ECVs finally settled at Betfair. 1% free money still available on vote shares and Popular Vote winner. Turnout looks like the same @ 1.03 but DYOR on that.
How long now before @Shadsy pays out on the 0-5% pop vote lead for Hillary? There's no way any recounts are going to change a million votes one way or the other.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
Is it though? If their constituencies voted for Remain, surely they are respecting the vote of their voters.
ECVs finally settled at Betfair. 1% free money still available on vote shares and Popular Vote winner. Turnout looks like the same @ 1.03 but DYOR on that.
How long now before @Shadsy pays out on the 0-5% pop vote lead for Hillary? There's no way any recounts are going to change a million votes one way or the other.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
Is it though? If their constituencies voted for Remain, surely they are respecting the vote of their voters.
Except didn't half the Lib Dem constituencies vote Leave? Including Nick Clegg's?
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ha! The double standard naked for all to see.
There is no double standard.
If the Lib Dems were to say "The people have voted to leave the EU. We think they are wrong. We will work to make Brexit as soft as possible and then campaign to rejoin" that would be entirely reasonable. UKIP would have been saying "the people have voted to stay, but we will continue to campaign to lose"
Saying "The people have voted to leave, but we think they are wrong, so we will ignore them" is not acceptable behaviour in a democratic society.
ECVs finally settled at Betfair. 1% free money still available on vote shares and Popular Vote winner. Turnout looks like the same @ 1.03 but DYOR on that.
How long now before @Shadsy pays out on the 0-5% pop vote lead for Hillary? There's no way any recounts are going to change a million votes one way or the other.
It is paid out.
Ah, thanks for that, must have missed it. Bet was by proxy in a shop, so will sent my mate around to collect the winnings - he was wondering why they turned him away last week as the election was ages ago in his mind!
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
Is it though? If their constituencies voted for Remain, surely they are respecting the vote of their voters.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ha! The double standard naked for all to see.
There is no double standard.
If the Lib Dems were to say "The people have voted to leave the EU. We think they are wrong. We will work to make Brexit as soft as possible and then campaign to rejoin" that would be entirely reasonable. UKIP would have been saying "the people have voted to stay, but we will continue to campaign to lose"
Saying "The people have voted to leave, but we think they are wrong, so we will ignore them" is not acceptable behaviour in a democratic society.
Did you miss the bit about the second referendum?
Farage told us on 23 June he would be campaigning for another referendum. He just didn't get the result he was expecting.
ECVs finally settled at Betfair. 1% free money still available on vote shares and Popular Vote winner. Turnout looks like the same @ 1.03 but DYOR on that.
How long now before @Shadsy pays out on the 0-5% pop vote lead for Hillary? There's no way any recounts are going to change a million votes one way or the other.
It is paid out.
Ah, thanks for that, must have missed it. Bet was by proxy in a shop, so will sent my mate around to collect the winnings - he was wondering why they turned him away last week as the election was ages ago in his mind!
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
Campaigning for a future referendum is one thing and entirely acceptable.
Voting against Article 50 to implement the results of the last one is something else.
Mature politics is to implement the decision the public have made while campaigning to change their minds at a future vote, not trying to frustrate the decision altogether.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
Is it though? If their constituencies voted for Remain, surely they are respecting the vote of their voters.
Except didn't half the Lib Dem constituencies vote Leave? Including Nick Clegg's?
Sheffield Hallam voted Remain. I'm very proud of that.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ha! The double standard naked for all to see.
There is no double standard.
If the Lib Dems were to say "The people have voted to leave the EU. We think they are wrong. We will work to make Brexit as soft as possible and then campaign to rejoin" that would be entirely reasonable. UKIP would have been saying "the people have voted to stay, but we will continue to campaign to lose"
Saying "The people have voted to leave, but we think they are wrong, so we will ignore them" is not acceptable behaviour in a democratic society.
Did you miss the bit about the second referendum?
Farage told us on 23 June he would be campaigning for another referendum. He just didn't get the result he was expecting.
Farage didn't say that Parliament should reverse the decision of the referendum though, he wanted a second referendum. The Lib Dems are seeking to get Parliament to reverse the decision of the referendum by voting against Article 50.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
Is it though? If their constituencies voted for Remain, surely they are respecting the vote of their voters.
It was a national poll.
As a true conservative once wrote:
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
Campaigning for a future referendum is one thing and entirely acceptable.
Voting against Article 50 to implement the results of the last one is something else.
Mature politics is to implement the decision the public have made while campaigning to change their minds at a future vote, not trying to frustrate the decision altogether.
The LibDems aren't planning an armed coup. Like the other democratic parties they set out their platform (and are entitled for this to be whatever they think is right) and it will only ever get enacted through the democratic process of elections and/or referendums as appropriate. There is nothing wrong in saying that whatever the people have voted for is wrong and campaigning to get it changed - it happens after ever general election.
