification it would be one that makes them more representative.
AIUI the last time there was an opinion poll the country had decively swung against Brexit.
Yes, I know about the 2019 election result and the fiddled referendum.
Never mind the King in the North securing cash for Tier 3, the big battle will be cash for Tier 2. As local rag reports over the weekend pointed out, the inability to go to the pub or restaurant with friends combined with the curfew has killed trade for businesses supposedly free to stay open.
Which if you think about it is the same fiasco as we saw in March. Don't go to the pub spake the ministers. "what about our livelihoods" say the hospitality trade. "what about it" says the government.
Fuck business vote Tory. Again. How is it they haven't learned a single thing from the first phase of this pandemic?
Why should they they were the world beaters in the last wave so no need to learn anything.
I detect a touch of irony there. Just to reinforce the point, in terms or raw outcomes (deaths & economic hit), we are near the worst in the world.
When are Johnson's apologists going to wake up? We are competing with Spain (not renowned for stable "world beating" government) as to who has handled this the worst. Johnson needs to go, he is making a bad situation much worse.
You do realise don't you that chart is deeply troubled and flawed?
On one axis it has data going to mid October on another axis it has data going to 30 June. Those are not the same data sets and it is completely misleading to put data from two different data sets on a chart like that.
The UK was hit hard in H1 this year, everybody knows that and nobody denies that.
The reason the USA, Brazil and Chile for instance have our level of deaths but much less of an economic hit is because they were hit in Q3 so their deaths are showing but not the economic data which is missing because two different data sets are being disingenuously combined.
Of course it's a flawed chart, but I suspect the the economic outcomes and deaths calculation isn't going to look great for us whenever you draw the end date. Perhaps you think differently ?
It obviously doesn't prove the proposition "control the virus and your economy does better", however much that might be true, but it does show, as I said, our poor performance in terms of raw outcomes.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I don't support them blocking you having another referendum. I don't support the Tories on everything and I've made it clear I would oppose Westminster blocking another referendum if you win the Holyrood election next year.
You do support Johnson on everything he does, you just occasionally do a bit of flip flopping before inevitably falling back into line again.
I really don't care, I just find it dishonest. It's like me claiming not to support Starmer when it's obvious I do.
The difference is PB Tories bring it up constantly for me yet PB Tories never bring it up for their own. Hypocrisy as usual.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
If you think I created the idea of us going to the ballot box to elect MPs, or that I created the idea that it is our MPs that are democratically elected, then I think you are giving me far more credit than I deserve. Thank you for the unintended compliment but I am not responsible for creating the idea that MPs are democratically elected.
That the UK is flawed does not discount the flaws in other entities like the EU. I have never pretended the UK is not flawed, not for one second. I'll give you a clue for future reference in case you think this is a smoking gun: I also believe that Johnson is flawed, I believe Sunak is flawed, I believe the Conservative Party is flawed, I believe Gove is flawed and I believe that I am flawed. I believe everyone has flaws. If you think that is a smoking gun because you think you are divine and without flaws then that says more about your own narcissism than it does about me.
Er, thanks for the outpouring.
Here's what I think - that you railed against the EU because it was anti-democratic. You are now railing against the UK because it is anti-democratic.
Hence we can discount your views about anything being anti-democratic including, obvs, the EU.
One does not follow from the other.
I'm not railing against the UK anyway, I rail against the Lords and I am far, far from the only person to do so. I'm far from the only person in this thread to do so.
The Lords have been largely neutered anyway by both convention and the Parliament Act while Her Majesty has been entirely neutered into an apolitical figurehead. In my ideal world the Lords would be as neutered as Her Majesty is, they should be there to advise but not decide. If it was up to me I would amend the Parliament Act to reduce the Lords power of delay from one year to one week of 'ping pong'. The Lords should be able to advise the Commons but if after a week the Commons don't want to take their advice then the elected chamber should be supreme.
Again, all consistent but at least we know what we're dealing with. Someone who wants to dismantle our system of government and voting to leave the EU was a necessary first step along this path.
It's fine to want to dismantle our system of government. But it also puts into context the motivation for leaving the EU. Not so that the UK parliamentary system can act unhindered as a principle of democratic accountability, but as part of a process whereby many elements of our parliamentary system are dismantled and recast in a form that you believe is better.
I don't want to dismantle our system of government. Our system of government is the Commons and the government stems from that.
Lords reform has been on the agenda since before I was old enough to vote. So don't blame me for thinking Lords reform is a reasonable position to have.
Nah. Our system of government is our system of government.
Is this one of those VAT is 20% always when VAT is actually 5% on a large number of items discussions?
I don't have time for that although I appreciate you do!
The Commons is our government yes and the Lords respects the Commons almost all the time. If they didn't then Lords reform would come much quicker.
Only you were obsessing that VAT was 20% "always" and obsessing over exceptions when everyone else knew, understood and appreciated that the 5% are the exception and it is the main rate that can't under EU law go below 15%. The exception is not the rule, especially when exceptions are very restricted. 🙄
Yes I understand. The VAT rate is 20% except when it is not. And that proves that we can't change our VAT rate from 20%. Except when we can and have.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
= 5% VAT rate. But the VAT rate is 20%.
And on government, our parliamentary democracy consists of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
No you're wrong, we couldn't lower our VAT rate below 15% besides limited exceptions, we could change it from 20% but not below 15%. As for hospitality I'm not sure if that is a normally included exception or if that is only OK because of the temporary lifting of rules due to COVID19.
The Lords are not democratic. They may be part of our Parliament but they are not a part of our democracy.
