politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who should we include in the next PB/YouGov Favourability rati

another_richard said:

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

You're putting the cart before the horse. First we need to get confirmation that Article 50 is revocable.

Hmm, I do remember getting berated here on the morning after the election for pointing out that the Dems concentration on identity politics had hurt them. The sensible left in the US has also come to this conclusion. A certain Ms Apocalypse was insistent that identity politics was not to blame and it is still a desirable policy for the Dems. Hopefully the party command will dump it and make sure they are a party for everyone, model themselves on the Tory party over here, at least Dave's version.

MaxPB said:

Hmm, I do remember getting berated here on the morning after the election for pointing out that the Dems concentration on identity politics had hurt them. The sensible left in the US has also come to this conclusion. A certain Ms Apocalypse was insistent that identity politics was not to blame and it is still a desirable policy for the Dems. Hopefully the party command will dump it and make sure they are a party for everyone, model themselves on the Tory party over here, at least Dave's version.

Using the words "identity politics" twice in one post? You're clearly obsessed with it!

Thank God

English cricketers and Spurs aren't playing tomorrow....

Oh..

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Ed Balls
Richard Burgon
Mark Reckless
Top Gear
Grand Tour

Top Gear might give mixed results as people could be torn between the authentic version and that Chris Evans led masquerade

another_richard said:

HurstLlama said:

williamglenn said:

HurstLlama said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Where do you stand on potato on pizza?

Chorizo, Rosemary and Potato pizza in the fridge for this evening. Given I'm moping around with a stinking cold I've been looking forward to it all day.

Good grief! If you have a stinking cold a pizza will not do you any good. What you need is a damn hot curry; whisky with lemon juice, honey and glycerine topped up with hot water (lots of those drinks) and an extra blanket on the bed.

Try the hottest tom yum kung soup you can find. It always seems to work wonders when I'm starting to get a cold.

Each to their own, Mr. Glenn. I prefer the Indian to the fully oriental but I think the principle is the same.

For the past few years I have been cold free and I put this down to taking the medicine on a precautionary principle. Once I have had my flu jab in October I switch over to at least one good hot curry a week and a whisky, lemon, glycerine and hot water drink after my morning walk every day. If I feel a sniffle coming on then its straight to the curry house and double down on the medicinal drink, seems to work very well.

Manuka honey.

Although most of it is supposedly of doubtful origin.

Still you could add it to your hot lemon drinks.

Manuka Honey, Mr Richard? I wouldn't touch it. Horrendously expensive and, as you say, most of it is of doubtful provenance. Plain, honest, Sussex honey (from any one of a number of suppliers around here) is good enough for us.

All on the list bar Obama.

Justin Welby seems to have suffered from an outbreak of common sense

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/18/welby-time-to-stop-saying-isil-has-nothing-to-do-with-islam/

RobD said:

surbiton said:

Speedy said:

@Surbiton

Arizona

Whites 2012 (74% of voters)

Romney 66
Obama 32

Whites 2016 (75% of voters)

Trump 54
Hillary 40

Hispanics 2012 (18% of voters)

Romney 25
Obama 74

Hispanics 2016 (15% of voters)

Trump 31
Hillary 61

Party ID 2012

DEM 26
REP 35
IND 39

Party ID 2016

DEM 28
REP 32
IND 40

There is no doubt that the result in Arizona was close because White Democrats surged, but that was countered by Hispanic men going Trump.

In Pennsylvania you also get the same pattern with African American men (14% for Trump vs 1% for A.A. Women).

These are from a poll. Do you still believe in polls or only when it suits you ? So the White vote went to Clinton - only in AZ and the Hispanic vote went to Trump - only in AZ ?

Do you still believe in Santa Claus ?

Isn't that from the exit poll? Those tend to be better than normal polls.

If the exibpoll was right Clinton would be president. Some of the exit poll misses were astronomical.

BBC
EU
Immigrants to this country from EU
Immigrants to this country from outside the EU

MarqueeMark said:

chestnut said:

Dixie said:

Re: last thread, Libs should absolutely go for 2nd referendum. It would bring them out of the doldrums and is not a U-Turn for once. Hate them, but it makes sense for them.

