politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s approval ratings drop to new low with women voters mov

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, very cruel of that poster to agree with David Cameron's position on Turkey.

See willianglenn's post at 11:07 to see why that poster was a lie.

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/941264292246114304

SouthamObserver said:

As usual, Stephen Bush gets it right. The last sentence is key: the right wing press - and May’s decision to pander to it - is what cost the Tories their majority in June. The Daily Mail does not speak for England.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/12/does-government-s-commons-defeat-mean-brexit-can-be-stopped

Yes, Bush is correct. The hysteria and downright unpleasantness from the likes of the Daily Mail, Dorries, Montgomery etc. can't be earning the Tories any friends. Okay, it might keep the Ultras foamingly loyal, but how many of these are there? And surely the imperative is to woo new followers as the bored and disconsolate drift away over the years, as they always do. The Tories risk becoming Billy-no-Mates over all this.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, very cruel of that poster to agree with David Cameron's position on Turkey.

See willianglenn's post at 11:07 to see why that poster was a lie.

As soon as the government spent £10m on remain propaganda, the gloves came off. That's what triggered a more dishonest campaign from Leave.

TOPPING said:

logical_song said:

philiph said:

The animosity, hurt, vitriol and lingering sense of unfairness felt by the losing side in elections (and by people or causes that lose in other spheres of life) is becoming an unpleasant feature of our society.

What is the root cause of the inability to accept defeat? Are we now reaping the rewards of the 'We can't have losers' mentality in education for the last 30 or so years? Do we have a generation of quasi adults ill equipped to deal with the realities losing or rejection after a cosseted and protected childhood, education and introduction to safe spaces?

Have we produced a society that easily feels cheated and is unable to accept rejection? A society that demands rights without recognising the responsibilities on the other side of the equasion?

There is increasing bitterness in the reaction exhibited by some in Labour / Momentum, and some Remainers. You see it in a wide sphere of life these days, aided by Internet exposure and single issue campaigns.

Sad to see our humanity so devalued and intolerant..

Should we all accept whoever or whatever won a particular election or referendum and shut up?
If Corbyn wins the next election will you do so?

Is the point Leavers miss.

What on earth, on a politics blog of all places, do people expect?

Do they think I or, say, @Casino_Royale, on Day One of a Corbyn Government, would make posts saying: good call UK not my choice but fair play to you all, I see now it was the right thing to do: let's get to it; those PLCs aren't going to nationalise themselves.

If Corbyn wins a majority, he has a right to govern. That's what the Salisbury Convention, among other constitutional principles, is about. Of course, if he can't get his legislation through the Commons, where the MPs have as much of a mandate as he does and where his government's mandate rests, that's a different matter. It's on that basis that opposition parties have a right and to an extent a duty to oppose.

david_herdson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Herdson, mildly surprised nobody's made a Norway debate jest yet...

I'm disappointed that no-one's tied together Star Wars and the Brexit vote with a Darth Grieve-ous reference.

He was a General, not a Darth.

Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore released a video message on YouTube in which he appeared to refuse to admit defeat and railed against "immorality" in the U.S.

Moore looks to have lost the Alabama Senate election race which took place Tuesday. With 99 percent of the vote in, NBC News projected Wednesday that Democrat Doug Jones was the winner with a margin of more than 20,000 votes.

But in an online video on Wednesday, Moore appeared to still be resisting any concession to Jones, insisting that there was still a chance he could win the closely-run vote.

"In this race, we have not received the final count to include military and provisional ballots. This has been a very close race and we are awaiting certification by the Secretary of State," he said in the video.

In the rest of the message, Moore said he was "concerned about the future of our country — both financially and morally." He then continued to speak on abortion, homosexuality, drugs, transgender rights and materialism, saying "immorality sweeps over our land."

"Today, we no longer recognize the universal truth that God is the author of our life and liberty," he said in the video.

