politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Would President Hillary Clinton inspire Labour to choose a

On topic, Yvette Cooper's is someone I'd be laying and not backing.

I don't need to remind PBers of the reason why the country will never elect Yvette Cooper as PM?

NickPalmer said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, Labour would do well to pick the best candidate based on the contents of his or her character. If they want a female leader, then they need to select and promote women with the skills needed for the post. Unless they excel on the front bench in their shadow role, there is no point promoting them higher just to tick a 'been there, done that' box.

Yes - I think members don't in general think in terms of gender or race when choosing - Khan wasn't selected because he was a Muslim but because he was mildly leftish and competent, over Jowell who was mildly rightish (in Labour terms) but competent. The example of Thatcher (who, whatever some here think, is not seen as a role model by Labour members) reminds members of the limits of a female=good meme.

Fox's analysis looks right to me. Creasy is IMO the most charismatic of the names mentioned and could win if she caught the party in pragmatic mood. Nandy could win on a "mildly left but little baggage" ticket, like Khan. I can't see anyone from the former top tier making it.

Creasey - yes, I can well see a good run there, but I'm sure I read somewhere that she's not popular with other Lab MPs, perhaps because she clearly is charismatic and can get attention even as a backbencher.

Nandy looks to me, on TV at least, as someone who has the fierce ambition required, but speaking personally she comes across as a little off-putting in a strange way.

SquareRoot said:

Yvette isn't good enough, cannot command. There isn't a woman that I can think of in Labour who could lead.. and win..

For the Tories.. once Dave has gone, it'll have to be Hammond, or the Tories will be equally fecked.. What price the Lib Dems to come thro' the middle...

Only 15 days (is it) of this interminable referendum, that isn'r even binding.. its turning into a farce.. Is anyone but the diehards listening to the continual stream of lies.

Could well be Hammond v McDonnell in 2020

TOPPING said:

haha great question on R4: "if we leave the EU will the EU still use English?"

That should be a Leave red line - if we leave then we forbid the EU from using our language.

Don't be a fool - we can lease it to them, that's a good revenue stream.

Guido wrong about two Lib Dem MPs election expenses:
http://www.markpack.org.uk/140970/tessa-munt-election-expenses/
No such luck for the Tories:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/did-the-conservatives-steal-the-election-by-failing-to-declare-local-campaign-spending-a7065341.html

Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.

That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.

Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, Yvette Cooper's is someone I'd be laying and not backing.

I don't need to remind PBers of the reason why the country will never elect Yvette Cooper as PM?

If it is something to do with the former member for Morley, I'd rather you didn't.

HYUFD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

There are only two kinds of voters - those who adore Boris & Nigel on the one hand and treacherous lefty intellectual scum on the other. Close down all the universities and burn all their graduates alive alive-o!!

You would then be burning Boris Johnson MA Oxon

You don't get it, do you?

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Ive had no time for Woolaston since she claimed that reopening the Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton line would be a 'disaster' in 2014

Sod North Devon and North Cornwall, we want all the trains ourselves even if a dawlish diversion line instead round the sea wall would cost five times as much money as reopening via Okehampton and Tavistock.

Narrow minded parochialism in my opinion

http://m.plymouthherald.co.uk/MP-warns-Plymouth-rail-link-reopening-disaster/story-21042265-detail/story.html

Utterly selfish - I suspect, however, she is going to get her way.

On topic, Nandy might be a serious contender insofar as she is possibly electable by the far-left extremists who have taken over the party membership, but has the good sense and ambition to move sharply to the right once in office. I'd like to think Stella would be a candidate - she is excellent - but I doubt the Corbynistas would consider her one of them.

Innocent_Abroad said:

HYUFD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

There are only two kinds of voters - those who adore Boris & Nigel on the one hand and treacherous lefty intellectual scum on the other. Close down all the universities and burn all their graduates alive alive-o!!

You would then be burning Boris Johnson MA Oxon

You don't get it, do you?

You will find some leftwingers who like Boris and Nigel like Kate Hoey and some right-wing graduates who hate them like George Osborne

TwistedFireStopper said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TOPPING said:

Harris_Tweed said:

kle4 said:

It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.

Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.

In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.

The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.

But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.

Hard to disagree with that, Topping.

Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.

You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.

As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.

That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.

Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?

Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.

This was very well timed.

Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.

Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.

Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.

Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.

Unfortunately, it seems as if the Leave campaign does seem to have been UKIPed though. The recent tone adopted by key advocates allows Cameron to get away with that claim.

Been in Spain a week now. It feels very good indeed to be away from the referendum.

Jobabob said:

On topic, Nandy might be a serious contender insofar as she is possibly electable by the far-left extremists who have taken over the party membership, but has the good sense and ambition to move sharply to the right once in office. I'd like to think Stella would be a candidate - she is excellent - but I doubt the Corbynistas would consider her one of them.

McDonnell pre 2020 and Umunna or Khan post 2020 is how I see it

I would imagine Wollaston was a simple plant. A time bomb, a little like the former Tory Ukippers in the Euro elex who suddenly discovered they were in an apallingly racist party and saw the Tory light. It would be interesting to look at her voting record. Dirty politics, but quite effective, especially when you can count on the Broadcast media to put the right angle on it.

TwistedFireStopper said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TOPPING said:

Harris_Tweed said:

kle4 said:

It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.

Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.

In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.

The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.

But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.

Hard to disagree with that, Topping.

Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.

You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.

As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.

That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.

Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?

Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.

This was very well timed.

Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.

Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.

Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.

Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.

The funny thing about the "Little Englander" jibe is that it originally applied to the Cobden/Bright wing of the Liberal Party, who thought Britain should just mind its own business, and not get involved in costly wars. In that sense, it's a fitting description of what the Leave campaign is about.

SouthamObserver said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TOPPING said:

Harris_Tweed said:

kle4 said:

It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.

Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.

In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.

The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.

But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.

Hard to disagree with that, Topping.

Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.

You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.

As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.

That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.

Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?

Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.

This was very well timed.

Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.

Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision

Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.

Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.

Unfortunately, it seems as if the Leave campaign does seem to have been UKIPed though. The recent tone adopted by key advocates allows Cameron to get away with that claim.

It was only launched following the Farage v Cameron ITV Q&A, which is precisely why Vote Leave were so angry about it.

Expect to see a much more positive hopeful case tonight, like Gove last Friday.

AlastairMeeks said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Jobabob said:

Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.

That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.

Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.

I don't understand how the campaign can have changed anyone's mind who was firm. The last significant thing that happened is the renegotiation.

Actually the last significant thing that happened was Leave ruling out the EEA option.

Not quite true. The decision Leave took at the beginning of the month to campaign exclusively and aggressively on immigration was the last significant thing.

Leavers seem to be irked by being tarred with Nigel Farage and being labelled as Little Englanders, but Leave is campaigning on Nigel Farage's terms.

True dat.

Casino_Royale said:

Jobabob said:

Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.

That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.

Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.

No. She will never be trusted again.

By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.

TheScreamingEagles said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TOPPING said:

Harris_Tweed said:

kle4 said:

It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.

Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the

In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.

The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.

But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.

Hard to disagree with that, Topping.

Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.

You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.

As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.

That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.

Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?

Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.

This was very well timed.

Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.

Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.

Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.

Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.

I suspect because of the frequency it has been used it has been message tested/focus grouped to death and has been determined to be a success.

It seems like something Sir Lynton and Mark Textor might have come up with.

I can understand that, but who are they trying to sway? I know it's not meant to come over that way, but it pisses off an awful lot of patriotic, English working class. Maybe Cameron doesn't need them for the EU referendum, but the Tory party needs them afterwards. Bloke's a tosser:-)

Casino_Royale said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jobabob said:

Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.

That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.

Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.

No. She will never be trusted again.

By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.

No, by anyone in the Tory Party.

I have a feeling that your reaction might be different if, say, Sajid Javid had defected to Leave.

O/T. There are a myriad of paths in the probability tree that lead to the selection of a future Labour leader and it is frankly very difficult to know where to begin. The most immediate question is whether Corbyn's allies succeed in the rule changes they are seeking to (a) ensure that the leader is guaranteed a place on the ballot rather than having to gain nominations of 15% of MPs and (b) reduce the threshold for challengers to 5%.