The Yougov published today has their vote retention from 2015 at a meagre 33%.

The people who sympathise on Europe are the students whose tuition fees they trebled, the Scots who want to leave the UK, the residents of Corbyn Central in London and the Islington By Sea Greens in Brighton.

The LDs, SNP, Plaid, Labour and Greens are scrapping for the 45% of the country that are left inclined; the Tories and UKIP are scrapping for the 55% that are right inclined.

There isn't a worthwhile market for five left of centre parties in this country. Two or three need to go to the wall.

A fair point - but there are only three of those parties scrapping for England.

some of that 45% though are liberal left and some most definitely not - The group that are not will switch easily from Labour to UKIP and vice versa and some even Labour /Tory but never dream of voting Green or LD

Nigel Farage should def be on the list - The most influential UK politician of the last year (and best mates with the US pres!)

MaxPB said:

I hope that Trump is smart enough to see that he needs to run his White House for everyone and that means people like Sessions shouldn't be given a seat at the table. I said earlier today that I think Trump is personally colourblind which is great, but it also means he doesn't place any importance on race so someone like Sessions who does gets a hearing where he shouldn't.

His nominations do look bad, but I wonder if some of them are intended to be rejected. Not that I have a clue what The Donald is thinking, but he did seem to tone it down a bit over the weekend, now that he's getting down to business he's picking people that are making Freepers happy, and that's a very bad thing.

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

chestnut said:

Dixie said:

Re: last thread, Libs should absolutely go for 2nd referendum. It would bring them out of the doldrums and is not a U-Turn for once. Hate them, but it makes sense for them.

The Yougov published today has their vote retention from 2015 at a meagre 33%.

The people who sympathise on Europe are the students whose tuition fees they trebled, the Scots who want to leave the UK, the residents of Corbyn Central in London and the Islington By Sea Greens in Brighton.

The LDs, SNP, Plaid, Labour and Greens are scrapping for the 45% of the country that are left inclined; the Tories and UKIP are scrapping for the 55% that are right inclined.

There isn't a worthwhile market for five left of centre parties in this country. Two or three need to go to the wall.

The left wing parties are fighting a battle of mutually assured destruction - look at Richmond Park. Both the lib dem and labour candidates claiming to be the anti brexit candidate.
If the prediction earlier is right - Goldsmith wins with a 2000 majority, then the lib dems will have lost because labour fielded a candidate who had no chance of winning but just split the vote.
The parties won't go to the wall, they will just destroy each other, and they could never work together in coalition.
A progressive alliance is what is needed, but won't happen.
The trouble is that Corbyn is in some ways what labour needed, a leader with a vision, but his transformational vision is not really making any headway outside supporters of the labour party and certainly not in the areas that labour need to win.

MikeK said:

RobD said:

MikeK said:

Cameron should go. In the end he showed that he was a hollow man, not only inside, but all the way through. This was a man that believed in nothing, yet more than half of PBers hung on to his words and doings as if they eminated from Mt, Sinai.

Good riddance to a man that conned the nation, but thankfully, not me.

But he did follow through on his pledge to have an in/out referendum

Only because he was frightened of Farage and UKIP outflanking him on the EU. You can thank UKIP for the referendum and the fact that Brexiteers won the vote.

I think it was more about trying to settle a question in the only way possible - the longer a referendum was not held, the larger the support for leaving. This is why I blame the LibDems for blocking a referendum during the coalition government. Remain would have won then and settled the question until the European Health Service popped up in a decade or so...

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

Surely that depends on how those 15% are distributed around the country?

Floater said:

All on the list bar Obama.

Justin Welby seems to have suffered from an outbreak of common sense

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/18/welby-time-to-stop-saying-isil-has-nothing-to-do-with-islam/

Bit late to come to common sense. The tone deafness of the progressive left is sometime startling....

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

I think that's right -just as @Dixie was earlier - they need a USP. Two concerns, will the geographical distribution help them, where they are nominally in with a shout and does Farron have the skill to get them beyond expectations. I suppose you might consider it in the context of, wither Cambridge.