1. Is 5% higher or lower than 15%? 2. It is tempting to give up with you on the whole parliamentary democracy thing but I think it is safe to say that when it comes to our system of government, ours is a Parliamentary Democracy. And there is a clue in the term "Houses of Parliament" that should allow you to work out what that comprises.
Our automotive industry employs 823,000 jobs and is worth £82bn GDP.
Our fishing industry employs 24,000 jobs and is worth £1.4bn GDP.
Somebody should make a statchoo of a herring in a top hat that owned slaves. Leaver's would be drenching its plinth with the blood of their first born.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I don't support them blocking you having another referendum. I don't support the Tories on everything and I've made it clear I would oppose Westminster blocking another referendum if you win the Holyrood election next year.
Lol
ARE YOU LISTENING BORIS, ARE YOU LISTENING DOM?!
Boris will be looking at how the Scots Tories do in 2021. It's quite possible that they will do relatively well by consolidating the Unionist vote, even if there is an overall pro-Indy majority. In those circumstances, which I consider quite likely, the chances of a Section 30 are close to zero.
Does your 'relatively well' mean gains or limiting losses?
Gains. I think that is quite possible following an election campaign focused on the constitution.
The Conservatives are polling a shade below their 2016 vote. There's no Ukip/Brexit Party vote to swallow. I really don't see many more voters switching from the other parties, so all that's left is turnout. At evens I would take the Conservatives winning fewer seats than 2016 right now.
And further to Trump and Betfair, I must fess up to having called things badly wrong. Important to do this given I am not shy about informing people when I get stuff right. I thought, and have repeatedly opined in the most strident fashion, that if the national polling were to still show him facing a big deficit at this juncture the penny would be dropping with punters and his price would start collapsing towards something like 5 on eve on poll. Well there is little sign of this. The opposite if anything. He's 2.5 as compared to around 3 a couple of weeks ago. Unsmug City.
Yep - me too. I am surprised Biden price is drifting. Couldn't help myself and put a bit more on him. 1.22 for the PV is surely great value. I would really prefer to cash out at least partially before election night if possible though...
That price for Biden to win the PV is imo a VERY low risk 20% on your money in 2 weeks. Only reason I'm not doing it is that I already have a little too much riding on what is still, for all the value arguments, a single future event and single future events are inherently a bit riskier than they look to the unwary.
This sums up the Vote Leave takeover of government. Constant repetition of misleading phrases. Total dishonesty. Complete lack of understanding of the actual issues, because if your sole purpose is to confuse the public, eventually you will end up confusing yourself. It's just embarrassing that these people are in charge of the country, and little wonder that everything they touch goes to shit.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I don't support them blocking you having another referendum. I don't support the Tories on everything and I've made it clear I would oppose Westminster blocking another referendum if you win the Holyrood election next year.
Lol
ARE YOU LISTENING BORIS, ARE YOU LISTENING DOM?!
Boris will be looking at how the Scots Tories do in 2021. It's quite possible that they will do relatively well by consolidating the Unionist vote, even if there is an overall pro-Indy majority. In those circumstances, which I consider quite likely, the chances of a Section 30 are close to zero.
This is the sort of thing that could transpire.
Ellon & District By-election (15 October 2020) - 1 Seat Party SNP Louise Mcallister 42.4% 1,683 Conservative John Crawley 41.7% 1,658 Liberal Democrats Trevor Mason 10.2% 405 Labour John Bennett 2.9% 114 Scottish Green Peter Kennedy 2.8% 112 Electorate: 11,893 Valid: 3,972 Spoilt: 34 Quota: NA Turnout: 33.7%
(By-election that took place last week in Aberdeenshire). SNP up 10%, Tory vote up marginally, Lab and LibDem down badly - compared to 2017 local elections.
That would represent an uplift in Tory performance from 2016 when the last Scottish Parliament elections took place.
I would tend not put too many hopes on a council by election, but it was Lab and LD transfers that got the SNP over the line. How does that work out in a consolidating the Unionist vote scenario?
Fyi the last 2 Holyrood polls have the SCons losing 8 and 6 seats respectively.
We cannot back down over fishing, we can on state aid, there was nothing specific about state aid in the winning 2019 Tory manifesto unlike on reclaiming our fishing waters
The manifesto made it clear we were taking back control of our laws and our money.
"State aid" is about control of our laws and money. Does everything need to be made explicit for you.
So long as we have control over our laws and money then we are OK according to the manifesto, if we do not have control over our laws and money then the manifesto has been breached.
For once @HYUFD has a very good point. Of course in the overall scheme of things the state aid question is more important, but, politically, voters don't understand it anyway and it has no emotional salience, whereas the (largely mythical) narrative of our doughty fisherman having been shafted by the evil EU nicking their fish does. You can just imagine Farage making a big play of fishermen being 'betrayed', it's harder for him or anyone else to make a big play of the UK government not being able to go back to the pre-Thatcher practice of wasting taxpayers' money on subsidising losers and failing to pick winners. Even the current lot of Conservative MPs are not fans of that kind of Cummings nonsense.
Therefore, if Boris does want a deal, then he needs something he can portray as a great victory for our intrepid fishermen. There doesn't need to be much reality to it, of course, and whatever it is, it will also have to leave room for Macron and the other leaders of the coastal states to claim it's a great victory for their fishermen. Tricky, but probably not impossible, if the UK government hasn't gone completely bonkers.
Agree. Politically, fishing is crucial, particularly in Scotland. Puts SNP in a cleft stick given that opposition to the "sell out", along with oil, is what kicked off the first Nationalist surge in the 1970s. This issue explains why Gove is such a visceral Brexiteer, after all.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I don't support them blocking you having another referendum. I don't support the Tories on everything and I've made it clear I would oppose Westminster blocking another referendum if you win the Holyrood election next year.
