politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Two thirds of Britons want other parties included in the Brexi

First

third

fifth

SquareRoot said:

fifth

More of an arithmetic progression than a square root.

In theory including lot's of other people in a negotiation is a good idea as it's inclusive and makes things look more transparent.

In practice it doesn't work and just complicates the issue...

That's an intriguing poll result, but how on earth do the respondents propose that Labour should be involved in the negotiations 'on an equal basis' ?

Maybe if we had an extra decade during which to hold the talks...

TheScreamingEagles said:

RoyalBlue said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

Beverley_C said:

Casino_Royale said:

Beverley_C said:

It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.

I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.

So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.

Vote for Corbyn

No.

There are only two options: Tory or Labour.

If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.

They are not unfit to govern. And, even if they were, they'd be ten times better than Corbyn/McDonnell who are professional nation fucker-uppers.

The ability of remainers to embrace the batshit craziness of Corbyn & McDonnell is worrying !

Tell me about it, I spent six hours with JohnO of this parish, that's what's really worrying us, and a Brexit recession were it happen = Corbyn landslide.

Oh and the worry that the only way the people will oppose Corbyn's economic policies is when they've had five years of it.

Landslides are much more likely when the left or right is split. Your hero is intensely relaxed about splitting the Tory Party, so he's obviously quite relaxed about such an outcome. I hope the Europhile Tories who actually had the guts to stay in the Commons and argue their case will adopt a more constructive approach.

Then again, that's setting the bar pretty low.

Cameron's my hero.

You own Brexit, George runs a free sheet in London, he has no influence any more.

WE own Brexit. As a party, we own it and must deliver it. I think there's enormous scope for Europhiles to propose improvements to the current plans (e.g. accepting ECJ jurisdiction for Euratom scientists and other minor technical matters) but that is dependent on them not trying to crash the whole process at the same time.

Cameron follows the constructive approach. Osborne sadly does not.

Who has commissioned this poll, and why?

There is no point consulting with people who want to bring you down. Labour's position on Brexit is like their position on Maastricht; utterly opportunist and unprincipled.

RoyalBlue said:

Who has commissioned this poll, and why?

There is no point consulting with people who want to bring you down. Labour's position on Brexit is like their position on Maastricht; utterly opportunist and unprincipled.

I know, unfair of the public to be so utterly unreasonable, isn't it ?

Richard_Nabavi said:

Don't voters always say that about any aspect of government?

In any case, it's a load of nonsense. The problem isn't too little consultation, it's the fact that what the UK ideally wants is not attainable, and therefore compromises are going to have to be made in the negotiation. As always, people seem to think that the nature of Brexit is something to be determined by debate within the UK, without bothering to speak with our EU friends.

Obviously Britain alone won't decide the end results of the negotiations, but we can decide what we want to pitch for in the negotiations. As of now, we still seem to be pitching with the position that May decided with a couple of special advisers back in January, without even any consultation with most in her party, let alone with opposition parties or with the country as a whole.

GIN1138 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

What an unmitigated disaster the GE result was.

You don't think it's worth swapping Theresa with Boris (I know you aren't a fan of Boris but he is a populist and could take on Corbyn) and having another election in September?

No! The Article 50 clock is ticking, already too much valuable time has been wasted, and what on earth would happen if the result were much the same, or even more inconclusive? Remember also that voters don't like being troubled with unnecessary elections.

There is only one possible course of action for government and the Conservative Party, which is to follow the advice of Winston Churchill and keep buggering on. We need to get through the Article 50 process, sort out as much of the mess as possible, beef up the party organisation and strategy, and leave time for Corbyn to burn out and Labour's unity to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Possibly it would have been better to have done all that under a different leader (Phil Hammond), but the moment for a swift coup has passed.

TOPPING said:

RoyalBlue said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RoyalBlue said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

Beverley_C said:

Casino_Royale said:

Beverley_C said:

It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.

I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.

So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.

Vote for Corbyn

No.

There are only two options: Tory or Labour.

If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.

They are not unfit to govern. And, even if they were, they'd be ten times better than Corbyn/McDonnell who are professional nation fucker-uppers.

The ability of remainers to embrace the batshit craziness of Corbyn & McDonnell is worrying !

Tell me about it, I spent six hours with JohnO of this parish, that's what's really worrying us, and a Brexit recession were it happen = Corbyn landslide.

Oh and the worry that the only way the people will oppose Corbyn's economic policies is when they've had five years of it.

Landslides are much more likely when the left or right is split. Your hero is intensely relaxed about splitting the Tory Party, so he's obviously quite relaxed about such an outcome. I hope the Europhile Tories who actually had the guts to stay in the Commons and argue their case will adopt a more constructive approach.