ECVs finally settled at Betfair. 1% free money still available on vote shares and Popular Vote winner. Turnout looks like the same @ 1.03 but DYOR on that.
How long now before @Shadsy pays out on the 0-5% pop vote lead for Hillary? There's no way any recounts are going to change a million votes one way or the other.
It is paid out.
Ah, thanks for that, must have missed it. Bet was by proxy in a shop, so will sent my mate around to collect the winnings - he was wondering why they turned him away last week as the election was ages ago in his mind!
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
... if there is no referendum on destination. So, not.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
... if there is no referendum on destination. So, not.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
Is it though? If their constituencies voted for Remain, surely they are respecting the vote of their voters.
It was a national poll.
And? They are accountable to their local electorates.
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
Campaigning for a future referendum is one thing and entirely acceptable.
Voting against Article 50 to implement the results of the last one is something else.
Mature politics is to implement the decision the public have made while campaigning to change their minds at a future vote, not trying to frustrate the decision altogether.
The LibDems aren't planning an armed coup. Like the other democratic parties they set out their platform (and are entitled for this to be whatever they think is right) and it will only ever get enacted through the democratic process of elections and/or referendums as appropriate. There is nothing wrong in saying that whatever the people have voted for is wrong and campaigning to get it changed - it happens after ever general election.
If the LDs want to reverse the decision at the ballot box of either the next election or referendum that would be democratic. In the meantime though the referendum has been held and invoking A50 is the starting pistol to negotiations to implement the decision. So A50 should be invoked and then campaign for change at the next ballot. It is trying to frustrate the decision immediately that is undemocratic.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
Is it though? If their constituencies voted for Remain, surely they are respecting the vote of their voters.
It was a national poll.
As a true conservative once wrote:
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
And in a normal representative democracy I think that is right. However, as soon as you introduce a referendum then it no longer holds for that particular issue.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
Is it though? If their constituencies voted for Remain, surely they are respecting the vote of their voters.
It was a national poll.
And? They are accountable to their local electorates.
What was the result of the AV referendum in Shef Hallam?
ECVs finally settled at Betfair. 1% free money still available on vote shares and Popular Vote winner. Turnout looks like the same @ 1.03 but DYOR on that.
How long now before @Shadsy pays out on the 0-5% pop vote lead for Hillary? There's no way any recounts are going to change a million votes one way or the other.
It is paid out.
Ah, thanks for that, must have missed it. Bet was by proxy in a shop, so will sent my mate around to collect the winnings - he was wondering why they turned him away last week as the election was ages ago in his mind!
Trump 0-5% might be the bet next time.
Once the illegal voters are removed, Trump 15-20%
Don't want to sound all Max-Trumpkin here, but is it possible that certain "economic migrants" will have been added to the California vote registers ?
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
Is it though? If their constituencies voted for Remain, surely they are respecting the vote of their voters.
It was a national poll.
As a true conservative once wrote:
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
And in a normal representative democracy I think that is right. However, as soon as you introduce a referendum then it no longer holds for that particular issue.
The referendum gave a true barometer of opinion which should be respected very deeply. What *action* to take as a result of it should not be dictated or pre-judged.
This discussion has rather more to do with some leavers' fear that it will become apparent what damage they have done, than with the ins and outs of the democratic process IMHO.
ECVs finally settled at Betfair. 1% free money still available on vote shares and Popular Vote winner. Turnout looks like the same @ 1.03 but DYOR on that.
How long now before @Shadsy pays out on the 0-5% pop vote lead for Hillary? There's no way any recounts are going to change a million votes one way or the other.
It is paid out.
Ah, thanks for that, must have missed it. Bet was by proxy in a shop, so will sent my mate around to collect the winnings - he was wondering why they turned him away last week as the election was ages ago in his mind!
Trump 0-5% might be the bet next time.
Yes. In sharp contrast to Obama, Trump has a low threshold for success as president. If he stops the jobs going to Mexico, secures the border and pushes hard on infrastructure, he'll be a more popular incumbent than he was as candidate. Against that is the chance he thinks he's too old in 2020, makes some monumental f-up in office, annoys the GOP so much he gets primaried, or the actuarial reasons.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
Is it though? If their constituencies voted for Remain, surely they are respecting the vote of their voters.
It was a national poll.
And? They are accountable to their local electorates.
What was the result of the AV referendum in Shef Hallam?
I don't think the results were analysed down to constituency level.
Alas, like in the EU Ref, the majority of Sheffield made the wrong decision in the AV referendum
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ha! The double standard naked for all to see.
There is no double standard.