HurstLlama said:

another_richard said:

HurstLlama said:

another_richard said:

HurstLlama said:

williamglenn said:

HurstLlama said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Where do you stand on potato on pizza?

Chorizo, Rosemary and Potato pizza in the fridge for this evening. Given I'm moping around with a stinking cold I've been looking forward to it all day.

Good grief! If you have a stinking cold a pizza will not do you any good. What you need is a damn hot curry; whisky with lemon juice, honey and glycerine topped up with hot water (lots of those drinks) and an extra blanket on the bed.

Try the hottest tom yum kung soup you can find. It always seems to work wonders when I'm starting to get a cold.

Each to their own, Mr. Glenn. I prefer the Indian to the fully oriental but I think the principle is the same.

For the past few years I have been cold free and I put this down to taking the medicine on a precautionary principle. Once I have had my flu jab in October I switch over to at least one good hot curry a week and a whisky, lemon, glycerine and hot water drink after my morning walk every day. If I feel a sniffle coming on then its straight to the curry house and double down on the medicinal drink, seems to work very well.

Manuka honey.

Although most of it is supposedly of doubtful origin.

Still you could add it to your hot lemon drinks.

Manuka Honey, Mr Richard? I wouldn't touch it. Horrendously expensive and, as you say, most of it is of doubtful provenance. Plain, honest, Sussex honey (from any one of a number of suppliers around here) is good enough for us.

Aldi sell it cheapish and it might be just a placebo effect but it works for me.

Local honey is said to be good for people who suffer from hay fever.

Alas the nearest Aldi is a pig of a place to get to by public transport, whereas there is a Paynes Bee Farm just off the route of my morning walk.

As to local honey being good for Hay-fever sufferers, I never knew that. I shall tell Herself and encourage her to eat more honey next spring and summer. Thanks for the tip.

You can try the latter but you can equally try ground tiger bones to make you, er, more excitable in the bedroom (or whether best suits you). With much the same success rate.

MikeK said:

MaxPB said:

glw said:

MaxPB said:

Hmm, I do remember getting berated here on the morning after the election for pointing out that the Dems concentration on identity politics had hurt them. The sensible left in the US has also come to this conclusion. A certain Ms Apocalypse was insistent that identity politics was not to blame and it is still a desirable policy for the Dems. Hopefully the party command will dump it and make sure they are a party for everyone, model themselves on the Tory party over here, at least Dave's version.

I expect they will do the opposite and double down, which might even work, but I expect 2020 will be an even more divisive election.


How did liberalism go from this:

"And listening to Roosevelt’s stirring voice as he invoked the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want and the freedom from fear — freedoms that Roosevelt demanded for “everyone in the world” — I was reminded of what the real foundations of modern American liberalism are."

To banning newspapers from sale because you don't agree with them.

If Trump really is going to get people like Sessions in then, yes, 2020 is going to be extremely divisive. If he runs a middle ground presidency which is good for everyone then I think it will be impossible to run on identity in 2020. No amnesty, mega fiscal stimulus in run down cities and rural areas, Americanisation of border Hispanics and returning GOP traditionalists will see them over the line, possibly with a record popular vote. I hope that Trump is smart enough to see that he needs to run his White House for everyone and that means people like Sessions shouldn't be given a seat at the table. I said earlier today that I think Trump is personally colourblind which is great, but it also means he doesn't place any importance on race so someone like Sessions who does gets a hearing where he shouldn't.

Sessions is a hard-liner on immigrants, but he's no racist. So called liberals brand anyone racist that disagrees with their notion of PC.

You know me, I'm not one to jump to the racism charge immediately, but read this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-offers-jeff-sessions-attorney-general-post/

There is a pattern of prejudice against black people throughout his career. Passing off awful comments as a joke once is acceptable, twice is questionable and many times is a pattern.

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

Surely that depends on how those 15% are distributed around the country?

I think quite a lot of them are in SW London.

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

Except...if they lose in Richmond Park, a seat they would have hand-picked to test this strategy - what then? I just can't see this 15% strategy delivering seats they lost in 2015.