Then again, that's setting the bar pretty low.

Cameron's my hero.

You own Brexit, George runs a free sheet in London, he has no influence any more.

WE own Brexit. As a party, we own it and must deliver it. I think there's enormous scope for Europhiles to propose improvements to the current plans (e.g. accepting ECJ jurisdiction for Euratom scientists and other minor technical matters) but that is dependent on them not trying to crash the whole process at the same time.

Cameron follows the constructive approach. Osborne sadly does not.

If the Europhobes didn't have a conniption fit at the first mention of ECJ then we would have a chance at a sensible settlement.

The ECJ should have as much jurisdiction in the UK as the Supreme Court of the United States has in Canada. Is that unreasonable?

TOPPING said:

RoyalBlue said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RoyalBlue said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

Beverley_C said:

Casino_Royale said:

Beverley_C said:

It was often said that the purpose of the Tory party was to clean up the mess after the Labour party had been in govt. Labour's last splurge will be with us for some time to come yet but the Tory party seems to be focused on infighting and Brexit arguments.

I am fairly certain that the purpose of the Labour party is to remind the Tories that they do NOT have a God-given right to govern.

So although I think Labour's policies are bad, I think continuing governance by the Tories in their current state is marginally worse.

Vote for Corbyn

No.

There are only two options: Tory or Labour.

If the Tories become unfit to govern then there is only one option left. There are no others.

They are ..uppers.

The ability of ... worrying !

Tell me .... happen = Corbyn landslide.

Oh and the worry that the only way the people will oppose Corbyn's economic policies is when they've had five years of it.

Landslides are much more likely when the left or right is split. Your hero is intensely relaxed about splitting the Tory Party, so he's obviously quite relaxed about such an outcome. I hope the Europhile Tories who actually had the guts to stay in the Commons and argue their case will adopt a more constructive approach.

Then again, that's setting the bar pretty low.

Cameron's my hero.

You own Brexit, George runs a free sheet in London, he has no influence any more.

WE own Brexit. As a party, we own it and must deliver it. I think there's enormous scope for Europhiles to propose improvements to the current plans (e.g. accepting ECJ jurisdiction for Euratom scientists and other minor technical matters) but that is dependent on them not trying to crash the whole process at the same time.

Cameron follows the constructive approach. Osborne sadly does not.

If the Europhobes didn't have a conniption fit at the first mention of ECJ then we would have a chance at a sensible settlement.

It's not Europhobic. But there has to be a recognition that the ECJ isn't a normal court - it exists to protect the 'Project'. In some areas this has little effect, but in many this cannot be acceptable to any free nation state, that a foreign power has jurisdiction above its own courts of law. This is the difference between intergovernmental and supranational.

Philip_Thompson said:

The ECJ should have as much jurisdiction in the UK as the Supreme Court of the United States has in Canada. Is that unreasonable?

What % of Leave voters do you think were primarily motivated by wanting to leave ECJ jurisdiction?

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

That's an intriguing poll result, but how on earth do the respondents propose that Labour should be involved in the negotiations 'on an equal basis' ?

Maybe if we had an extra decade during which to hold the talks...

Grand coalition.

Theresa May running the war Brexit.

Clement AttleeJeremy Corbyn in charge of the domestic affairs.

Now a national government would indeed the the ideal outcome and natural conclusion of what the voters wanted from GE 2017.

However it's not going to happen as Jezza would "betray" all his Momentum backers and become Labour's Ramsay Macdonald...

Uh, Ramsay MacDonald was Labour's Ramsay MacDonald...

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The ECJ should have as much jurisdiction in the UK as the Supreme Court of the United States has in Canada. Is that unreasonable?

What % of Leave voters do you think were primarily motivated by wanting to leave ECJ jurisdiction?

It doesn't matter.

You can't have a sovereign nation that is subject to another nation's supreme court having precedence over its own. That's an absurdity, please point to any other nation which accepts another nation's supreme court as having precedence over their own?

Once we have left the EU then that is what the ECJ is to us. Another's supreme court, not our own.

Philip_Thompson said:

The ECJ should have as much jurisdiction in the UK as the Supreme Court of the United States has in Canada. Is that unreasonable?

Well not so long ago the highest appellate court of Canada (and many other countries*) was a foreign court, The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, based in the House of Lords.

To think that a 'foreign court' is unreasonable ignores history and recent legal precedents.

*Jamaica's highest appellate court was The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council until two years ago.

SquareRoot said:

fifth

Surely 1 1 2 3 5?