You do support Johnson on everything he does, you just occasionally do a bit of flip flopping before inevitably falling back into line again.
I really don't care, I just find it dishonest. It's like me claiming not to support Starmer when it's obvious I do.
The difference is PB Tories bring it up constantly for me yet PB Tories never bring it up for their own. Hypocrisy as usual.
I do support Johnson, I just don't support him on everything. I am capable of thinking for myself and saying where I disagree while still supporting him in the round because on more issues I agree than disagree.
I oppose the 66% furlough applying to my region and have said it should be 80% if people are banned by law from working.
I think more support should be given to businesses forced by law to close or operate under artificial non-mingling restrictions, akin to a compulsory purchase order.
I opposed the student grades algorithm and said it should be reversed.
I oppose the Triple Lock and have called for it to be scrapped despite Boris pledging to keep it.
I called for a u-turn on charging foreign NHS and Care workers the NHS surcharge before it happened.
I supported the Brady Amendment on Parliamentary oversight of Covid restrictions and do not think Ministers should be able to change the law without a vote in the Commons.
I opposed Johnson voting for May's deal in MV3
Need I go on? Well over half a dozen times where I disagree - please don't question my honesty that in undignified.
PS don't mix "PB Tories" up together, just because some PB Tories may bring things up with you doesn't mean that I do so its not hypocrisy unless I do. I am not other PB Tories, we are not a hive collective.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I don't support them blocking you having another referendum. I don't support the Tories on everything and I've made it clear I would oppose Westminster blocking another referendum if you win the Holyrood election next year.
Lol
ARE YOU LISTENING BORIS, ARE YOU LISTENING DOM?!
Boris will be looking at how the Scots Tories do in 2021. It's quite possible that they will do relatively well by consolidating the Unionist vote, even if there is an overall pro-Indy majority. In those circumstances, which I consider quite likely, the chances of a Section 30 are close to zero.
This is the sort of thing that could transpire.
Ellon & District By-election (15 October 2020) - 1 Seat Party SNP Louise Mcallister 42.4% 1,683 Conservative John Crawley 41.7% 1,658 Liberal Democrats Trevor Mason 10.2% 405 Labour John Bennett 2.9% 114 Scottish Green Peter Kennedy 2.8% 112 Electorate: 11,893 Valid: 3,972 Spoilt: 34 Quota: NA Turnout: 33.7%
(By-election that took place last week in Aberdeenshire). SNP up 10%, Tory vote up marginally, Lab and LibDem down badly - compared to 2017 local elections.
That would represent an uplift in Tory performance from 2016 when the last Scottish Parliament elections took place.
I would tend not put too many hopes on a council by election, but it was Lab and LD transfers that got the SNP over the line. How does that work out in a consolidating the Unionist vote scenario?
Fyi the last 2 Holyrood polls have the SCons losing 8 and 6 seats respectively.
Agree in the sense that you can't deduce too much. But you can deduce that SCon vote is surprisingly robust given the current circumstances with Nicola at 70% approval. Many natural Labour/Lib voters will already be supporting Con which is why vote stayed solid.
A very modest improvement would overturn the 8 or 6 seat loss into an increase. Tory list vote in 2016, which delivered 31 MSPs, was only 23%. Considerably lower than 2017 and 2019 GE results.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
Is that clear enough?
This is what I mean when I say you're Tory CCHQ PR
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
Is that clear enough?
This is what I mean when I say you're Tory CCHQ PR
Why? Because I recognise spin when I see it?
I came of age politically when Alastair Campbell was operating in Downing Street. Recognising spin has nothing to do with the Tories alone.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
Is that clear enough?
This is what I mean when I say you're Tory CCHQ PR
Why? Because I recognise spin when I see it?
I came of age politically when Alastair Campbell was operating in Downing Street. Recognising spin has nothing to do with the Tories alone.
If you don't think re-branding No Deal - which is what it is - to "Australia terms" is spin, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
We share a border with the EU and the EU accounts for nearly half of our trade. Australia is on the other side of the world and the EU is a marginal trading partner for them (7% of their exports). Does the Australian food industry rely on overnight truck delivery to EU markets? Does Australia import a significant share of its food from the EU? Does Australia export cars to the EU? Do hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs rely on trade with the EU? Do thousands of Australian hauliers drive into the EU every day? It's a transparently meaningless comparison whose sole purpose is to obfuscate: they have found that "no deal" plays badly with the public - as it should because it will be a total shitshow - and have come up with a new phrase that sounds less scary if you don't understand that it means the same thing. This sums up our Vote Leave administration - their only skill is in lying, and fair play to them they are great at it, but when it comes to actually governing they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
Is that clear enough?
This is what I mean when I say you're Tory CCHQ PR
Why? Because I recognise spin when I see it?
I came of age politically when Alastair Campbell was operating in Downing Street. Recognising spin has nothing to do with the Tories alone.
If you don't think re-branding No Deal - which is what it is - to "Australia terms" is spin, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
Why not call it North Korea terms?
What are you talking about?
I said that it is spin, so how is that me saying it isn't spin? 🤷🏻♂️
The reason not to call it North Korea terms is North Korea is bad while Australia is good. If you're spinning you want what you are saying to sound good not bad.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I don't support them blocking you having another referendum. I don't support the Tories on everything and I've made it clear I would oppose Westminster blocking another referendum if you win the Holyrood election next year.
You do support Johnson on everything he does, you just occasionally do a bit of flip flopping before inevitably falling back into line again.
I really don't care, I just find it dishonest. It's like me claiming not to support Starmer when it's obvious I do.