"Abortion, sodomy, and materialism have taken the place of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/14/roy-moore-rails-against-us-immorality-in-4-minute-youtube-video.html

CD13 said:

Mr Eagles,

You're a Tory voter. What do the Tories gain from the rebels' victory? The government is seen to be weaker, the EU negotiators gain confidence, and Jezza can crow about his victory.

The only explanation is the rebels believe they can influence things - in a bad way for Leave. I don't believe Soubry for one would ever vote to accept any deal which results in us leaving. Labour would be pleased to vote against and blame the splits in the Tory party for it.

If nothing else, they can delay things more.

if I were a fanatic Remainer, my cunning plan would be to rubbish our negotiations, complain it's all too difficult, make it as difficult as possible and hope with the media advantage to erode the will to leave.

I don't think I'd have the brass neck to claim it's all on behalf of democracy, though.

Mr Meeks is still in his Mr Hyde mode. Dr Jekyll may not return for some time.

I'm a Tory activist, and the rest of your post proceeds from a false premise.

TGOHF said:

philiph said:

The animosity, hurt, vitriol and lingering sense of unfairness felt by the losing side in elections (and by people or causes that lose in other spheres of life) is becoming an unpleasant feature of our society.

What is the root cause of the inability to accept defeat? Are we now reaping the rewards of the 'We can't have losers' mentality in education for the last 30 or so years? Do we have a generation of quasi adults ill equipped to deal with the realities losing or rejection after a cosseted and protected childhood, education and introduction to safe spaces?

Have we produced a society that easily feels cheated and is unable to accept rejection? A society that demands rights without recognising the responsibilities on the other side of the equasion?

There is increasing bitterness in the reaction exhibited by some in Labour / Momentum, and some Remainers. You see it in a wide sphere of life these days, aided by Internet exposure and single issue campaigns.

Sad to see our humanity so devalued and intolerant..

+1 Excellent post.

Could it not be that people are no longer prepared to give up on their principles at the first defeat, and argue for what they feel is right, even when a majority (of whatever size) are against them; and attempt to win the argument on what they perceive as its merits regardless of the prevailing mood. (c.f. anti-EU campaign since at least 1974)

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@hugorifkind: So deselection is good when it happens to sane Tories but bad when it happens to sane Labour and democracy is good when it might lead to mad Brexit but bad when it might lead to mad Corbyn. Am I getting this right?

Traitors, not sane.

Using the language of Thomas Mair is never a good look in this context.

It doesn't make them not traitors. Their allegiance is to an organisation which is not the Crown. By definition they are traitors.

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Herdson, mildly surprised nobody's made a Norway debate jest yet...

I'm disappointed that no-one's tied together Star Wars and the Brexit vote with a Darth Grieve-ous reference.

He was a General, not a Darth.

Fair point. Doesn't spoil the joke though. (I have tried to forget most of episodes I and II).

MikeSmithson said:

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/941264292246114304

OGH lost for words?

https://twitter.com/george_osborne/status/941272224291487745

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/george_osborne/status/941272224291487745

Mayflies don't last long, do they?

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

TOPPING said:

logical_song said:

TGOHF said:

Winstanley said:

Following the discussion on sovereignty in the last thread, I'm not sure it's such hypocrisy for Leavers to be exasperated or concerned about the vote yesterday. The HoC chose to hold the referendum, designed it, voted it through, and figures of all major parties loudly spoke of how the referendum result would be followed whatever it was.

In my personal opinion this whole thing is parliament's mess first of all, and though the vote last night was probably for the best in terms of holding the government's handling of Brexit accountable it has also raised the possibility of a bigger mess if parliament does end up rejecti g the whole process after all.

I think that the frustration is due to a lack of trust in the remainer Tory MPs - many suspect playing the "sovereignty" card is just an excuse to try and block Brexit and "get one up" Mrs May for following the result of the referendum.

Why does it still need saying that the result of the referendum didn't mandate any particular type of Brexit. It does make a difference what is decided by May and the three Brexiteers. It does need scrutiny and it does need the HoC to take control and vote on it.