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The ECJ should have as much jurisdiction in the UK as the Supreme Court of the United States has in Canada. Is that unreasonable?

What % of Leave voters do you think were primarily motivated by wanting to leave ECJ jurisdiction?

It doesn't matter.

You can't have a sovereign nation that is subject to another nation's supreme court having precedence over its own. That's an absurdity, please point to any other nation which accepts another nation's supreme court as having precedence over their own?

Once we have left the EU then that is what the ECJ is to us. Another's supreme court, not our own.

"It doesn't matter"?!?!

I thought the whole claim from commentators (rightly) was that we have to follow through with Brexit because otherwise faith in democracy won't be respected. But surely a big part of that faith in democracy is also to understand the reasons people voted the way they did?

I think I know what Mike's next thread will be about.

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/885772391523246080

Richard_Nabavi said:

There is only one possible course of action for government and the Conservative Party, which is to follow the advice of Winston Churchill and keep buggering on. We need to get through the Article 50 process, sort out as much of the mess as possible, beef up the party organisation and strategy, and leave time for Corbyn to burn out and Labour's unity to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Possibly it would have been better to have done all that under a different leader (Phil Hammond), but the moment for a swift coup has passed.

OTOH, you could stick with May, go down to a huge defeat in 2022 and spend the next 20 years in Opposition.

Works for me.

The country will be fine if the Conservatives aren't in Government.

stodge said:

The country will be fine if the Conservatives aren't in Government.

You should retain that thought and come back to it in the event of a Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott government. I absolutely, 100%, guarantee that you will eat your words.

Richard_Tyndall said:

On topic I would be in this crowd. Matters of such huge constitutional change should be cross party affairs.

Agreed. It was one of the reasons I think that the government should have taken Mandelson's offer to help with the negotiations seriously.

stodge said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

There is only one possible course of action for government and the Conservative Party, which is to follow the advice of Winston Churchill and keep buggering on. We need to get through the Article 50 process, sort out as much of the mess as possible, beef up the party organisation and strategy, and leave time for Corbyn to burn out and Labour's unity to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Possibly it would have been better to have done all that under a different leader (Phil Hammond), but the moment for a swift coup has passed.

OTOH, you could stick with May, go down to a huge defeat in 2022 and spend the next 20 years in Opposition.

Works for me.

The country will be fine if the Conservatives aren't in Government.

Why post something you know not to be true Every Labour Govt has eventually trashed the economy in the last 50 yrs.

rpjs said:

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

That's an intriguing poll result, but how on earth do the respondents propose that Labour should be involved in the negotiations 'on an equal basis' ?

Maybe if we had an extra decade during which to hold the talks...

Grand coalition.

Theresa May running the war Brexit.

Clement AttleeJeremy Corbyn in charge of the domestic affairs.

Now a national government would indeed the the ideal outcome and natural conclusion of what the voters wanted from GE 2017.

However it's not going to happen as Jezza would "betray" all his Momentum backers and become Labour's Ramsay Macdonald...

Uh, Ramsay MacDonald was Labour's Ramsay MacDonald...

I think TSE was making a point about Corbyn being Labour's second Attlee, who was Deputy PM for five years before taking power in a landslide, then transforming the country with nationalisation and expansion of the welfare state.

Richard_Nabavi said:

You should retain that thought and come back to it in the event of a Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott government. I absolutely, 100%, guarantee that you will eat your words.

Well, according to some fear-mongers on the Right, words will be about all we have to eat after a couple of years of Corbyn.

The only problem is, that's wrong.

I'm NOT saying a Corbyn Government will be a success and it's clear some, whose patriotism extends only as far as their wallet, will see the election of Corbyn as a chance to send a message by sending either themselves, their money or both offshore.

There will be an initial period of ideologically-driven policy excess which will last 12-18 months before some form of crisis hits after which a more technocratic approach will be followed. Corbyn will be more like MacMillan as Prime Minister and the real power will lie with McDonnell who will not want to see the whole Government sacrificed on the altar of a few ideologues and will throw the likes of Abbott overboard.

The 2020s may not be a comfortable time whichever party is in Government as Britain tries to find its place post-EU but I simply don't see the apocalyptic visions conjured by the pro-Conservative media.

SquareRoot said:

stodge said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

There is only one possible course of action for government and the Conservative Party, which is to follow the advice of Winston Churchill and keep buggering on. We need to get through the Article 50 process, sort out as much of the mess as possible, beef up the party organisation and strategy, and leave time for Corbyn to burn out and Labour's unity to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Possibly it would have been better to have done all that under a different leader (Phil Hammond), but the moment for a swift coup has passed.