The difference is PB Tories bring it up constantly for me yet PB Tories never bring it up for their own. Hypocrisy as usual.
Tory Ultras (otherwise known as the provisional wing of the Farage Party) have plenty of contradictory positions. It's surely enough to know what they ARE without concerning yourself with their various disclaimers.
New Zealand last week seemed to work pretty well in valuing everybody's vote, for example.
There's some strange curiosities in the New Zealand election results. According to Wikipedia one-sixth of the votes - so-called special votes - haven't been counted yet.
Also, Labour did a lot better in the party list vote than the electorate vote, which is a pattern I don't quite understand. I would have expected it to be the other way round, as with the SNP in Holyrood elections.
There isn't an aggregate for the electorate vote that I can find, but Wikipedia has Labour winning the party vote in 68 of the 72 electorates, but only winning the electorate vote in 43.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
Is that clear enough?
This is what I mean when I say you're Tory CCHQ PR
Why? Because I recognise spin when I see it?
I came of age politically when Alastair Campbell was operating in Downing Street. Recognising spin has nothing to do with the Tories alone.
If you don't think re-branding No Deal - which is what it is - to "Australia terms" is spin, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
Why not call it North Korea terms?
What are you talking about?
I said that it is spin, so how is that me saying it isn't spin? 🤷🏻♂️
The reason not to call it North Korea terms is North Korea is bad while Australia is good. If you're spinning you want what you are saying to sound good not bad.
So you are happy to lie to the UK public about our wonderful Australia like EU Deal when no such deal exists, call it no deal and explain how it’s going to be great without shit like sovereignty which doesn’t put food on the table.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
Is that clear enough?
Not really. Is it to be 'like Australia', or one of the 'lots of countries like Australia' ?
And what will be the trade arrangements on January 1st - Australia, or just falling back on our membership of the WTO ? Or something different again ?
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
We share a border with the EU and the EU accounts for nearly half of our trade. Australia is on the other side of the world and the EU is a marginal trading partner for them (7% of their exports). Does the Australian food industry rely on overnight truck delivery to EU markets? Does Australia import a significant share of its food from the EU? Does Australia export cars to the EU? Do hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs rely on trade with the EU? Do thousands of Australian hauliers drive into the EU every day? It's a transparently meaningless comparison whose sole purpose is to obfuscate: they have found that "no deal" plays badly with the public - as it should because it will be a total shitshow - and have come up with a new phrase that sounds less scary if you don't understand that it means the same thing. This sums up our Vote Leave administration - their only skill is in lying, and fair play to them they are great at it, but when it comes to actually governing they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.
Bollocks.
Yes we trade with the EU because we're neighbours. Guess what - once we've left transition, even if it is no deal, we will continue to trade with the EU. Because guess what, we will still be neighbours.
Whether we get a deal or not is relatively inconsequential to any of that. There will still need to be paperwork and delays whether we get a deal or not because we won't be in their customs union whether we get a deal or not - solving that issue by ensuring the border runs smoothly is far more consequential than whether there is a deal or not.
People like you pretend that no deal would mean no trade with Europe but that is total codswallop. Just as surely as I can drink some Aussie Shiraz tonight if I want to, we will be able to trade with Europe in January whether we are doing so on Aussie or Canadian terms.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
How many lorries travel between Australia and the EU each day?
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
Is that clear enough?
I've said it before, Philip is just trolling, don't rise to it.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
New Zealand last week seemed to work pretty well in valuing everybody's vote, for example.
There's some strange curiosities in the New Zealand election results. According to Wikipedia one-sixth of the votes - so-called special votes - haven't been counted yet.
Also, Labour did a lot better in the party list vote than the electorate vote, which is a pattern I don't quite understand. I would have expected it to be the other way round, as with the SNP in Holyrood elections.
There isn't an aggregate for the electorate vote that I can find, but Wikipedia has Labour winning the party vote in 68 of the 72 electorates, but only winning the electorate vote in 43.
The SNP has entrenched constituency representatives. So does National. So you can vote to say I like my sitting National MP. But I want Ardern as PM. This is the obvious explanation. The special votes are postal, overseas and proxy ballots. I doubt they will change much.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
Is that clear enough?
This is what I mean when I say you're Tory CCHQ PR
Why? Because I recognise spin when I see it?
I came of age politically when Alastair Campbell was operating in Downing Street. Recognising spin has nothing to do with the Tories alone.
If you don't think re-branding No Deal - which is what it is - to "Australia terms" is spin, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
Why not call it North Korea terms?
What are you talking about?
I said that it is spin, so how is that me saying it isn't spin? 🤷🏻♂️
The reason not to call it North Korea terms is North Korea is bad while Australia is good. If you're spinning you want what you are saying to sound good not bad.
So you are happy to lie to the UK public about our wonderful Australia like EU Deal when no such deal exists, call it no deal and explain how it’s going to be great without shit like sovereignty which doesn’t put food on the table.
Saying Australia style trade is not a lie because that is what it will be, you could just as equally call it a World Trade deal. Countries trade all over the globe on a free trade world trade basis and that puts food on the table, you don't need to be part of the EU to trade.
1. What tariffs apply to Australian lamb imported into the EU? 2. What tariffs would apply to British lamb imported into the EU under an 'Austrialia-style' deal?
Needless to say, the answers to these two questions are rather uncomfortable for those advocating what they laughably call an 'Australia-style' deal.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
It's not independence, it's an Australia-style relationship with England.