Amazing that this needs repeating.

Does Norway have FOM? Yes
Does Norway take part in the Single Market? Yes
Is Norway a member of the EU? No

Does Norway have to pay a lot for the privilege?
Does Norway have to take EU regulations directly in order to retain that privilege?

No and No.

Really? My understanding was that Norway paid the EU €400m a year, which for a country with a population only one-twelfth that of the UK's (albeit a richer one), would equate to about €5bn for one the UK's size. That's quite 'a lot' to me.

Why do people persist in ignorantly basing the EEA membership costs on population when they're explicitly based on GDP?
It comes over as being deliberately misleading.
Given our economy is just over 7 times the size of Norway's, the equivalent calculation would be about 2.9bn euros. It's a scale error similar to the 350-million-bus one, and comes across as being quite as deliberate.

https://twitter.com/ladpolitics/status/941273585343193088

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@hugorifkind: So deselection is good when it happens to sane Tories but bad when it happens to sane Labour and democracy is good when it might lead to mad Brexit but bad when it might lead to mad Corbyn. Am I getting this right?

Traitors, not sane.

Using the language of Thomas Mair is never a good look in this context.

It doesn't make them not traitors. Their allegiance is to an organisation which is not the Crown. By definition they are traitors.

I do not take the view that everyone who voted remain is a treacherous vandal who wants to tear down centuries of democratic tradition and replace it with a flimsy, semi-democratic bureaucratic superstate which rides roughshod over the views of its wider citizenship. Unlike some posters I shan't name, I understand that not everyone who voted a certain way can be tarred with the same brush.

Remain was a wide spectrum of views. I suspect that a goodly percentage of the remain vote was "well, I don't like the EU, I don't want to become part of a federal superstate, but I don't want to risk the economic pain of separation - that's more important to me." Still more would have found Dave's semi-detached deal acceptable, others were OK with the status quo. Some, nobly, believed we could reform from within.

Most leavers and remainers voted out of what they felt was a duty to their country. I am proud to have voted with what I felt were my country's best interests at heart, and as such, have a clean conscience.

Importantly: I believe the vast majority of people who voted remain can say the same thing.

However, Max is right that there is one particular word that describes those whose allegiance is to the EU *over and above* their country, just as it would have been once for those looking to subvert democracy and have the UK become a satellite of the USSR.

I'll refrain from using it - because it stirs up too much emotion - nonetheless, it is hard to think of a more appropriate word for those who are willing to try every trick in the book to drag us kicking and screaming into a federal superstate, an outcome which has been roundly rejected by the electorate. And make no mistake - that is the ultimate destination of EU membership. To say otherwise is a far bigger lie than anything that's been written on the side of a bus.

Andy_Cooke said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

TOPPING said:

logical_song said:

TGOHF said:

Winstanley said:

Following the discussion on sovereignty in the last thread, I'm not sure it's such hypocrisy for Leavers to be exasperated or concerned about the vote yesterday. The HoC chose to hold the referendum, designed it, voted it through, and figures of all major parties loudly spoke of how the referendum result would be followed whatever it was.

In my personal opinion this whole thing is parliament's mess first of all, and though the vote last night was probably for the best in terms of holding the government's handling of Brexit accountable it has also raised the possibility of a bigger mess if parliament does end up rejecti g the whole process after all.

I think that the frustration is due to a lack of trust in the remainer Tory MPs - many suspect playing the "sovereignty" card is just an excuse to try and block Brexit and "get one up" Mrs May for following the result of the referendum.

Why does it still need saying that the result of the referendum didn't mandate any particular type of Brexit. It does make a difference what is decided by May and the three Brexiteers. It does need scrutiny and it does need the HoC to take control and vote on it.

Amazing that this needs repeating.

Does Norway have FOM? Yes
Does Norway take part in the Single Market? Yes
Is Norway a member of the EU? No

Does Norway have to pay a lot for the privilege?
Does Norway have to take EU regulations directly in order to retain that privilege?