If yes, then it is possible that if and when Labour are well behind in the polls in say 2018, and Corbyn realises he can't win, Corbyn's allies might persuade him to stand down in the knowledge that an alternative candidate of the left would get the 5% and make the ballot. McDonnell would then I think be the left candidate and the strong favourite, and as he is generally seen as a sharper and more capable operator and the membership base that voted in Corbyn would still be there to support him.

Discount that scenario, and I think it is still far from odds on that Corbyn will go voluntarily, then we are left with Corbyn almost certainly fighting off the inevitable leadership challenge and going on to lose in 2020. So we need to consider this in terms of the mood of the Labour Party amidst the recriminations of what seems likely to be a bad election defeat in 2020, with a party desperate to find someone electable such that candidates from other wings of the party would stand a better chance, and that would include a female candidate.

@MrFirestopper.

This is from Marcus who works for YouGov now. He's looked at the polling

Politically, the undecideds are more likely to vote Conservative and dislike Nigel Farage. This is largely because the people who like Farage most are pro-Brexiters and the one thing they are not is undecided. Those who are either in favour of remaining in the EU or are still making up their minds tend to actively dislike the Ukip leader, meaning he is more likely to turn off swing voters than bring them into the Leave camp.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2016/06/how-important-are-tv-debates-deciding-eu-referendum

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jobabob said:

Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.

That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.

Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.

No. She will never be trusted again.

By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.

No, by anyone in the Tory Party.

I have a feeling that your reaction might be different if, say, Sajid Javid had defected to Leave.

To be honest, any politician defecting at this stage looks stupid.

TwistedFireStopper said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TOPPING said:

Harris_Tweed said:

kle4 said:

It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.

Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the

In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.

The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.

But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.

Hard to the first place.

As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.

That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.

Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?

Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.

This was very well timed.

Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.

Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.

Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.

Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.

I suspect because of the frequency it has been used it has been message tested/focus grouped to death and has been determined to be a success.

It seems like something Sir Lynton and Mark Textor might have come up with.

I can understand that, but who are they trying to sway? I know it's not meant to come over that way, but it pisses off an awful lot of patriotic, English working class. Maybe Cameron doesn't need them for the EU referendum, but the Tory party needs them afterwards. Bloke's a tosser:-)

This is going down to the wire. They accept they can't win over Provincial England, so they must maximise turnout elsewhere.

TwistedFireStopper said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@MrFirestopper.

This is from Marcus who works for YouGov now. He's looked at the polling

Politically, the undecideds are more likely to vote Conservative and dislike Nigel Farage. This is largely because the people who like Farage most are pro-Brexiters and the one thing they are not is undecided. Those who are either in favour of remaining in the EU or are still making up their minds tend to actively dislike the Ukip leader, meaning he is more likely to turn off swing voters than bring them into the Leave camp.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2016/06/how-important-are-tv-debates-deciding-eu-referendum

I'm a strange beast. I don't like Farage or UKIP but am mildly Leave. Cameron doesn't want me back,

Of course you're strange. You visit PB for starters.

Just reading the Times - apparently Hague has urged voters to look beyond their "parochial concerns".

Nice one Billy; how about you worry about your concerns and stop insisting that everyone else's are parochial just because they haven't worked at the Foreign Office.

Mr. Quidder, that's my view as well. At best, Wollaston is frit.

The Labour Party has been captured by the hard left. If they ever do choose a woman leader it's going to Diane Abbot or some such horror story.

david_herdson said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jobabob said:

Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.

That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.

Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.

No. She will never be trusted again.

By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.

If the boundary review is completed successfully this time, she is likely to need to face reselection (as most MPs are). Her first hurdle will be convincing an Association membership which may not include many (or any) of her current constituents that what she says cant be trusted.

Her Totnes constituency has quite a small population:

http://tinyurl.com/jd2gsun

Jobabob said:

@Sean_Fear

What a horrific picture. Leave winning despite every major city and commercial centre voting Remain.