If the Lib Dems were to say "The people have voted to leave the EU. We think they are wrong. We will work to make Brexit as soft as possible and then campaign to rejoin" that would be entirely reasonable. UKIP would have been saying "the people have voted to stay, but we will continue to campaign to lose"
Saying "The people have voted to leave, but we think they are wrong, so we will ignore them" is not acceptable behaviour in a democratic society.
Did you miss the bit about the second referendum?
Farage told us on 23 June he would be campaigning for another referendum. He just didn't get the result he was expecting.
Hence having unexpectedly won a referendum, his current lurching around trying to find a role. Farage may end up setting up a party with Banks' money solely because he can't think of anything else to do.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
Is it though? If their constituencies voted for Remain, surely they are respecting the vote of their voters.
It was a national poll.
As a true conservative once wrote:
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
guff
their judgement has been monumentally flawed for decades it's why they have a problem
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
... if there is no referendum on destination. So, not.
There is a very clear destination: OUT
That's not a clear destination. It's a direction. Soft Brexit, hard Brexit, semi-soft Brexit? EEA membership? CETA-style? TTIP-style? CETA-plus? Swiss-EFTA-style? WTO rules? Not even WTO rules, why should we abide by rules set by a bunch of unelected foreign bureaucrats? Continue paying towards Single Market access? Retain some, most, all, none of Freedom of Movement? Customs union in? Or out? Adhere with Single Market legislation? Or not?
Unless you're saying that each and every one of those is equally acceptable to you and to every Leave voter?
Who on here actually wants Zac to win? I'm not sure I do.
I do. Only because I don't want an extra quisling Lib Dem in the house.
Hmmm. The problem is that Zac might be worse than a quisling Lib Dem. The decision on large infrastructure projects that affect the entire country should not be determined by one MP throwing a strop in this manner.
Yes, but whether he wins or loses Heathrow is going ahead. In tge mean time the Lib Dems are trying to overturn the leave vote by whatever means necessary, the electoral commission should force them to change their name.
How dare there be any dissension! We must airbrush them out of all photos for the sake of the people!
There was a democratic vote to leave the EU, the Lib Dems are trying to overturn that vote either in the courts or in the Lords. Explain how that is in any way something a party that purports to be either Liberal or Democratic would do?
They're not. The hysterical Leave media try to portray the A50 issue as "trying to stop Brexit", a spin line that's been thoroughly debunked and only now believed by the easily led and gullible. So nothing to explain.
The Lib Dem stance is that we've voted on what we want to leave hut not where we want to go and we need another referendum for that - one in which one side can't pretend to be all things to all people but where the explicit exit deal is presented for endorsement or rejection. And for the possibility of rejection to be meaningful, at least one of the alternative options has to allow for return to the previous status quo.
Why is that anti-democratic? Other than entertaining a possibility you don't like?
It is not anti democratic provided a second referendum is a choice between
a) leaving on the terms negotiated wit the rest of the EU and
b) the World Trade Organisation option.
There should be no option of remaining since that has already been rejected.
I agree with Zac on Brexit, on Heathrow and on what many PBers would consider to be "green crap". I always thought he was a Tory in name only, and think that he will feel a lot more at home sat next to Caroline Lucas on the opposition green benches.
As if Lucas would let Zac into the party. He's not a crypto commie like the rest of the party.
I'll just let my other half know that she is a crypto commie. Maybe I should leave it until after I've asked for a cup of coffee.
Anyway, I'm not suggesting he joins the Green Party. I was just trying to be clever saying green benches, but not Green benches.
That would be the most remarkable outcome, given that Lucas has been out door-knocking for the LibDems in the by-election, surely providing a future quiz question as to the only time any party leader has actively campaigned in an election for a candidate from another party.
And utterly bonkers. Zac is a green conservative. Lucas should be encouraging people like him who agree on climate change, airports etc etc. Far more likely to work with her as an indie than a new LibDem who would be just as tribal as the rest of LibDems imho.
Has he said he'll stay independent?
He says he will, but, rather like Douglas Carswell, will most likely support the government on most votes.
Except for any votes on Heathrow expansion of course - which should go through easily anyway, most MPs will be in favour bar a few NIMBYs or local MPs to competitor airports.
He's said he will probably stand as a Conservative at the next general election and that he will often vote with the party, but that he will sit on the opposition benches.
PS: I liked the "green benches/Green benches" pun...
Who on here actually wants Zac to win? I'm not sure I do.
I do. Only because I don't want an extra quisling Lib Dem in the house.
Hmmm. The problem is that Zac might be worse than a quisling Lib Dem. The decision on large infrastructure projects that affect the entire country should not be determined by one MP throwing a strop in this manner.
Yes, but whether he wins or loses Heathrow is going ahead. In tge mean time the Lib Dems are trying to overturn the leave vote by whatever means necessary, the electoral commission should force them to change their name.
How dare there be any dissension! We must airbrush them out of all photos for the sake of the people!