No and No.

Really? My understanding was that Norway paid the EU €400m a year, which for a country with a population only one-twelfth that of the UK's (albeit a richer one), would equate to about €5bn for one the UK's size. That's quite 'a lot' to me.

Why do people persist in ignorantly basing the EEA membership costs on population when they're explicitly based on GDP?
It comes over as being deliberately misleading.
Given our economy is just over 7 times the size of Norway's, the equivalent calculation would be about 2.9bn euros. It's a scale error similar to the 350-million-bus one, and comes across as being quite as deliberate.

Genuine mistake: I didn't realise Norway's GDP-per-head was that much higher. I did flag up that it was a richer one in my earlier post but assumed that the gap was small enough to make a comparison based on population broadly equivalent.

kyf_100 said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@hugorifkind: So deselection is good when it happens to sane Tories but bad when it happens to sane Labour and democracy is good when it might lead to mad Brexit but bad when it might lead to mad Corbyn. Am I getting this right?

Traitors, not sane.

Using the language of Thomas Mair is never a good look in this context.

It doesn't make them not traitors. Their allegiance is to an organisation which is not the Crown. By definition they are traitors.

I do not take the view that everyone who voted remain is a treacherous vandal who wants to tear down centuries of democratic tradition and replace it with a flimsy, semi-democratic bureaucratic superstate which rides roughshod over the views of its wider citizenship. Unlike some posters I shan't name, I understand that not everyone who voted a certain way can be tarred with the same brush.

Remain was a wide spectrum of views. I suspect that a goodly percentage of the remain vote was "well, I don't like the EU, I don't want to become part of a federal superstate, but I don't want to risk the economic pain of separation - that's more important to me." Still more would have found Dave's semi-detached deal acceptable, others were OK with the status quo. Some, nobly, believed we could reform from within.

Most leavers and remainers voted out of what they felt was a duty to their country. I am proud to have voted with what I felt were my country's best interests at heart, and as such, have a clean conscience.

Importantly: I believe the vast majority of people who voted remain can say the same thing.

However, Max is right that there is one particular word that describes those whose allegiance is to the EU *over and above* their country, just as it would have been once for those looking to subvert democracy and have the UK become a satellite of the USSR.

I'll refrain from using it - because it stirs up too much emotion - nonetheless, it is hard to think of a more appropriate word for those who are willing to try every trick in the book to drag us kicking and screaming into a federal superstate, an outcome which has been roundly rejected by the electorate. And make no mistake - that is the ultimate destination of EU membership. To say otherwise is a far bigger lie than anything that's been written on the side of a bus.

Find me someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".

Need some pretty explicit wording/quoting here pls.

TOPPING said:

kyf_100 said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@hugorifkind: So deselection is good when it happens to sane Tories but bad when it happens to sane Labour and democracy is good when it might lead to mad Brexit but bad when it might lead to mad Corbyn. Am I getting this right?

Traitors, not sane.

Using the language of Thomas Mair is never a good look in this context.

It doesn't make them not traitors. Their allegiance is to an organisation which is not the Crown. By definition they are traitors.

I do not take the view that everyone who voted remain is a treacherous vandal who wants to tear down centuries of democratic tradition and replace it with a flimsy, semi-democratic bureaucratic superstate which rides roughshod over the views of its wider citizenship. Unlike some posters I shan't name, I understand that not everyone who voted a certain way can be tarred with the same brush.

Remain was a wide spectrum of views. I suspect that a goodly percentage of the remain vote was "well, I don't like the EU, I don't want to become part of a federal superstate, but I don't want to risk the economic pain of separation - that's more important to me." Still more would have found Dave's semi-detached deal acceptable, others were OK with the status quo. Some, nobly, believed we could reform from within.

Most leavers and remainers voted out of what they felt was a duty to their country. I am proud to have voted with what I felt were my country's best interests at heart, and as such, have a clean conscience.