Or equally Remain winning despite England outside London voting Leave

Luckyguy1983 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TOPPING said:

Harris_Tweed said:

kle4 said:

It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.

Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.

In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.

The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.

But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.

Hard to disagree with that, Topping.

Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.

You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.

As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laurf only about the NHS claim from the campaign.

That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.

Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?

Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.

This was very well timed.

Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.

Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.

Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.

Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.

I suspect because of the frequency it has been used it has been message tested/focus grouped to death and has been determined to be a success.

It seems like something Sir Lynton and Mark Textor might have come up with.

Yes, it's quite a good line.

Good line of the morning is:

"If you meet a migrant in the NHS they are more likely to be treating you than ahead of you in the queue."
Dr S Wollaston

What a horrific picture. The UK very narrowly voting to Remain but England voting to Leave.

Jobabob said:

@Sean_Fear

What a horrific picture. Leave winning despite every major city and commercial centre voting Remain.

Ain't democracy a bitch!

CD13 said:

If Leave wins, everything is up in the air. The EU is in danger of splitting up. Things will change massively. But if Remain wins, things will also change massively. There is no status quo.

In five years time, we'll be reminded that we voted for closer integration and we'll be moving to political union. Turkey's application may well be looked on favourably. The Government of whatever ilk will point to this referendum as a defining moment.

The people have spoken, and they approve of what we are doing, no matter what Europe proposes. Don't you remember - all these changes were discussed before the referendum.

But we didn't agree to them? Well, you voted for it, end of argument. I won't be arguing, it is politics. I didn't know better in 1975, I do now.

As regards, Dr Wollaston ... a dignified and principled step down from Leave is reasonable, but I'm surprised she's gone directly to Remain. It doesn't have to be a binary choice. It does smack of politics too.

UKIP will get a big boost if Remain win narrowly preventing the next government having a majority

Sean_F said:

Jobabob said:

@Sean_Fear

What a horrific picture. Leave winning despite every major city and commercial centre voting Remain.

That's how the Conservatives won the last general election.

Cameron could win on the back of big majorities in London plus Scotland and add in NI ie he could achieve what Ed Miliband could not

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jobabob said:

Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.

That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.

Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.

No. She will never be trusted again.

By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.

No, by anyone in the Tory Party.

I have a feeling that your reaction might be different if, say, Sajid Javid had defected to Leave.

Yes, it would be because he's always been a Leaver (and leaked private correspondence shows this) but Osborne got to him, and I think he hates himself for it.

I was always nervous about Sarah Wollaston.

Patrick said:

What a horrific picture. The UK very narrowly voting to Remain but England voting to Leave.

Good luck to anybody trying to govern in that outcome. Constitutional horror show.

MarqueeMark said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Furthermore, this is a debate about our membership of the EU. Is she really saying she recommends we leave if one campaign uses a net figure, but because they used the gross we should stay in?

Perhaps she realised that a campaign that plays so fast and loose with the facts and makes such a misrepresentation as it affects an area where she is an expert, might play fast and loose with other elements and facts.

And perhaps she realised also that these are the people that would be leading an independent UK into its glorious future.

And thought: nah.

Or perhaps it was easier to go with your visceral dislike of the EU and all its works when exit seemed a Quixotic dream. But when they got to start leading in polls....that concentrated the mind.

It is a bit weird. Dr Sarah is my MP and I have met her on a number of occasions. Her initial decision was a surprise (especially as MP for Totnes, twinned with Narnia...). I can't believe the tin-foil notion that she was a Remain plant into Leave. I just don't see her as somebody who would go along with that tricksy stuff. But as a constituent her volte face is impossible to comprehend when read alongside the comments she has been making right up to a few days ago. I could understand it if there was something that had materially changed. But all of her comments about the EU stack up today as they did yesterday.

Must be the curse of pb.com. Just as we were saying she was the only MP who had come out of the Referendum with her reputation enhanced, she goes and descends into the general morass of political what-the-fuckery that has been the hallmark of this campaign.....

Yep, odd from her. I certainly doubt she would involve herself in the dark arts and she has always been strongly independently minded.