And if they win there?

The LibDems have historically been strong in places like Twickenham, Richmond, Kingston, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cambridge, Oxford West & Abingdon, that are among the most Pro-Remain parts of the UK.

Their strategy is not to win a General Election, it's to go from eight seats to eighteen.

williamglenn said:

Merkel's expected to officially announce her candidature for a 4th term on Sunday.

What is it with politicans not being able to realise when it's time to retire gracefully? (Tony Blair being the exception, the only person to win an election for Labour in 40 years).

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

Except...if they lose in Richmond Park, a seat they would have hand-picked to test this strategy - what then? I just can't see this 15% strategy delivering seats they lost in 2015.

And if they win there?

The LibDems have historically been strong in places like Twickenham, Richmond, Twickenham, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cambridge, Oxford West & Abingdon, that are among the most Pro-Remain parts of the UK.

Their strategy is not to win a General Election, it's to go from eight seats to eighteen.

Even if they succeed in Richmond Park, the strategy is still a hiding to nothing going into the next election. By 2020, with the UK out of the EU, the LibDems will have to move to being the party of the Rejoiners, of the Euro, of the European Army. And that isn't 15% of the population.

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

Except...if they lose in Richmond Park, a seat they would have hand-picked to test this strategy - what then? I just can't see this 15% strategy delivering seats they lost in 2015.

And if they win there?

The LibDems have historically been strong in places like Twickenham, Richmond, Twickenham, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cambridge, Oxford West & Abingdon, that are among the most Pro-Remain parts of the UK.

Their strategy is not to win a General Election, it's to go from eight seats to eighteen.

Why should there strategy not be to go from 8 seats to 48? They lost them in one go, they could theoretically win them back in another. It's funny how we assumed all of last Parliament that they couldn't realistically fall below 30 to 40. The idea of a 10-19 seat band was meant to be extremely pessimistic for them not to be optimistic.

Maybe now we are being too pessimistic this time?

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

They can achieve that by saying that they support the UK's membership of the EU and if they win an election they will give a referendum to rejoin the EU.

Which would be far more logically coherent and political honest than their current drivvle.

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

They can achieve that by saying that they support the UK's membership of the EU and if they win an election they will give a referendum to rejoin the EU.

Which would be far more logically coherent and political honest than their current drivvle.

To make progress, to get above 8 seats, it will require them to convince voters to go for a referendum, knowing they will vote to stay out of the EU. Really?

That smacks of a strategy of desperation to be heard.

FF43 said:

another_richard said:

HurstLlama said:

williamglenn said:

HurstLlama said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Where do you stand on potato on pizza?

Chorizo, Rosemary and Potato pizza in the fridge for this evening. Given I'm moping around with a stinking cold I've been looking forward to it all day.

Good grief! If you have a stinking cold a pizza will not do you any good. What you need is a damn hot curry; whisky with lemon juice, honey and glycerine topped up with hot water (lots of those drinks) and an extra blanket on the bed.

Try the hottest tom yum kung soup you can find. It always seems to work wonders when I'm starting to get a cold.

Each to their own, Mr. Glenn. I prefer the Indian to the fully oriental but I think the principle is the same.

For the past few years I have been cold free and I put this down to taking the medicine on a precautionary principle. Once I have had my flu jab in October I switch over to at least one good hot curry a week and a whisky, lemon, glycerine and hot water drink after my morning walk every day. If I feel a sniffle coming on then its straight to the curry house and double down on the medicinal drink, seems to work very well.

Manuka honey.

Although most of it is supposedly of doubtful origin.

Still you could add it to your hot lemon drinks.

Manuka honey is supposed to be healthful due to its antibacterial properties. If you believe that, heather honey has more of the antibacterial ingredient, tastes similarly to manuka honey, bit better, and you would supporting Scottish beekeepers by buying it.

Especially considering three times as much Manuka is sold as is made.

Rather like Italy exports about the same amount of Italian Extra Virgin Olive Oil as it produces. From which logic would suggest that no Italian would ever touch the stuff.