The tories have had four years to sort out brexit now less than 80 days from transition end they still haven’t a clue what needs doing, are too busy posturing to the nasty little englander brigade, devoid of ideas and so self entitled they think the EU should just give them what they want rather than accept they are in a piss poor position made wore by their own dallying and internal differences. Yet the UK voted for it so they can bloody well suck it up and enjoy, good luck to them
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I don't support them blocking you having another referendum. I don't support the Tories on everything and I've made it clear I would oppose Westminster blocking another referendum if you win the Holyrood election next year.
Lol
ARE YOU LISTENING BORIS, ARE YOU LISTENING DOM?!
Boris will be looking at how the Scots Tories do in 2021. It's quite possible that they will do relatively well by consolidating the Unionist vote, even if there is an overall pro-Indy majority. In those circumstances, which I consider quite likely, the chances of a Section 30 are close to zero.
Does your 'relatively well' mean gains or limiting losses?
For Johnson I would imagine that staying second, ahead of Labour, is the main criterion. It's one of the reasons why the Tories and the SNP have a shared interest in maintaining the prominence of the issue of Independence.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
It's not independence, it's an Australia-style relationship with England.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
Given the alignment between Scotland and the rest of the UK, it should be the easiest deal ever. Ms Sturgeon might even have an Oven-ready Deal handy...
Yes, it's rather worrying. I hope she's OK. It's a reminder that even someone relatively young (she's 57) can be badly hit by Covid-19.
Not good, though she sounds upbeat. Hopefully she can get well soon.
An important lesson why we need the hospitals not to get overwhelmed, if they do it won't be just the 80-somethings that need treatment - she can hopefully get over pneumonia in hospital with good care but if the hospitals collapse it would be a scary prospect for a lot of people whom I would not call elderly.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
Is that clear enough?
This is what I mean when I say you're Tory CCHQ PR
Why? Because I recognise spin when I see it?
I came of age politically when Alastair Campbell was operating in Downing Street. Recognising spin has nothing to do with the Tories alone.
If you don't think re-branding No Deal - which is what it is - to "Australia terms" is spin, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
Why not call it North Korea terms?
What are you talking about?
I said that it is spin, so how is that me saying it isn't spin? 🤷🏻♂️
The reason not to call it North Korea terms is North Korea is bad while Australia is good. If you're spinning you want what you are saying to sound good not bad.
So you are happy to lie to the UK public about our wonderful Australia like EU Deal when no such deal exists, call it no deal and explain how it’s going to be great without shit like sovereignty which doesn’t put food on the table.
Saying Australia style trade is not a lie because that is what it will be, you could just as equally call it a World Trade deal. Countries trade all over the globe on a free trade world trade basis and that puts food on the table, you don't need to be part of the EU to trade.
So what does Australia's trade deal with the EU have to say about lorries travelling between the two territories?
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I don't support them blocking you having another referendum. I don't support the Tories on everything and I've made it clear I would oppose Westminster blocking another referendum if you win the Holyrood election next year.
You do support Johnson on everything he does, you just occasionally do a bit of flip flopping before inevitably falling back into line again.
I really don't care, I just find it dishonest. It's like me claiming not to support Starmer when it's obvious I do.
The difference is PB Tories bring it up constantly for me yet PB Tories never bring it up for their own. Hypocrisy as usual.
Tory Ultras (otherwise known as the provisional wing of the Farage Party) have plenty of contradictory positions. It's surely enough to know what they ARE without concerning yourself with their various disclaimers.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
If Scotland leaves the UK constitutionally, Spain is not going to object to EU membership. The argument with Catalonia is that the Catalans do not want to secede constitutionally.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
Spain has never opposed an independent Scotland joining the EU. The view of the PP, who are more hardline about this that the socialists, was that as long as the separation was done within an agreed constitutional framework, Spain has no problem. That line could be hardened should Ciudadanos find themselves in a position of high influence in the government, but that's not looking particularly likely. It has been mischievously reported that Spain would block Scottish accession, but that bears almost no relation to the actual positions and statements of major Spanish parties.
Someone else can fill in the blanks about Belgium, I know basically nothing about that country.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
We share a border with the EU and the EU accounts for nearly half of our trade. Australia is on the other side of the world and the EU is a marginal trading partner for them (7% of their exports). Does the Australian food industry rely on overnight truck delivery to EU markets? Does Australia import a significant share of its food from the EU? Does Australia export cars to the EU? Do hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs rely on trade with the EU? Do thousands of Australian hauliers drive into the EU every day? It's a transparently meaningless comparison whose sole purpose is to obfuscate: they have found that "no deal" plays badly with the public - as it should because it will be a total shitshow - and have come up with a new phrase that sounds less scary if you don't understand that it means the same thing. This sums up our Vote Leave administration - their only skill is in lying, and fair play to them they are great at it, but when it comes to actually governing they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.
Bollocks.
Yes we trade with the EU because we're neighbours. Guess what - once we've left transition, even if it is no deal, we will continue to trade with the EU. Because guess what, we will still be neighbours.
Whether we get a deal or not is relatively inconsequential to any of that. There will still need to be paperwork and delays whether we get a deal or not because we won't be in their customs union whether we get a deal or not - solving that issue by ensuring the border runs smoothly is far more consequential than whether there is a deal or not.
People like you pretend that no deal would mean no trade with Europe but that is total codswallop. Just as surely as I can drink some Aussie Shiraz tonight if I want to, we will be able to trade with Europe in January whether we are doing so on Aussie or Canadian terms.
Er of course I don't think it will mean no trade with the EU? Did I say that? Are you on the Shiraz already? The point is that we trade about 6x more with the EU proportionately than Australia does so it is much more important that we have a deal to facilitate that trade. The whole Australia thing is a sideshow and we are only discussing it because it has been introduced into the debate to confuse soft-headed people. No deal is utter madness and to even contemplate it in the midst of a pandemic is criminally irresponsible. I don't think it will happen, but if it does I fear for the state of the country come January.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
The second Yes wins a referendum the Spanish will be wanting to show the Scots are nothing like the Catalans and that the UK is not a precedence for them (any more than the breakup of Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia was).