Importantly: I believe the vast majority of people who voted remain can say the same thing.

However, Max is right that there is one particular word that describes those whose allegiance is to the EU *over and above* their country, just as it would have been once for those looking to subvert democracy and have the UK become a satellite of the USSR.

I'll refrain from using it - because it stirs up too much emotion - nonetheless, it is hard to think of a more appropriate word for those who are willing to try every trick in the book to drag us kicking and screaming into a federal superstate, an outcome which has been roundly rejected by the electorate. And make no mistake - that is the ultimate destination of EU membership. To say otherwise is a far bigger lie than anything that's been written on the side of a bus.

Find me someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".

Need some pretty explicit wording/quoting here pls.

Willamglenn of this parish!

logical_song said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/george_osborne/status/941272224291487745

Mayflies don't last long, do they?

This Mayfly broke its back on its first outing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMA_No._1

david_herdson said:

Andy_Cooke said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

TOPPING said:

logical_song said:

TGOHF said:

I think that the frustration is due to a lack of trust in the remainer Tory MPs - many suspect playing the "sovereignty" card is just an excuse to try and block Brexit and "get one up" Mrs May for following the result of the referendum.

Why does it still need saying that the result of the referendum didn't mandate any particular type of Brexit. It does make a difference what is decided by May and the three Brexiteers. It does need scrutiny and it does need the HoC to take control and vote on it.

Amazing that this needs repeating.

Does Norway have FOM? Yes
Does Norway take part in the Single Market? Yes
Is Norway a member of the EU? No

Does Norway have to pay a lot for the privilege?
Does Norway have to take EU regulations directly in order to retain that privilege?

No and No.

Really? My understanding was that Norway paid the EU €400m a year, which for a country with a population only one-twelfth that of the UK's (albeit a richer one), would equate to about €5bn for one the UK's size. That's quite 'a lot' to me.

Why do people persist in ignorantly basing the EEA membership costs on population when they're explicitly based on GDP?
It comes over as being deliberately misleading.
Given our economy is just over 7 times the size of Norway's, the equivalent calculation would be about 2.9bn euros. It's a scale error similar to the 350-million-bus one, and comes across as being quite as deliberate.

Genuine mistake: I didn't realise Norway's GDP-per-head was that much higher. I did flag up that it was a richer one in my earlier post but assumed that the gap was small enough to make a comparison based on population broadly equivalent.

Not that it matters anyway. The EU can chose whatever metric it likes to decide on the cost of the UK's access to the Single Market, given that we are looking at a bespoke deal rather than EEA membership.

@ThatTimWalker: The ugliness of the language being used about the Tory Brexit rebels shows the ugliness of the Brextremists and the ugliness of their cause.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

david_herdson said:

Andy_Cooke said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

TOPPING said:

logical_song said:

TGOHF said:

I think that the frustration is due to a lack of trust in the remainer Tory MPs - many suspect playing the "sovereignty" card is just an excuse to try and block Brexit and "get one up" Mrs May for following the result of the referendum.

Why does it still need saying that the result of the referendum didn't mandate any particular type of Brexit. It does make a difference what is decided by May and the three Brexiteers. It does need scrutiny and it does need the HoC to take control and vote on it.

Amazing that this needs repeating.

Does Norway have FOM? Yes
Does Norway take part in the Single Market? Yes
Is Norway a member of the EU? No

Does Norway have to pay a lot for the privilege?
Does Norway have to take EU regulations directly in order to retain that privilege?

No and No.

Really? My understanding was that Norway paid the EU €400m a year, which for a country with a population only one-twelfth that of the UK's (albeit a richer one), would equate to about €5bn for one the UK's size. That's quite 'a lot' to me.

Why do people persist in ignorantly basing the EEA membership costs on population when they're explicitly based on GDP?
It comes over as being deliberately misleading.
Given our economy is just over 7 times the size of Norway's, the equivalent calculation would be about 2.9bn euros. It's a scale error similar to the 350-million-bus one, and comes across as being quite as deliberate.