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

Except...if they lose in Richmond Park, a seat they would have hand-picked to test this strategy - what then? I just can't see this 15% strategy delivering seats they lost in 2015.

And if they win there?

The LibDems have historically been strong in places like Twickenham, Richmond, Twickenham, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cambridge, Oxford West & Abingdon, that are among the most Pro-Remain parts of the UK.

Their strategy is not to win a General Election, it's to go from eight seats to eighteen.

Even if they succeed in Richmond Park, the strategy is still a hiding to nothing going into the next election. By 2020, with the UK out of the EU, the LibDems will have to move to being the party of the Rejoiners, of the Euro, of the European Army. And that isn't 15% of the population.

Rightly or wrongly, I think it's easier to have a policy that says "we shouldn't leave the EU" which then shifts to "we should rejoin the EU", than to have one that is "we should leave the EU now so that we can rejoin it after the election."

geoffw said:

IanB2 said:

FF43 said:

another_richard said:

HurstLlama said:

williamglenn said:

HurstLlama said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Where do you stand on potato on pizza?

Chorizo, Rosemary and Potato pizza in the fridge for this evening. Given I'm moping around with a stinking cold I've been looking forward to it all day.

Good grief! If you have a stinking cold a pizza will not do you any good. What you need is a damn hot curry; whisky with lemon juice, honey and glycerine topped up with hot water (lots of those drinks) and an extra blanket on the bed.

Try the hottest tom yum kung soup you can find. It always seems to work wonders when I'm starting to get a cold.

Each to their own, Mr. Glenn. I prefer the Indian to the fully oriental but I think the principle is the same.

For the past few years I have been cold free and I put this down to taking the medicine on a precautionary principle. Once I have had my flu jab in October I switch over to at least one good hot curry a week and a whisky, lemon, glycerine and hot water drink after my morning walk every day. If I feel a sniffle coming on then its straight to the curry house and double down on the medicinal drink, seems to work very well.

Manuka honey.

Although most of it is supposedly of doubtful origin.

Still you could add it to your hot lemon drinks.

Manuka honey is supposed to be healthful due to its antibacterial properties. If you believe that, heather honey has more of the antibacterial ingredient, tastes similarly to manuka honey, bit better, and you would supporting Scottish beekeepers by buying it.

Especially considering three times as much Manuka is sold as is made.

Rather like Italy exports about the same amount of Italian Extra Virgin Olive Oil as it produces. From which logic would suggest that no Italian would ever touch the stuff.

Most of its exports comes from Spain.

That, my friend, is a perfect example of trying to confuse the issue with facts.

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

They can achieve that by saying that they support the UK's membership of the EU and if they win an election they will give a referendum to rejoin the EU.

Which would be far more logically coherent and political honest than their current drivvle.

To make progress, to get above 8 seats, it will require them to convince voters to go for a referendum, knowing they will vote to stay out of the EU. Really?

That smacks of a strategy of desperation to be heard.

This smacks of Remainers giving UKIP advice, tbh.

The LibDems are trying to be the only avowedly pro EU party. There may be a market for that, there may not be. But it is by no means a stupid strategy given that 48% of the population just voted to stay in.

A smaller proportion think it would be right for us to stay in, given the referendum result.

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

They can achieve that by saying that they support the UK's membership of the EU and if they win an election they will give a referendum to rejoin the EU.

Which would be far more logically coherent and political honest than their current drivvle.

To make progress, to get above 8 seats, it will require them to convince voters to go for a referendum, knowing they will vote to stay out of the EU. Really?

That smacks of a strategy of desperation to be heard.

This smacks of Remainers giving UKIP advice, tbh.

The LibDems are trying to be the only avowedly pro EU party. There may be a market for that, there may not be. But it is by no means a stupid strategy given that 48% of the population just voted to stay in.

A smaller proportion think it would be right for us to stay in, given the referendum result.

And an even smaller proportion care about it enough to change their vote! But it's still probably 15% of the country and concentrated in 20-25 seats in metropolitan England and the south east.