There was a democratic vote to leave the EU, the Lib Dems are trying to overturn that vote either in the courts or in the Lords. Explain how that is in any way something a party that purports to be either Liberal or Democratic would do?
They're not. The hysterical Leave media try to portray the A50 issue as "trying to stop Brexit", a spin line that's been thoroughly debunked and only now believed by the easily led and gullible. So nothing to explain.
The Lib Dem stance is that we've voted on what we want to leave hut not where we want to go and we need another referendum for that - one in which one side can't pretend to be all things to all people but where the explicit exit deal is presented for endorsement or rejection. And for the possibility of rejection to be meaningful, at least one of the alternative options has to allow for return to the previous status quo.
Why is that anti-democratic? Other than entertaining a possibility you don't like?
It is not anti democratic provided a second referendum is a choice between
a) leaving on the terms negotiated wit the rest of the EU and
b) the World Trade Organisation option.
There should be no option of remaining since that has already been rejected.
Why not? People are entitled to change their minds based on new information. It's why losing parties are allowed to stand again at the following General Election, after all. Simply re-running a referendum again and again until you get the result you want is certainly undemocratic, but this would not be such - it would be a meaningful choice on destination (and not "Vote for what we've handed you or nothing at all"): I'd prefer a three-choice referendum (under AV): - Government Deal - Nothing/hard exit - Return to former status quo.
(It does smack rather of "Hell, we thought we wouldn't win, we only have a slim majority and reality might bite into that, no take-backsies, no take-backsies, you said, you said, you can't change your mind now!!"
Boon also says the figures for Labour are bleak. The tables, which ICM will publish later today (I will post a link as soon as they’re online) show the Tories ahead of Labour amongst every social grade, even DEs (where the Tories are on 33% and Labour 32%). The Tories are also ahead amongst all age groups, apart from 18 to 24-year-olds.
SNP 41% Con 30% Lab 19% Lib Dem 5% UKIP 3% Greens 2%
I suspect that the unusually low SNP lead is a small sample / unweightedness thing and we'll be back to normal come the next polls but all the same, worth adding a small question mark over the SNP's hegemonic position.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
... if there is no referendum on destination. So, not.
There is a very clear destination: OUT
that's a direction not a destination. If someone asks you where you are going and you just say "out" that's not a very helpful response.
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
If you fancy living a little more dangerously, you can buy Trump for 96 c in the $ (Death risk I guess till the 19th)
Death risk, recounts, electoral college revolt, even resignation. All pretty unlikely.
Even if Wisconsin is overturned (Which is a tiny tiny chance), Michigan overturns (Again tiny) the PA deadline is missed now - so Trump will have over 270.
Resignation leads to Pence, not Hillary - as does death.
Electoral college revolt is the only risk to Hillary, but that is far lower than a 3% chance.
The 4% for Trump is very very safe, the 3% for Hillary must be longer than 1 in 10,000.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
... if there is no referendum on destination. So, not.
There is a very clear destination: OUT
that's a direction not a destination. If someone asks you where you are going and you just say "out" that's not a very helpful response.
"Okay, I'll meet you there with the money I owe you"
This is another entertaining meme - whatever you think, it's great filler. There's a few photos of Mrs Castro floating around with Fidel too for confirmation bias
The government had the option of making the referendum vote binding, like it did with the AV one. But it didn't. So it isn't.
The AV one was a special case, as making it binding was required by the LibDems, so that is an unreasonable comparison.
No it isn't, for it demonstrates what the government could have done, had it wanted.
It didn't need to. There was no expectation (at the time) that a normal advisory referendum would later be misconstrued by those who wish to thwart the will of the people.
Boon also says the figures for Labour are bleak. The tables, which ICM will publish later today (I will post a link as soon as they’re online) show the Tories ahead of Labour amongst every social grade, even DEs (where the Tories are on 33% and Labour 32%). The Tories are also ahead amongst all age groups, apart from 18 to 24-year-olds.
SNP 41% Con 30% Lab 19% Lib Dem 5% UKIP 3% Greens 2%
I suspect that the unusually low SNP lead is a small sample / unweightedness thing and we'll be back to normal come the next polls but all the same, worth adding a small question mark over the SNP's hegemonic position.
I was looking at some of the recent polling, and I noticed a pattern.
When there's a high Tory VI/lead there's usually a strong Tory performance in Scotland.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ha! The double standard naked for all to see.
There is no double standard.
If the Lib Dems were to say "The people have voted to leave the EU. We think they are wrong. We will work to make Brexit as soft as possible and then campaign to rejoin" that would be entirely reasonable. UKIP would have been saying "the people have voted to stay, but we will continue to campaign to lose"
Saying "The people have voted to leave, but we think they are wrong, so we will ignore them" is not acceptable behaviour in a democratic society.
Did you miss the bit about the second referendum?