Genuine mistake: I didn't realise Norway's GDP-per-head was that much higher. I did flag up that it was a richer one in my earlier post but assumed that the gap was small enough to make a comparison based on population broadly equivalent.

Not that it matters anyway. The EU can chose whatever metric it likes to decide on the cost of the UK's access to the Single Market, given that we are looking at a bespoke deal rather than EEA membership.

But the argument was specifically about EEA membership. Yes of course outside of that the EU - and the UK - can decide what they want the agreement to be. But I still maintain the most sensible solution was and is EEA membership via EFTA.

Richard_Tyndall said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

david_herdson said:

Andy_Cooke said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

TOPPING said:

logical_song said:

TGOHF said:

I think that the frustration is due to a lack of trust in the remainer Tory MPs - many suspect playing the "sovereignty" card is just an excuse to try and block Brexit and "get one up" Mrs May for following the result of the referendum.

Why does it still need saying that the result of the referendum didn't mandate any particular type of Brexit. It does make a difference what is decided by May and the three Brexiteers. It does need scrutiny and it does need the HoC to take control and vote on it.

Amazing that this needs repeating.

Does Norway have FOM? Yes
Does Norway take part in the Single Market? Yes
Is Norway a member of the EU? No

Does Norway have to pay a lot for the privilege?
Does Norway have to take EU regulations directly in order to retain that privilege?

No and No.

Really? My understanding was that Norway paid the EU €400m a year, which for a country with a population only one-twelfth that of the UK's (albeit a richer one), would equate to about €5bn for one the UK's size. That's quite 'a lot' to me.

Why do people persist in ignorantly basing the EEA membership costs on population when they're explicitly based on GDP?
It comes over as being deliberately misleading.
Given our economy is just over 7 times the size of Norway's, the equivalent calculation would be about 2.9bn euros. It's a scale error similar to the 350-million-bus one, and comes across as being quite as deliberate.

Genuine mistake: I didn't realise Norway's GDP-per-head was that much higher. I did flag up that it was a richer one in my earlier post but assumed that the gap was small enough to make a comparison based on population broadly equivalent.

Not that it matters anyway. The EU can chose whatever metric it likes to decide on the cost of the UK's access to the Single Market, given that we are looking at a bespoke deal rather than EEA membership.

But the argument was specifically about EEA membership. Yes of course outside of that the EU - and the UK - can decide what they want the agreement to be. But I still maintain the most sensible solution was and is EEA membership via EFTA.

But I thought EEA membership requires freedom of movement which, I thought, had been ruled out?

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Find me someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".

Need some pretty explicit wording/quoting here pls.

Without getting too much into the whole traitor argument, Williamglenn has made clear on several occasions that he does not believe in the nation state and would like to see the UK subsumed into a federal EU. That would seem to match what you are asking for pretty explicitly.

What about those Scottish people that don't favour Scottish independence, are they traitors also?

TheScreamingEagles said:

David_Evershed said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CD13 said:

Mr Eagles,

You're a Tory voter. What do the Tories gain from the rebels' victory? The government is seen to be weaker, the EU negotiators gain confidence, and Jezza can crow about his victory.

The only explanation is the rebels believe they can influence things - in a bad way for Leave. I don't believe Soubry for one would ever vote to accept any deal which results in us leaving. Labour would be pleased to vote against and blame the splits in the Tory party for it.

If nothing else, they can delay things more.

if I were a fanatic Remainer, my cunning plan would be to rubbish our negotiations, complain it's all too difficult, make it as difficult as possible and hope with the media advantage to erode the will to leave.

I don't think I'd have the brass neck to claim it's all on behalf of democracy, though.

Mr Meeks is still in his Mr Hyde mode. Dr Jekyll may not return for some time.

I'm a Tory activist, and the rest of your post proceeds from a false premise.