If they play silly with the Scots then it would be a futile gesture (since it won't stop Scottish Independence) and it would go against them trying to show that the Scots are nothing to do with the Catalans.
State aid is the sticking point whatever the sound and fury over fish.
Philosophically the UK has had a longer, stronger and more consistent aversion to state aid than most EU countries or the EU bureaucracy. I think the sticking point is the EU insistence that any disputes must ultimately be resolved by the ECJ. But before it gets to that point it is currently the European Commission and the courts of member states that carry out the determination, and the EU position is that the UK would need to set up a counterpart to the Commission to enforce the rules.
The idea that state aid can be used to give firms competitive advantage cuts both ways - an EU member could undercut the UK with state aid. So some mechanism of arbitrage that is joint between the EU and the UK is needed. But I can't see the EU giving up on the ultimate supremacy of the ECJ. Perhaps secondment of British judges to the ECJ for cases involving disputes that involve the UK could be an answer.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
I'm going to vote yes. A small country in the EU benefitting from EU regional development largesse vs ignored by successive governments and dragged along regardless of the will of the people.
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
What makes you think Scotland will benefit from "EU regional development largesse"? Why would Spain and Belgium, both under huge pressure from separatists, agree to that?
If Scotland leaves the UK constitutionally, Spain is not going to object to EU membership. The argument with Catalonia is that the Catalans do not want to secede constitutionally.
That's not my point. They won't veto membership but they certainly have no interest in helping Scotland transition to EU membership in a way that pays. Simply encourages Catalan nationalism. Countries put the national interest first every time.
What's "oh dear" about that. It is exactly what he said.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
We share a border with the EU and the EU accounts for nearly half of our trade. Australia is on the other side of the world and the EU is a marginal trading partner for them (7% of their exports). Does the Australian food industry rely on overnight truck delivery to EU markets? Does Australia import a significant share of its food from the EU? Does Australia export cars to the EU? Do hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs rely on trade with the EU? Do thousands of Australian hauliers drive into the EU every day? It's a transparently meaningless comparison whose sole purpose is to obfuscate: they have found that "no deal" plays badly with the public - as it should because it will be a total shitshow - and have come up with a new phrase that sounds less scary if you don't understand that it means the same thing. This sums up our Vote Leave administration - their only skill is in lying, and fair play to them they are great at it, but when it comes to actually governing they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.
Bollocks.
Yes we trade with the EU because we're neighbours. Guess what - once we've left transition, even if it is no deal, we will continue to trade with the EU. Because guess what, we will still be neighbours.
Whether we get a deal or not is relatively inconsequential to any of that. There will still need to be paperwork and delays whether we get a deal or not because we won't be in their customs union whether we get a deal or not - solving that issue by ensuring the border runs smoothly is far more consequential than whether there is a deal or not.
People like you pretend that no deal would mean no trade with Europe but that is total codswallop. Just as surely as I can drink some Aussie Shiraz tonight if I want to, we will be able to trade with Europe in January whether we are doing so on Aussie or Canadian terms.
Er of course I don't think it will mean no trade with the EU? Did I say that? Are you on the Shiraz already? The point is that we trade about 6x more with the EU proportionately than Australia does so it is much more important that we have a deal to facilitate that trade. The whole Australia thing is a sideshow and we are only discussing it because it has been introduced into the debate to confuse soft-headed people. No deal is utter madness and to even contemplate it in the midst of a pandemic is criminally irresponsible. I don't think it will happen, but if it does I fear for the state of the country come January.
No deal is not that bad. It means an average of 3% tariffs - our currency fluctuates by more than 3%.
New Zealand last week seemed to work pretty well in valuing everybody's vote, for example.
There's some strange curiosities in the New Zealand election results. According to Wikipedia one-sixth of the votes - so-called special votes - haven't been counted yet.
Also, Labour did a lot better in the party list vote than the electorate vote, which is a pattern I don't quite understand. I would have expected it to be the other way round, as with the SNP in Holyrood elections.
There isn't an aggregate for the electorate vote that I can find, but Wikipedia has Labour winning the party vote in 68 of the 72 electorates, but only winning the electorate vote in 43.
The SNP has entrenched constituency representatives. So does National. So you can vote to say I like my sitting National MP. But I want Ardern as PM. This is the obvious explanation. The special votes are postal, overseas and proxy ballots. I doubt they will change much.
Some of the special votes are due to the fact that people can vote in a polling station other than the one where they live.
Since MMP came in NZers have become adept at splitting their vote, to get a strong local champion but also who they want at the national level.
For example, this time around the Maori Party ran a vote splitting campaign in one of the Maori electorates as the Labour MP was highly placed on the national list - so it became get 2 Maori representatives for the price of one.
One of the differences with the NZ system is that almost all of the list MPs also stand in a constituency and so several have used a strategy of championing their area as a list MP then winning the electorate next time around
Comments
ARE YOU LISTENING BORIS, ARE YOU LISTENING DOM?!
One is to put it explicitly in a manifesto. The other is to wait a year.
Those are both quite useful rules. The first encourages parties to be upfront about their plans in their manifesto, which is good for democracy. The second gives cooling-off time if- purely hypothetically- a Prime Minister is prone to throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. (Keeping a tantrum up for a week is easy-peasy. Doing so for a year isn't.)
If a government has a vital bill that it doesn't put in a manifesto and doesn't introduce in time... well, is their lack of planning and candour our emergency?