But fair enough, if this is how she now feels then at least she's been honest enough to say it.

TOPPING said:

Good line of the morning is:

"If you meet a migrant in the NHS they are more likely to be treating you than ahead of you in the queue."
Dr S Wollaston

And there is a good chance they are not from the EU..........

Luckyguy1983 said:

I would imagine Wollaston was a simple plant. A time bomb,

And who says Brexiteers are swivel-eyed tinfoil hatters...

tlg86 said:

MarqueeMark said:

tlg86 said:

david_herdson said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jobabob said:

Dr Sarah Wollaston mentioned possible further defections in her interview with LauraK last night. Presumably some of the more reasonable Leavers are starting to feel uncomfortable with the Faragist Little Englander tone of the campaign that has been allowed to take hold since the Turkey poster debacle.

That said, she also suggested there could be defections the other way. Be interesting to watch what happens.

Re: her motives. Watch the interview. She is very frank and honest about how the campaign has changed her mind. She comes across very well. I could imagine her as a major electoral asset for the Tories - intelligent, thoughtful and centrist.

No. She will never be trusted again.

By you. Whether her voters will accept her justification for changing position remains to be seen, but at the least has a better chance than with the wider party.

If the boundary review is completed successfully this time, she is likely to need to face reselection (as most MPs are). Her first hurdle will be convincing an Association membership which may not include many (or any) of her current constituents that what she says cant be trusted.

Her Totnes constituency has quite a small population:

http://tinyurl.com/jd2gsun

Any move to expand the Totnes constituency in any direction is only going to drag in a huge proportion of extra Tory voters. That said, she has made the seat her own, based on being her own woman. She doesn't really sit on the Green benches as a Tory, but as an MP for the Awkward Squad. If she stood as an Independent, she would still have a five-figure majority is my take.

But is there not a possibility that there might be one MP less? I suspect she'd be okay - especially if Remain win - but there's some fun and games on the horizon if the reduction in MPs happens.

There are currently 11 MPs in Devon and 6 in Cornwall. In the new review a combined Devonwall will get 16 seats. As the only non-Tory seat (Exeter) won't change much in the review, that means a Tory has to lose out. You would expect at least one Tory MP to choose to retire, but if not there will be a blue on blue bunfight somewhere.

Mr Perdix,

"If we vote for Remain it will not be for our further integration."

1975.

Sean_F said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TOPPING said:

Harris_Tweed said:

kle4 said:

It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.

Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the

In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.

The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.

But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.

Hard to the first place.

As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.

That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.

Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?

Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.

This was very well timed.

Looking at her timeline I think Johnny Mercer's contribution had an impact.

Let's not misunderestimate the impact of Cameron's line about Brexit is choosing Nigel Farage's little Englander vision.

Personally I reckon it was Ozzy's great performance against Andrew Neil that did it.

Joking aside that little Englander line really bugs me. I'm no fan of Farage in particular or UKIP in general, but get pissed off by Cameron belittling me because I'm mildly on the Leave side. The bloke's a tosser, and needs to put forward his case, rather than make me look like something I'm not.

I suspect because of the frequency it has been used it has been message tested/focus grouped to death and has been determined to be a success.

It seems like something Sir Lynton and Mark Textor might have come up with.

I can understand that, but who are they trying to sway? I know it's not meant to come over that way, but it pisses off an awful lot of patriotic, English working class. Maybe Cameron doesn't need them for the EU referendum, but the Tory party needs them afterwards. Bloke's a tosser:-)

This is going down to the wire. They accept they can't win over Provincial England, so they must maximise turnout elsewhere.

It's very well focus grouped for London, met cities and Scotland.

Which is telling in itself.

Did Mr "Parochial" Hague ever believe any of that "save the pound" and "I'll give you back your country" stuff from 97-01? Seems to me it was all an act because he'd got nothing else to say (because John Major had destroyed the Tories in 1992 when he presided over the house repossession meltdown across Middle England)

I can cope with people like Clarke and Heseltine who have never tried to hide their true beliefs. The real villains are people like Hague and Cameron who have spent decades pretending to be one thing and it turns out it was all a lie...