Farage told us on 23 June he would be campaigning for another referendum. He just didn't get the result he was expecting.
No, I didn't. It's not on offer from the EU.
It's like the original referendum pledge - carefully constructed to sound good but be meaningless.
Incidentally, this video's rather good. It's got applications for modern energy supply as well as being something I might look at if I ever write any more steampunk*: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGlDsFAOWXc
*I wrote a short story, which I rather liked, for an anthology but have yet to hear whether it'll be included or not... if it isn't I'll add it to my small pile of short stories for a future (solo) anthology I might write.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
Is it though? If their constituencies voted for Remain, surely they are respecting the vote of their voters.
It was a national poll.
As a true conservative once wrote:
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
That's why the UK system doesn't like referenda. But once you have asked the question there is no choice but to implement the answer.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
... if there is no referendum on destination. So, not.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
Is it though? If their constituencies voted for Remain, surely they are respecting the vote of their voters.
It was a national poll.
And? They are accountable to their local electorates.
So they campaign to rejoin. The referendum was not organised on an electoral college basis, but on a popular vote basis.
Boon also says the figures for Labour are bleak. The tables, which ICM will publish later today (I will post a link as soon as they’re online) show the Tories ahead of Labour amongst every social grade, even DEs (where the Tories are on 33% and Labour 32%). The Tories are also ahead amongst all age groups, apart from 18 to 24-year-olds.
SNP 41% Con 30% Lab 19% Lib Dem 5% UKIP 3% Greens 2%
I suspect that the unusually low SNP lead is a small sample / unweightedness thing and we'll be back to normal come the next polls but all the same, worth adding a small question mark over the SNP's hegemonic position.
I was looking at some of the recent polling, and I noticed a pattern.
When there's a high Tory VI/lead there's usually a strong Tory performance in Scotland.
I've noticed that too and it is not as obvious as it sounds. For many years the fact that the Tories were strong in England and likely to form the government did them positive harm in Scotland. That consequence seems to have broken.
I also think the shine is coming off the SNP government just a tad. They have looked pretty silly over Europe and are getting bogged down in PC nonsense which does them little credit. The latest is that those guilty of criminal offences are no longer to be called "offenders" because this is not sufficiently inclusive. They will be called "persons convicted of an offence" instead. Or Convicts for short.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
Is it though? If their constituencies voted for Remain, surely they are respecting the vote of their voters.
Except didn't half the Lib Dem constituencies vote Leave? Including Nick Clegg's?
Sheffield Hallam voted Remain. I'm very proud of that.
Carshalton and Wallington voted 56-44 leave.. Tom Brake though refuses to accept it..
Why not? People are entitled to change their minds based on new information. It's why losing parties are allowed to stand again at the following General Election, after all. Simply re-running a referendum again and again until you get the result you want is certainly undemocratic, but this would not be such - it would be a meaningful choice on destination (and not "Vote for what we've handed you or nothing at all"): I'd prefer a three-choice referendum (under AV): - Government Deal - Nothing/hard exit - Return to former status quo.
I have no problem with us having a second referendum providing that we can also have a third referendum should the second produce the "wrong result", but I expect Remainers would be dead against that, and that all their supposedly high principled arguments for a second would suddenly be forgotten.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
... if there is no referendum on destination. So, not.
Which is not on offer.
And they are campaigning for it to BE on offer, which is their entire point.
ECVs finally settled at Betfair. 1% free money still available on vote shares and Popular Vote winner. Turnout looks like the same @ 1.03 but DYOR on that.
How long now before @Shadsy pays out on the 0-5% pop vote lead for Hillary? There's no way any recounts are going to change a million votes one way or the other.
It is paid out.
Ah, thanks for that, must have missed it. Bet was by proxy in a shop, so will sent my mate around to collect the winnings - he was wondering why they turned him away last week as the election was ages ago in his mind!
Trump 0-5% might be the bet next time.
Once the illegal voters are removed, Trump 15-20%
Don't want to sound all Max-Trumpkin here, but is it possible that certain "economic migrants" will have been added to the California vote registers ?
Well here's the study, I think it's works out to 25% of 18m undocumented migrants that voted in 2008. Even assuming some level of error, that's still a huge number of potentially invalid votes. In the border states it will have been huge, I think in 2016 undocumented voters may have flipped Nevada if the study is correct and holds true. In fact the compulsion to vote among illegals will have been much higher given that on one side a candidate was proposing to deport them all and on the other side there was a candidate talking about amnesty for 11m illegal immigrants.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
... if there is no referendum on destination. So, not.
There is a very clear destination: OUT
That's not a clear destination. It's a direction. Soft Brexit, hard Brexit, semi-soft Brexit? EEA membership? CETA-style? TTIP-style? CETA-plus? Swiss-EFTA-style? WTO rules? Not even WTO rules, why should we abide by rules set by a bunch of unelected foreign bureaucrats? Continue paying towards Single Market access? Retain some, most, all, none of Freedom of Movement? Customs union in? Or out? Adhere with Single Market legislation? Or not?