OTOH, you could stick with May, go down to a huge defeat in 2022 and spend the next 20 years in Opposition.
Works for me.
The country will be fine if the Conservatives aren't in Government.

Why post something you know not to be true Every Labour Govt has eventually trashed the economy in the last 50 yrs.

Yes, better still if Labour are nowhere near government either.......

Richard_Nabavi said:

stodge said:

The country will be fine if the Conservatives aren't in Government.

You should retain that thought and come back to it in the event of a Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott government. I absolutely, 100%, guarantee that you will eat your words.

At least stodge will have something to eat...

Richard_Nabavi said:

stodge said:

[snip] the real power will lie with McDonnell [snip]

Yes, exactly. That is precisely the biggest danger of all. Corbyn is a bumbling buffoon, with bonkers views. McDonnell has the same, or even worse, bonkers views, but is less bumbling, and much nastier.

What you seem to be missing is that the Labour Party now is not like the relatively harmless Labour Party we have known; it has been taken over by a very extreme faction.

But you were also making these melodramatic claims about a possible Ed Miliband government a few years ago.

"Boy Who Cried Wolf" comes to mind....

Danny565 said:

But you were also making these melodramatic claims about a possible Ed Miliband government a few years ago..

No I wasn't. A Miliband government would have been bad (and a Miliband government in thrall to the SNP even worse), but only within the normal limits of bad; think François Hollande or Gordon Brown. At least Ed Balls as Chancellor would have been within the limits of the sane. Life would have gone on, and economy wouldn't have collapsed, although it would have been badly affected. Corbyn/McDonnell (and Abbott, FFS!) are in a completely different league of extremist lunacy.

Danny565 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

stodge said:

[snip] the real power will lie with McDonnell [snip]

Yes, exactly. That is precisely the biggest danger of all. Corbyn is a bumbling buffoon, with bonkers views. McDonnell has the same, or even worse, bonkers views, but is less bumbling, and much nastier.

What you seem to be missing is that the Labour Party now is not like the relatively harmless Labour Party we have known; it has been taken over by a very extreme faction.

But you were also making these melodramatic claims about a possible Ed Miliband government a few years ago.

"Boy Who Cried Wolf" comes to mind....

In Hollande, we have a good indicator of just what a Miliband government would have looked like. Incompetent, blinkered, best forgotten and left to the alternative history text books.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Don't voters always say that about any aspect of government?

In any case, it's a load of nonsense. The problem isn't too little consultation, it's the fact that what the UK ideally wants is not attainable, and therefore compromises are going to have to be made in the negotiation. As always, people seem to think that the nature of Brexit is something to be determined by debate within the UK, without bothering to speak with our EU friends.

I see, BTW, that as I predicted the cost of any deal already seems to be going up as a result of the GE. That is the effect of other parties trying to make political capital out of what was always going to be a very tricky negotiation. What an unmitigated disaster the GE result was.

Oh I don't know. It was very mitigated from my point of view. A strong and stable Maybot wasn't on my priority list.

https://twitter.com/FT/status/885858953955078145

Danny565 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

stodge said:

[snip] the real power will lie with McDonnell [snip]

Yes, exactly. That is precisely the biggest danger of all. Corbyn is a bumbling buffoon, with bonkers views. McDonnell has the same, or even worse, bonkers views, but is less bumbling, and much nastier.

What you seem to be missing is that the Labour Party now is not like the relatively harmless Labour Party we have known; it has been taken over by a very extreme faction.

But you were also making these melodramatic claims about a possible Ed Miliband government a few years ago.

"Boy Who Cried Wolf" comes to mind....

It's interesting that Tories have moved on from "Corbyn is an evil Marxist mastermind" to "Corbyn's an amiable buffer manipulated by McDonnell, who is an evil Marxist mastermind". In particular, Richard has taken a half-sentence from Danny's post (which basically said that McDonnell was sensible) and used it in precisely the opposite meaning.

There is no question that Corbyn is the idealist and McDonnell the wily politician of the two, though McDonnell has a sense of humour that leads him into beartraps of his own making at times (cf. the little Red Book stunt). I think the Tory caricatures of both are misleading, and McDonnell has made a more serious effort that Ed Balls did to have a coherent manifesto with a stab at full costing. He is unlikely to lead us into serious economic trouble, though I suspect he'd be much more likely than Corbyn to scrap manifesto promises to avoid it. People concerned about the country should be glad he's on the team; ironically, serious Marxist ideologues should feel a little uneasy. He is, basically, a realistic politician.