If I were starting on 8% and 8 seats, and thinking entirely about where there was a gap in the market, this is where I would choose.

GeoffM said:

Sandpit said:

Ha, Guido's managed to dig out the President-Elect's immigration policy, as told by President Clinton in 1995!
http://order-order.com/2016/11/18/president-clintons-crackdown-illegal-immigrants/

What's Ken Starr doing these days?

It'd be Grandmaster level trolling to appoint him to look in to the Clinton Foundation.

Is he Keir Starmer's cousin?

williamglenn said:

O/T - Interesting side-note to the Calexit discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state)

Wow - 21 counties have already expressed their intention/desire to leave.

MarqueeMark said:

IanB2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

Except...if they lose in Richmond Park, a seat they would have hand-picked to test this strategy - what then? I just can't see this 15% strategy delivering seats they lost in 2015.

And if they win there?

The LibDems have historically been strong in places like Twickenham, Richmond, Twickenham, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cambridge, Oxford West & Abingdon, that are among the most Pro-Remain parts of the UK.

Their strategy is not to win a General Election, it's to go from eight seats to eighteen.

Even if they succeed in Richmond Park, the strategy is still a hiding to nothing going into the next election. By 2020, with the UK out of the EU, the LibDems will have to move to being the party of the Rejoiners, of the Euro, of the European Army. And that isn't 15% of the population.

If Brexit is executed well and turns into a tremendous success, it isn't completely impossible that you might have a point.

If Brexit is a clusterfck and our departure is not a stellar success, that still doesn't mean people will want to unravel our departure from the EU and rejoin. It's more likely the Tory Party will be going into the 2020 election in a post-May world.

Sure 70% of people won't want to rejoin. But what if 30% do? That's a fertile pond for the LibDems to fish in. And being able to say "we told you so" probably won't do their electoral chances any harm.

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

IanB2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

Except...if they lose in Richmond Park, a seat they would have hand-picked to test this strategy - what then? I just can't see this 15% strategy delivering seats they lost in 2015.

And if they win there?

The LibDems have historically been strong in places like Twickenham, Richmond, Twickenham, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cambridge, Oxford West & Abingdon, that are among the most Pro-Remain parts of the UK.

Their strategy is not to win a General Election, it's to go from eight seats to eighteen.

Even if they succeed in Richmond Park, the strategy is still a hiding to nothing going into the next election. By 2020, with the UK out of the EU, the LibDems will have to move to being the party of the Rejoiners, of the Euro, of the European Army. And that isn't 15% of the population.

If Brexit is executed well and turns into a tremendous success, it isn't completely impossible that you might have a point.

If Brexit is a clusterfck and our departure is not a stellar success, that still doesn't mean people will want to unravel our departure from the EU and rejoin. It's more likely the Tory Party will be going into the 2020 election in a post-May world.

Sure 70% of people won't want to rejoin. But what if 30% do? That's a fertile pond for the LibDems to fish in. And being able to say "we told you so" probably won't do their electoral chances any harm.

Always popular those "we told you so" types!

There is a big discrepancy between Yougov and ICM and Ipsos Mori in their last polls with respect to behaviour of 2015 LD voters .
Both ICM and Mori have 4% of them moving to Conservative and 11/13% to Labour Yougov have 26% and 18% .
They cant all be correct .

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

IanB2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

Except...if they lose in Richmond Park, a seat they would have hand-picked to test this strategy - what then? I just can't see this 15% strategy delivering seats they lost in 2015.

And if they win there?

The LibDems have historically been strong in places like Twickenham, Richmond, Twickenham, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cambridge, Oxford West & Abingdon, that are among the most Pro-Remain parts of the UK.

Their strategy is not to win a General Election, it's to go from eight seats to eighteen.

Even if they succeed in Richmond Park, the strategy is still a hiding to nothing going into the next election. By 2020, with the UK out of the EU, the LibDems will have to move to being the party of the Rejoiners, of the Euro, of the European Army. And that isn't 15% of the population.

If Brexit is executed well and turns into a tremendous success, it isn't completely impossible that you might have a point.