Unless you're saying that each and every one of those is equally acceptable to you and to every Leave voter?
It's up to the government to decide and then we pass judgement on them at the next general election
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
IF Labour managed to replace Corbo with someone decent before the election, it could turn out badly for the Tories - the Corbyn firewall would crumble pretty quickly and they would have just 3-4 years of mediocre government to show for themselves. The spotlight would suddenly shine on them pretty brightly.
Unlikely to happen of course, but it's dangerous to rely on a shit-opponent strategy (Madam Clinton and the Remain campaign can advise them on that!)
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
Yes, if one voted to remain based on the economic argument Labour offers precisely zero.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
... if there is no referendum on destination. So, not.
There is a very clear destination: OUT
That's not a clear destination. It's a direction. Soft Brexit, hard Brexit, semi-soft Brexit? EEA membership? CETA-style? TTIP-style? CETA-plus? Swiss-EFTA-style? WTO rules? Not even WTO rules, why should we abide by rules set by a bunch of unelected foreign bureaucrats? Continue paying towards Single Market access? Retain some, most, all, none of Freedom of Movement? Customs union in? Or out? Adhere with Single Market legislation? Or not?
Unless you're saying that each and every one of those is equally acceptable to you and to every Leave voter?
It's up to the government to decide and then we pass judgement on them at the next general election
Then what are you worried about? If they sit on their hands on Article 50 until the next election then, if the people are not impressed, they can vote in new representatives.
Why not? People are entitled to change their minds based on new information. It's why losing parties are allowed to stand again at the following General Election, after all. Simply re-running a referendum again and again until you get the result you want is certainly undemocratic, but this would not be such - it would be a meaningful choice on destination (and not "Vote for what we've handed you or nothing at all"): I'd prefer a three-choice referendum (under AV): - Government Deal - Nothing/hard exit - Return to former status quo.
I have no problem with us having a second referendum providing that we can also have a third referendum should the second produce the "wrong result", but I expect Remainers would be dead against that, and that all their supposedly high principled arguments for a second would suddenly be forgotten.
Look back at the debate on here during the referendum campaign. Leavers were all over the place about what Leave meant, very few of them wanted WTO. The suggestion that we should vote on:
- Government Deal - Nothing/hard exit - Return to former status quo.
seems perfectly valid, if you wanted to find out what people actually wanted.
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
Boon also says the figures for Labour are bleak. The tables, which ICM will publish later today (I will post a link as soon as they’re online) show the Tories ahead of Labour amongst every social grade, even DEs (where the Tories are on 33% and Labour 32%). The Tories are also ahead amongst all age groups, apart from 18 to 24-year-olds.
SNP 41% Con 30% Lab 19% Lib Dem 5% UKIP 3% Greens 2%
I suspect that the unusually low SNP lead is a small sample / unweightedness thing and we'll be back to normal come the next polls but all the same, worth adding a small question mark over the SNP's hegemonic position.
I was looking at some of the recent polling, and I noticed a pattern.
When there's a high Tory VI/lead there's usually a strong Tory performance in Scotland.
I've noticed that too and it is not as obvious as it sounds. For many years the fact that the Tories were strong in England and likely to form the government did them positive harm in Scotland. That consequence seems to have broken.
I also think the shine is coming off the SNP government just a tad. They have looked pretty silly over Europe and are getting bogged down in PC nonsense which does them little credit. The latest is that those guilty of criminal offences are no longer to be called "offenders" because this is not sufficiently inclusive. They will be called "persons convicted of an offence" instead. Or Convicts for short.
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
Yes, if one voted to remain based on the economic argument Labour offers precisely zero.
If one voted to remain based on the economic argument the Conservatives offer precisely zero.
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
Indeed. At the moment it is very difficult to see past a Tory hegemony provided they stay together as a party. And that is not certain given the EU is almost the whole agenda.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
... if there is no referendum on destination. So, not.
Which is not on offer.
And they are campaigning for it to BE on offer, which is their entire point.
The Lib Dems aren't spelling it out, but the implication of their policy is that they are campaigning to get a proportion of those that voted Leave to change their minds and therefore switch a narrow majority in favour of leaving the EU to a, presumably also narrow, majority in favour of remaining.
That's not inherently undemocratic. Arguably if people DO change their minds it would be undemocratic NOT to take account of the new majority. Whether it's a realistic or sensible policy for the Lib Dems is another matter.
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
What would their policy on Brexit be? This is the one thing Corbyn is actually playing right [from an electoral perspective, never mind the principles].
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
... if there is no referendum on destination. So, not.