Only a minority think that other parties should be included on an equal basis with the Tory government.
I think the reality is that there is still a substantial minority of people (about the 35% who want other parties to have equal representation) who are determined to frustrate Brexit, either by stipping it altogether, or by getting us out on on the same terms that we were in, with no control of our borders, freedom of movement and the EU still in control over the UK.

NickPalmer said:

It's interesting that Tories have moved on from "Corbyn is an evil Marxist mastermind" to "Corbyn's an amiable buffer manipulated by McDonnell, who is an evil Marxist mastermind". In particular, Richard has taken a half-sentence from Danny's post (which basically said that McDonnell was sensible) and used it in precisely the opposite meaning.
[snip]

You are rewriting history there, Nick! No-one ever claimed Corbyn was a mastermind of any sort, evil or otherwise. Rather the opposite, in fact.

Elgin City North (Moray) result: CON: 40.0% (+7.0) SNP: 38.8% (+6.1) LAB: 15.8% (+3.8) IND: 5.4% (-16.9) Con GAIN from Independent.

surbiton said:

Who is re-writing history ? Even last week Richard was insisting the Tories did not get dirty enough.

No I wasn't, I was insisting that they never got round to exposing the reality of Corbyn and McDonnell to the electorate (and I certainly never called Corbyn a mastermind!!). Which is obvious enough, given the truly shocking figure of how many people voted Labour despite that reality.

surbiton said:

calum said:

https://twitter.com/FT/status/885858953955078145

Recession is here. We were booking space in a exhibition at the NEC for next year. The asking price was £400 a sq.m. Obviously, we played hard ball. My Marketing Manager got it for £220 sq.ft including sponsoring the event.

Even six months ago , we were having difficulty getting space at £320 per sq.ft.

Perhaps the thought of a Corbyn government is scaring people.

You didn't negotiate that well if it started off a £400 a sq m and you are now paying £220 a sq ft.. (hint there are 10.7sq ft to a sq m)

BannedInParis said:

Danny565 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

stodge said:

[snip] the real power will lie with McDonnell [snip]

Yes, exactly. That is precisely the biggest danger of all. Corbyn is a bumbling buffoon, with bonkers views. McDonnell has the same, or even worse, bonkers views, but is less bumbling, and much nastier.

What you seem to be missing is that the Labour Party now is not like the relatively harmless Labour Party we have known; it has been taken over by a very extreme faction.

But you were also making these melodramatic claims about a possible Ed Miliband government a few years ago.

"Boy Who Cried Wolf" comes to mind....

In Hollande, we have a good indicator of just what a Miliband government would have looked like. Incompetent, blinkered, best forgotten and left to the alternative history text books.

Look at Ed's Shadow Cabinet. Ed Balls as CoE; Yvette as Home Office etc etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Cabinet_of_Ed_Miliband

Compare that with the potential incoming Labour government under Corbyn.

Roger said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

What an unmitigated disaster the GE result was.

A bigger disaster than the Referendum result?

It's the combination which is particularly disastrous, because trying to negotiate Brexit from a position of government weakness and instability makes it hard, or perhaps even impossible, to reach a sensible deal.

Once again no way Froome should be even money for the Tour at this point.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Roger said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

What an unmitigated disaster the GE result was.

A bigger disaster than the Referendum result?

It's the combination which is particularly disastrous, because trying to negotiate Brexit from a position of government weakness and instability makes it hard, or perhaps even impossible, to reach a sensible deal.

A different way of looking at it is that it makes it easier to see that a 'sensible deal' is impossible while we still have time to do something about it.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Roger said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

What an unmitigated disaster the GE result was.

A bigger disaster than the Referendum result?

It's the combination which is particularly disastrous, because trying to negotiate Brexit from a position of government weakness and instability makes it hard, or perhaps even impossible, to reach a sensible deal.

On the contrary, it was a good election result. Ideally the Tories another dozen down and LDs a dozen up, but a good one that forces the government to listen. May has a tin ear though, so needs to go.

foxinsoxuk said:

On the contrary, it was a good election result. Ideally the Tories another dozen down and LDs a dozen up, but a good one that forces the government to listen. May has a tin ear though, so needs to go.

You are one of the many making the error of thinking that the nature of Brexit is somehow determinable by an internal British debate. This is one of the most bizarre, and bizarrely widespread, errors of current politics.

surbiton said:

calum said:

https://twitter.com/FT/status/885858953955078145

Recession is here. We were booking space in a exhibition at the NEC for next year. The asking price was £400 a sq.m. Obviously, we played hard ball. My Marketing Manager got it for £220 sq.ft including sponsoring the event.

Even six months ago , we were having difficulty getting space at £320 per sq.ft.

£400 a sq m is a lower price than £220 a sq ft.

You should sack your Marketing Manager.