If Brexit is a clusterfck and our departure is not a stellar success, that still doesn't mean people will want to unravel our departure from the EU and rejoin. It's more likely the Tory Party will be going into the 2020 election in a post-May world.

Sure 70% of people won't want to rejoin. But what if 30% do? That's a fertile pond for the LibDems to fish in. And being able to say "we told you so" probably won't do their electoral chances any harm.

As per, it won't be anything like that level. Not remotely close.

Brexit means Brexit.

Sandpit said:

Speedy said:

The middle of the road has shifted fast:

https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/799661413706788868

You can rename it as "Why Chuka Umunna is such a bad fit for Labour".

That's a very good article, well worth a read.

There's a paragraph in it in which the author explains how liberal teachers could teach their US history classes in a more effectively liberal way, i.e. in a way more likely to make their students liberal.

Interesting to see someone being so candid about that, particularly in print. The fears of conservative American parents that their kids are being systematically brainwashed by liberals in schools and colleges are not entirely without foundation.

In a British context it reminded me of an essay I had to read as part of an assignment when I was doing my teacher training - about how maths problems phrased in neutral, "everyday" terms such as the price of apples and how many Johnny can afford, were actually indicative of deep politically conservative bias in the system. Maths teachers should instead challenge students with questions like "if we abolished cruise missiles, how many more hospitals could be built"? There were further examples, regarding other traditionally left-wing concerns such as poverty, inequality, women's rights and so on.

The thing that struck me as odd was that the essay was not so candid about the point of the exercise. It seemed clear to me the author intended that maths lessons, rather than being value-neutral, should be utilised as part of a political education strategy in favour of his preferred agenda. On the contrary, the author claimed that his approach would actually render maths lessons politically neutral! Questions about the price of apples (unless they considered whether Johnny could actually afford the apples, and whether there were inequalities between who could and could not access high quality nutrition) were merely conservative propaganda because they presented the socio-economic system "as is", rather than challenging students to consider alternatives. Questions about how many more schools'n'hospitals could be built if government programmes left-wingers disapprove of were to be scrapped, were not in fact endorsements of the left-wing view, merely educating students as to the opportunity cost of pursuing such a right-wing strategy as, e.g., continuing to have an army - and then the students could make their own minds up. What could be more neutral than that?

MyBurningEars said:

Sandpit said:

Speedy said:

The middle of the road has shifted fast:

https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/799661413706788868

You can rename it as "Why Chuka Umunna is such a bad fit for Labour".

That's a very good article, well worth a read.

There's a paragraph in it in which the author explains how liberal teachers could teach their US history classes in a more effectively liberal way, i.e. in a way more likely to make their students liberal.

Interesting to see someone being so candid about that, particularly in print. The fears of conservative American parents that their kids are being systematically brainwashed by liberals in schools and colleges are not entirely without foundation.

In a British context it reminded me of an essay I had to read as part of an assignment when I was doing my teacher training - about how maths problems phrased in neutral, "everyday" terms such as the price of apples and how many Johnny can afford, were actually indicative of deep politically conservative bias in the system. Maths teachers should instead challenge students with questions like "if we abolished cruise missiles, how many more hospitals could be built"? There were further examples, regarding other traditionally left-wing concerns such as poverty, inequality, women's rights and so on.

The thing that struck me as odd was that the essay was not so candid about the point of the exercise. It seemed clear to me the author intended that maths lessons, rather than being value-neutral, should be utilised as part of a political education strategy in favour of his preferred agenda. On the contrary, the author claimed that his approach would actually render maths lessons politically neutral! Questions about the price of apples (unless they considered whether Johnny could actually afford the apples, and whether there were inequalities between who could and could not access high quality nutrition) were merely conservative propaganda because they presented the socio-economic system "as is", rather than challenging students to consider alternatives. Questions about how many more schools'n'hospitals could be built if government programmes left-wingers disapprove of were to be scrapped, were not in fact endorsements of the left-wing view, merely educating students as to the opportunity cost of pursuing such a right-wing strategy as, e.g., continuing to have an army - and then the students could make their own minds up. What could be more neutral than that?