There is a very clear destination: OUT
That's not a clear destination. It's a direction. Soft Brexit, hard Brexit, semi-soft Brexit? EEA membership? CETA-style? TTIP-style? CETA-plus? Swiss-EFTA-style? WTO rules? Not even WTO rules, why should we abide by rules set by a bunch of unelected foreign bureaucrats? Continue paying towards Single Market access? Retain some, most, all, none of Freedom of Movement? Customs union in? Or out? Adhere with Single Market legislation? Or not?
Unless you're saying that each and every one of those is equally acceptable to you and to every Leave voter?
It's up to the government to decide and then we pass judgement on them at the next general election
Then what are you worried about? If they sit on their hands on Article 50 until the next election then, if the people are not impressed, they can vote in new representatives.
I'm not particularly worried. I just think that the Liberal Democrats are being true to form.
(edit: anyway the government has said they intend to exercise Article 50 before the end of March)
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
... if there is no referendum on destination. So, not.
Which is not on offer.
And they are campaigning for it to BE on offer, which is their entire point.
They should put it in their manifesto for the next election then.
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
Yes, if one voted to remain based on the economic argument Labour offers precisely zero.
If one voted to remain based on the economic argument the Conservatives offer precisely zero.
They offer up Phillip Hammond, actually. A self made man, boring but competent.
Why not? People are entitled to change their minds based on new information. It's why losing parties are allowed to stand again at the following General Election, after all. Simply re-running a referendum again and again until you get the result you want is certainly undemocratic, but this would not be such - it would be a meaningful choice on destination (and not "Vote for what we've handed you or nothing at all"): I'd prefer a three-choice referendum (under AV): - Government Deal - Nothing/hard exit - Return to former status quo.
I have no problem with us having a second referendum providing that we can also have a third referendum should the second produce the "wrong result", but I expect Remainers would be dead against that, and that all their supposedly high principled arguments for a second would suddenly be forgotten.
Look back at the debate on here during the referendum campaign. Leavers were all over the place about what Leave meant, very few of them wanted WTO. The suggestion that we should vote on:
- Government Deal - Nothing/hard exit - Return to former status quo.
seems perfectly valid, if you wanted to find out what people actually wanted.
Not really valid. As there would be an effort by the EU and Remainers in the Civil Service make the Deal look as bad as possible, so that frightened by hard exit the status quo suddenly looks good.
Incredible ICM for the Tories. I have found Mrs May somewhat underwhelming to date but the fact is we do not have an effective opposition. This is not a good thing. This is not a time when the government should be complacent, quite the opposite. They have difficult and serious work to do and they should be getting asked the awkward questions to test their positions. But they are not.
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
It's all about Brexit now. The Tories are extremely well placed to grab a huge chunk of the 52%, plus a decent proportion of the 48% who were reluctant Remainers (i.e. persuaded by the economic arguments over their emotional preference for Leave).
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
The game changer to all of this is what happens if Jeremy Corbyn stepped in front of a bus and Labour chose somebody without the baggage of Corbyn.
What would their policy on Brexit be? This is the one thing Corbyn is actually playing right [from an electoral perspective, never mind the principles].
Enable Brexit then if it goes horribly wrong, hoover up the votes or if Brexit is a success adapt to that.
Comments
If the Lib Dems were to say "The people have voted to leave the EU. We think they are wrong. We will work to make Brexit as soft as possible and then campaign to rejoin" that would be entirely reasonable. UKIP would have been saying "the people have voted to stay, but we will continue to campaign to lose"
Saying "The people have voted to leave, but we think they are wrong, so we will ignore them" is not acceptable behaviour in a democratic society.
Farage told us on 23 June he would be campaigning for another referendum. He just didn't get the result he was expecting.
Voting against Article 50 to implement the results of the last one is something else.
Mature politics is to implement the decision the public have made while campaigning to change their minds at a future vote, not trying to frustrate the decision altogether.
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3980150/Eric-Bristow-attacked-tweets-labels-footballers-victims-child-sex-scandal-wimps.html
So, not.
https://www.predictit.org/Market/1234/Who-will-win-the-2016-US-presidential-election
Hillary "No"
If you fancy living a little more dangerously, you can buy Trump for 96 c in the $ (Death risk I guess till the 19th)
Can you not understand the difference?
Alas, like in the EU Ref, the majority of Sheffield made the wrong decision in the AV referendum
their judgement has been monumentally flawed for decades it's why they have a problem
http://www.politico.eu/article/how-francois-fillon-plans-to-knock-out-marine-le-pen/
Fillon camp plans to expose National Front leader as a ‘false conservative’ and go after her blue-collar voters
The AV one was a special case, as making it binding was required by the LibDems, so that is an unreasonable comparison.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/darts/38141331
The offending tweet is written as text.