Given the average age of Conservative members, is "activist" appropriate terminology anymore, excepting yourself of course?

Not that old chesnut.

The average age of Conservative Party members is 57 – four years older than Labour ones.

https://fullfact.org/news/how-old-average-conservative-party-member/

From the article

"Although 57 (Conservative average age) is heading towards the retirement age, SNP, Labour, and Lib Dem members aren’t much younger. Their members’ average ages are 54, 53 and 52 respectively, according to the Queen Mary research.

What this tells us is that “People who join political parties are abnormal”, Professor Bale says."

FeersumEnjineeya said:

But I thought EEA membership requires freedom of movement which, I thought, had been ruled out?

It has been ruled out by our Remain voting PM. Until such times as the actual agreement is finalised I would suggest it is still possible she could see the light and realise there is a compromise to be made.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

david_herdson said:

Andy_Cooke said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

TOPPING said:

logical_song said:

TGOHF said:

I think that the frustration is due to a lack of trust in the remainer Tory MPs - many suspect playing the "sovereignty" card is just an excuse to try and block Brexit and "get one up" Mrs May for following the result of the referendum.

Why does it still need saying that the result of the referendum didn't mandate any particular type of Brexit. It does make a difference what is decided by May and the three Brexiteers. It does need scrutiny and it does need the HoC to take control and vote on it.

Amazing that this needs repeating.

Does Norway have FOM? Yes
Does Norway take part in the Single Market? Yes
Is Norway a member of the EU? No

Does Norway have to pay a lot for the privilege?
Does Norway have to take EU regulations directly in order to retain that privilege?

No and No.

Really? My understanding was that Norway paid the EU €400m a year, which for a country with a population only one-twelfth that of the UK's (albeit a richer one), would equate to about €5bn for one the UK's size. That's quite 'a lot' to me.

Why do people persist in ignorantly basing the EEA membership costs on population when they're explicitly based on GDP?
It comes over as being deliberately misleading.
Given our economy is just over 7 times the size of Norway's, the equivalent calculation would be about 2.9bn euros. It's a scale error similar to the 350-million-bus one, and comes across as being quite as deliberate.

Genuine mistake: I didn't realise Norway's GDP-per-head was that much higher. I did flag up that it was a richer one in my earlier post but assumed that the gap was small enough to make a comparison based on population broadly equivalent.

Not that it matters anyway. The EU can chose whatever metric it likes to decide on the cost of the UK's access to the Single Market, given that we are looking at a bespoke deal rather than EEA membership.

And the UK can decide the cost to the EU of their access to the UK market.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Find me someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".

Need some pretty explicit wording/quoting here pls.

Without getting too much into the whole traitor argument, Williamglenn has made clear on several occasions that he does not believe in the nation state and would like to see the UK subsumed into a federal EU. That would seem to match what you are asking for pretty explicitly.

What about those Scottish people that don't favour Scottish independence, are they traitors also?

I was not the one using that word. I was simply pointing out that Williamglenn fits your request for someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".

Of course I am at the other extreme. I would like to see the breakup of the UK into its constituent countries. For anyone who values the UK over England or Scotland I would be a traitor I suppose.

Is Scottish unionists' allegiance to the UK over Scotland? Not sure it is.

Not sure they see it in those terms. They (I imagine) are very comfortable being Scottish patriots, and also are very happy to be part of the UK. Don't you agree?

TheScreamingEagles said:

David_Evershed said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CD13 said:

Mr Eagles,

You're a Tory voter. What do the Tories gain from the rebels' victory? The government is seen to be weaker, the EU negotiators gain confidence, and Jezza can crow about his victory.

The only explanation is the rebels believe they can influence things - in a bad way for Leave. I don't believe Soubry for one would ever vote to accept any deal which results in us leaving. Labour would be pleased to vote against and blame the splits in the Tory party for it.

If nothing else, they can delay things more.

if I were a fanatic Remainer, my cunning plan would be to rubbish our negotiations, complain it's all too difficult, make it as difficult as possible and hope with the media advantage to erode the will to leave.