Though I do suspect that some democracies have fewer flaws than either the UK or the EU. New Zealand last week seemed to work pretty well in valuing everybody's vote, for example.
Having said that, it's entirely possible for the weight of money on two horse contests like this to bear little relation to the final outcome.
And after all, however accurate the polls are, you have at least 40% of the population on either side, and there are probably more punters impervious to evidence in the Trump camp.
Therefore, if Boris does want a deal, then he needs something he can portray as a great victory for our intrepid fishermen. There doesn't need to be much reality to it, of course, and whatever it is, it will also have to leave room for Macron and the other leaders of the coastal states to claim it's a great victory for their fishermen. Tricky, but probably not impossible, if the UK government hasn't gone completely bonkers.
'It's a question of semantics at the end of the day.'
https://twitter.com/ShelaghFogarty/status/1318122720710828034?s=20
If we are going to get into the business of attaching significance to turnout, we end up in pointless discussions that can never be settled. You might think that:
1. Scotland cared less about Leave/Remain than it did about Yes/No
but someone might counter that:
2. Scotland knew its choice probably wouldn't make a difference to the overall result
or even:
3. There was significant voter fatigue, following the Holyrood election a few weeks earlier.
Both narratives are opinions that can never really be proven to the satisfaction of your opponents. It's probably best to stick with the facts: Scotland's decision in 2014 was No to independence; Scotland's decision in 2016 was Remain in the EU.
Anything beyond that requires some level of evidence to support your opinion, for example election results.
FWIW, the general election results in Scotland say this to me:
2017: we still might turn Brexit around, so let's not rush into any further divisions now
2019: ok, England's too far gone, let's talk about another referendum
Personally, I don't find turnout to be a particularly convincing part of any narrative.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/07/brexit-deal-beckons-no-10-stops-stubborn-state-aid/
Though of course Philip did not vote for Hague in 2001 but did vote for Farage in May 2019 so if he is determined to refuse to compromise with the EU on anything, even state aid, I am sure Philip can go back to voting Brexit Party and will receive a warm welcome from Nigel Farage
We've then had four years, where even if you have the lowest of expectations and try to ignore the guy, he still comes out with something jaw droppingly shocking every few weeks.
He's made the unbelievable believable, and I wonder if that's affecting the betting?
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
= 5% VAT rate. But the VAT rate is 20%.
And on government, our parliamentary democracy consists of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Ellon & District By-election (15 October 2020) - 1 Seat
Party
SNP Louise Mcallister 42.4% 1,683
Conservative John Crawley 41.7% 1,658
Liberal Democrats Trevor Mason 10.2% 405
Labour John Bennett 2.9% 114
Scottish Green Peter Kennedy 2.8% 112
Electorate: 11,893 Valid: 3,972 Spoilt: 34 Quota: NA Turnout: 33.7%
(By-election that took place last week in Aberdeenshire). SNP up 10%, Tory vote up marginally, Lab and LibDem down badly - compared to 2017 local elections.
That would represent an uplift in Tory performance from 2016 when the last Scottish Parliament elections took place.
Our fishing industry employs 24,000 jobs and is worth £1.4bn GDP.
More important for Unionists is getting SLab to gain SNP seats in the central belt and the SLDs to gain SNP seats in the Highlands through Tory tactical voting next year
The Lords are not democratic. They may be part of our Parliament but they are not a part of our democracy.
Yes, I know about the 2019 election result and the fiddled referendum.
It obviously doesn't prove the proposition "control the virus and your economy does better", however much that might be true, but it does show, as I said, our poor performance in terms of raw outcomes.
I really don't care, I just find it dishonest. It's like me claiming not to support Starmer when it's obvious I do.
The difference is PB Tories bring it up constantly for me yet PB Tories never bring it up for their own. Hypocrisy as usual.
2. It is tempting to give up with you on the whole parliamentary democracy thing but I think it is safe to say that when it comes to our system of government, ours is a Parliamentary Democracy. And there is a clue in the term "Houses of Parliament" that should allow you to work out what that comprises.
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1318126772903415808?s=20
So, Mr Sharma, you're saying "It's a question of what it means."
Yes. Yes it is. That's quite literally what you were asked.
The term is just context, to make it clear what 'no deal' means rather than thinking we will be ostracised outsiders that actually lots of countries like Australia operate on that basis.
At evens I would take the Conservatives winning fewer seats than 2016 right now.
Fyi the last 2 Holyrood polls have the SCons losing 8 and 6 seats respectively.
- I oppose the 66% furlough applying to my region and have said it should be 80% if people are banned by law from working.
- I think more support should be given to businesses forced by law to close or operate under artificial non-mingling restrictions, akin to a compulsory purchase order.
- I opposed the student grades algorithm and said it should be reversed.
- I oppose the Triple Lock and have called for it to be scrapped despite Boris pledging to keep it.
- I called for a u-turn on charging foreign NHS and Care workers the NHS surcharge before it happened.
- I supported the Brady Amendment on Parliamentary oversight of Covid restrictions and do not think Ministers should be able to change the law without a vote in the Commons.
- I opposed Johnson voting for May's deal in MV3
Need I go on? Well over half a dozen times where I disagree - please don't question my honesty that in undignified.PS don't mix "PB Tories" up together, just because some PB Tories may bring things up with you doesn't mean that I do so its not hypocrisy unless I do. I am not other PB Tories, we are not a hive collective.
A very modest improvement would overturn the 8 or 6 seat loss into an increase. Tory list vote in 2016, which delivered 31 MSPs, was only 23%. Considerably lower than 2017 and 2019 GE results.