Soft Brexit, hard Brexit, semi-soft Brexit? EEA membership? CETA-style? TTIP-style? CETA-plus? Swiss-EFTA-style? WTO rules? Not even WTO rules, why should we abide by rules set by a bunch of unelected foreign bureaucrats? Continue paying towards Single Market access? Retain some, most, all, none of Freedom of Movement? Customs union in? Or out? Adhere with Single Market legislation? Or not?
Unless you're saying that each and every one of those is equally acceptable to you and to every Leave voter?
a) leaving on the terms negotiated wit the rest of the EU and
b) the World Trade Organisation option.
There should be no option of remaining since that has already been rejected.
PS: I liked the "green benches/Green benches" pun...
People are entitled to change their minds based on new information. It's why losing parties are allowed to stand again at the following General Election, after all.
Simply re-running a referendum again and again until you get the result you want is certainly undemocratic, but this would not be such - it would be a meaningful choice on destination (and not "Vote for what we've handed you or nothing at all"): I'd prefer a three-choice referendum (under AV):
- Government Deal
- Nothing/hard exit
- Return to former status quo.
77% of Germans want their borders to remain open
73% of Germans want other European countries to take in their refugees
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/fluechtlingskrise-deutsche-lehnen-schliessung-der-grenzen-ab-14550162.html
Labour are not just letting their dwindling band of supporters down, they are letting the whole country down.
Resignation leads to Pence, not Hillary - as does death.
Electoral college revolt is the only risk to Hillary, but that is far lower than a 3% chance.
The 4% for Trump is very very safe, the 3% for Hillary must be longer than 1 in 10,000.
(Later)
- "Where were you with my money?"
"Out"
It's not the same as ignoring a vote to leave
Jack Posobiec
For some reason Twitter keeps censoring this https://t.co/8mrUfIO8Wy
It didn't need to. There was no expectation (at the time) that a normal advisory referendum would later be misconstrued by those who wish to thwart the will of the people.
When there's a high Tory VI/lead there's usually a strong Tory performance in Scotland.
It's like the original referendum pledge - carefully constructed to sound good but be meaningless.
Incidentally, this video's rather good. It's got applications for modern energy supply as well as being something I might look at if I ever write any more steampunk*:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGlDsFAOWXc
*I wrote a short story, which I rather liked, for an anthology but have yet to hear whether it'll be included or not... if it isn't I'll add it to my small pile of short stories for a future (solo) anthology I might write.
Mr Wild ( Southam ) is now being quoted by the Guardian ( see 11.35 am )
Fame at last !
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/nov/29/tories-have-16-pt-lead-over-labour-and-highest-vote-share-for-7-years-poll-suggests-politics-live
I also think the shine is coming off the SNP government just a tad. They have looked pretty silly over Europe and are getting bogged down in PC nonsense which does them little credit. The latest is that those guilty of criminal offences are no longer to be called "offenders" because this is not sufficiently inclusive. They will be called "persons convicted of an offence" instead. Or Convicts for short.
Idiot leftist claims Cubans fled to escape their annoying wives and families. https://t.co/8oRehAWoDS
Tom Brake though refuses to accept it..
I have no problem with us having a second referendum providing that we can also have a third referendum should the second produce the "wrong result", but I expect Remainers would be dead against that, and that all their supposedly high principled arguments for a second would suddenly be forgotten.
Well here's the study, I think it's works out to 25% of 18m undocumented migrants that voted in 2008. Even assuming some level of error, that's still a huge number of potentially invalid votes. In the border states it will have been huge, I think in 2016 undocumented voters may have flipped Nevada if the study is correct and holds true. In fact the compulsion to vote among illegals will have been much higher given that on one side a candidate was proposing to deport them all and on the other side there was a candidate talking about amnesty for 11m illegal immigrants.
Brexit has also shattered Labour's coalition, perhaps irretrievably.
The flipside to this is that the Tory position is potentially very volatile.
Unlikely to happen of course, but it's dangerous to rely on a shit-opponent strategy (Madam Clinton and the Remain campaign can advise them on that!)
The suggestion that we should vote on:
- Government Deal
- Nothing/hard exit
- Return to former status quo.
seems perfectly valid, if you wanted to find out what people actually wanted.
It's deal or no deal.
That's not inherently undemocratic. Arguably if people DO change their minds it would be undemocratic NOT to take account of the new majority. Whether it's a realistic or sensible policy for the Lib Dems is another matter.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump
Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
(edit: anyway the government has said they intend to exercise Article 50 before the end of March)
Not really valid. As there would be an effort by the EU and Remainers in the Civil Service make the Deal look as bad as possible, so that frightened by hard exit the status quo suddenly looks good.
That would be a 'gerrymandered' referendum.
And, as always, do remember to buy an '...overall exceptional novel' for less than the cost of bus fare:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R30UD4RIQ1SUR2/