The cruise missile question was a Yes Prime Minister gag.

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

IanB2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

Except...if they lose in Richmond Park, a seat they would have hand-picked to test this strategy - what then? I just can't see this 15% strategy delivering seats they lost in 2015.

And if they win there?

The LibDems have historically been strong in places like Twickenham, Richmond, Twickenham, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cambridge, Oxford West & Abingdon, that are among the most Pro-Remain parts of the UK.

Their strategy is not to win a General Election, it's to go from eight seats to eighteen.

Even if they succeed in Richmond Park, the strategy is still a hiding to nothing going into the next election. By 2020, with the UK out of the EU, the LibDems will have to move to being the party of the Rejoiners, of the Euro, of the European Army. And that isn't 15% of the population.

If Brexit is executed well and turns into a tremendous success, it isn't completely impossible that you might have a point.

If Brexit is a clusterfck and our departure is not a stellar success, that still doesn't mean people will want to unravel our departure from the EU and rejoin. It's more likely the Tory Party will be going into the 2020 election in a post-May world.

Sure 70% of people won't want to rejoin. But what if 30% do? That's a fertile pond for the LibDems to fish in. And being able to say "we told you so" probably won't do their electoral chances any harm.

First base for the LibDems from their current position is finding ways to get noticed. Which means positions that are distinctive (from both Tory and Labour).

They could promise to abolish tuition fees.

another_richard said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

IanB2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

Except...if they lose in Richmond Park, a seat they would have hand-picked to test this strategy - what then? I just can't see this 15% strategy delivering seats they lost in 2015.

And if they win there?

The LibDems have historically been strong in places like Twickenham, Richmond, Twickenham, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cambridge, Oxford West & Abingdon, that are among the most Pro-Remain parts of the UK.

Their strategy is not to win a General Election, it's to go from eight seats to eighteen.

Even if they succeed in Richmond Park, the strategy is still a hiding to nothing going into the next election. By 2020, with the UK out of the EU, the LibDems will have to move to being the party of the Rejoiners, of the Euro, of the European Army. And that isn't 15% of the population.

If Brexit is executed well and turns into a tremendous success, it isn't completely impossible that you might have a point.

If Brexit is a clusterfck and our departure is not a stellar success, that still doesn't mean people will want to unravel our departure from the EU and rejoin. It's more likely the Tory Party will be going into the 2020 election in a post-May world.

Sure 70% of people won't want to rejoin. But what if 30% do? That's a fertile pond for the LibDems to fish in. And being able to say "we told you so" probably won't do their electoral chances any harm.

First base for the LibDems from their current position is finding ways to get noticed. Which means positions that are distinctive (from both Tory and Labour).

They could promise to abolish tuition fees.

Boom boom

geoffw said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

Re the previous thread.

On what do the LibDems want to hold a second EU referendum ?

If the government's negotiations were voted down in a referendum then the default is hard and probably disorderly Brexit.

Or do the LibDems think that the UK would be magically transported onto the EverCloserUnion train ?

I think they are merely trying to make themselves the party of the 15% (which is approximately the number of people that care enough about the EU). Which, given they were on 8% last time around, is by no means stpuid.

They can achieve that by saying that they support the UK's membership of the EU and if they win an election they will give a referendum to rejoin the EU.

Which would be far more logically coherent and political honest than their current drivvle.

To make progress, to get above 8 seats, it will require them to convince voters to go for a referendum, knowing they will vote to stay out of the EU. Really?

That smacks of a strategy of desperation to be heard.

This smacks of Remainers giving UKIP advice, tbh.

The LibDems are trying to be the only avowedly pro EU party. There may be a market for that, there may not be. But it is by no means a stupid strategy given that 48% of the population just voted to stay in.

The model being the SNP surge after their indyref fail.

Funny that it was meant to be the Kippers following that precedent. The problem is that had Indyref, like the EU Referendum, been a Yes then I'm not sure about "we shouldn't go independent/should rejoin the UK" would have been a major success for a unionist party once the Scots were independent.

It's easier to prevent/campaign for change than it is to reverse it.