Anyone who considers "the Right" to be a hive mind is an imbecilic fool.
People are individuals not a collective. The standard does go both ways.
Are you happy with that?
I came of age politically when Alastair Campbell was operating in Downing Street. Recognising spin has nothing to do with the Tories alone.
Why not call it North Korea terms?
It's a transparently meaningless comparison whose sole purpose is to obfuscate: they have found that "no deal" plays badly with the public - as it should because it will be a total shitshow - and have come up with a new phrase that sounds less scary if you don't understand that it means the same thing. This sums up our Vote Leave administration - their only skill is in lying, and fair play to them they are great at it, but when it comes to actually governing they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.
Sure we'll all send our best wishes
I said that it is spin, so how is that me saying it isn't spin? 🤷🏻♂️
The reason not to call it North Korea terms is North Korea is bad while Australia is good. If you're spinning you want what you are saying to sound good not bad.
Also, Labour did a lot better in the party list vote than the electorate vote, which is a pattern I don't quite understand. I would have expected it to be the other way round, as with the SNP in Holyrood elections.
There isn't an aggregate for the electorate vote that I can find, but Wikipedia has Labour winning the party vote in 68 of the 72 electorates, but only winning the electorate vote in 43.
Is it to be 'like Australia', or one of the 'lots of countries like Australia' ?
And what will be the trade arrangements on January 1st - Australia, or just falling back on our membership of the WTO ? Or something different again ?
Yes we trade with the EU because we're neighbours. Guess what - once we've left transition, even if it is no deal, we will continue to trade with the EU. Because guess what, we will still be neighbours.
Whether we get a deal or not is relatively inconsequential to any of that. There will still need to be paperwork and delays whether we get a deal or not because we won't be in their customs union whether we get a deal or not - solving that issue by ensuring the border runs smoothly is far more consequential than whether there is a deal or not.
People like you pretend that no deal would mean no trade with Europe but that is total codswallop. Just as surely as I can drink some Aussie Shiraz tonight if I want to, we will be able to trade with Europe in January whether we are doing so on Aussie or Canadian terms.
https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1317981005576196097
Nor can people bleat on about punitive border arrangements. Whatever amazing arrangements Shagger secures for the UK would apply. And it will definitely be quicker, cheaper and less red-tapey than our existing very fast no red tape at all arrangements. McHuzzah!
So you can vote to say I like my sitting National MP. But I want Ardern as PM. This is the obvious explanation.
The special votes are postal, overseas and proxy ballots. I doubt they will change much.
1. What tariffs apply to Australian lamb imported into the EU?
2. What tariffs would apply to British lamb imported into the EU under an 'Austrialia-style' deal?
Needless to say, the answers to these two questions are rather uncomfortable for those advocating what they laughably call an 'Australia-style' deal.
https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/1318138163802537985?s=20
PR is a terrible electoral system and I oppose it wholeheartedly.
- The UK will not have a Canada Deal with the EU. It will have "Australian Terms". Australian Terms are neither Australian, nor are they terms.
- The UK will have Australian Terms with Canada on 1 January 2021 and the same with Australia.
- The UK is hoping to get a Canada Deal with Australia and maybe also with Canada
- Australia is working towards a Canada Deal with the EU
- The deal between Canada and Australia is neither Canada nor Australia.
Hope this clears things up.An important lesson why we need the hospitals not to get overwhelmed, if they do it won't be just the 80-somethings that need treatment - she can hopefully get over pneumonia in hospital with good care but if the hospitals collapse it would be a scary prospect for a lot of people whom I would not call elderly.
https://twitter.com/Olivianuzzi/status/1317984963841589248
https://twitter.com/NJ_Timothy/status/1318113996113924096?s=20
It has been mischievously reported that Spain would block Scottish accession, but that bears almost no relation to the actual positions and statements of major Spanish parties.
Someone else can fill in the blanks about Belgium, I know basically nothing about that country.
The point is that we trade about 6x more with the EU proportionately than Australia does so it is much more important that we have a deal to facilitate that trade.
The whole Australia thing is a sideshow and we are only discussing it because it has been introduced into the debate to confuse soft-headed people.
No deal is utter madness and to even contemplate it in the midst of a pandemic is criminally irresponsible. I don't think it will happen, but if it does I fear for the state of the country come January.
I also care about international trade
If they play silly with the Scots then it would be a futile gesture (since it won't stop Scottish Independence) and it would go against them trying to show that the Scots are nothing to do with the Catalans.
Philosophically the UK has had a longer, stronger and more consistent aversion to state aid than most EU countries or the EU bureaucracy. I think the sticking point is the EU insistence that any disputes must ultimately be resolved by the ECJ. But before it gets to that point it is currently the European Commission and the courts of member states that carry out the determination, and the EU position is that the UK would need to set up a counterpart to the Commission to enforce the rules.
The idea that state aid can be used to give firms competitive advantage cuts both ways - an EU member could undercut the UK with state aid. So some mechanism of arbitrage that is joint between the EU and the UK is needed. But I can't see the EU giving up on the ultimate supremacy of the ECJ. Perhaps secondment of British judges to the ECJ for cases involving disputes that involve the UK could be an answer.
This is useful:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/state-aid
Sorry, but I want to vote for 6 individuals.
Since MMP came in NZers have become adept at splitting their vote, to get a strong local champion but also who they want at the national level.
For example, this time around the Maori Party ran a vote splitting campaign in one of the Maori electorates as the Labour MP was highly placed on the national list - so it became get 2 Maori representatives for the price of one.
One of the differences with the NZ system is that almost all of the list MPs also stand in a constituency and so several have used a strategy of championing their area as a list MP then winning the electorate next time around