I don't think I'd have the brass neck to claim it's all on behalf of democracy, though.

Mr Meeks is still in his Mr Hyde mode. Dr Jekyll may not return for some time.

I'm a Tory activist, and the rest of your post proceeds from a false premise.

Given the average age of Conservative members, is "activist" appropriate terminology anymore, excepting yourself of course?

Not that old chesnut.

The average age of Conservative Party members is 57 – four years older than Labour ones.

https://fullfact.org/news/how-old-average-conservative-party-member/

The mean age isn't so different between parties, but the distribution seems to be. 44% of conservative members are over 65, compared with 30% for the other two main parties. Labour is very middle aged, Lib Dems have more than third under 45.

Godalming Central & Ockford (Waveney) result:

LDEM: 37.8% (+37.8)
CON: 35.0% (-6.5)
LAB: 21.5% (-4.6)
GRN: 5.7% (+5.7)


Newtown & St Leonard's (Exeter) result:

LAB: 54.6% (+1.2)
CON: 26.8% (+1.5)
LDEM: 9.4% (+9.4)
GRN: 7.2% (-5.7)
UKIP: 2.1% (-3.2)

David_Evershed said:

Godalming Central & Ockford (Waveney) result:

LDEM: 37.8% (+37.8)
CON: 35.0% (-6.5)
LAB: 21.5% (-4.6)
GRN: 5.7% (+5.7)


Newtown & St Leonard's (Exeter) result:

LAB: 54.6% (+1.2)
CON: 26.8% (+1.5)
LDEM: 9.4% (+9.4)
GRN: 7.2% (-5.7)
UKIP: 2.1% (-3.2)

In Godalming the Greens stood for the Borough Council but not the Town council.

They took votes away from other parties in the Borough Council election as follows:
Con -6 Lab -11 Lib Dem – 28

Full figures
Town: LD 294 Con 252 Lab 162 (winning margin 42)
Borough: LD 266 Con 246 Lab 151 Green 40 (winning margin 20)

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, very cruel of that poster to agree with David Cameron's position on Turkey.

See willianglenn's post at 11:07 to see why that poster was a lie.

It wasn't.

The UK has a border with schengen.

If Turkey has a deal with Schengen allowing for unimpeded tourist transit then, de facto, the Turkish border is the only check between the UK and Syria/Iraq.

It's misleading but within the norms of political knockabout

FeersumEnjineeya said:

kyf_100 said:

Indeed, he would be the only poster on this site who has explictly expressed a view that the Uk should be subsumed into a Federal EU and I understand it is because he believes the nation state is dead, Westphalian sovereignty doesn't work in the 21st century, etc.

So I would prefer to avoid bandying the T-word about with regards to specific people. However, if you look at the wider debate on Twitter and soforth you will find people who believe passionately in a federal superstate.

It is my view that anyone who wishes to see the UK's democratic institutions destroyed by being folded into a federal superstate should be regarded in the same way as communists who wished the UK to become part of the USSR - that their allegiance is to a foreign power and a hostile one at that. Therefore the T-word can be appropriate, although it should be used sparingly, especially when disloyal or misguided would do.

I think even the most fanatical remainers believe they have the country's best interests at heart, although it is also my view that remaining in the EU will lead us into a federal superstate that will destroy centuries of hard won democratic freedom.

A federal superstate is the stated end goal of the EU as stated by many key figures - Martin Schulz said he wanted "a united states of Europe by 2025" only last week. And in my view the meaning of "ever closer union" is clear. How else do you define it?

Thus I find it hard to square the circle between voting in what you think are the best interests of your country and choosing an outcome that will see it destroyed.

There are those of us whose first priority is the well-being of our family, friends and fellow human beings rather than the maintenance of the institutions of the state. If that well-being is best served by the abolition of the nation state (though I'm not yet fully convinced that it is), then so be it.

Yes. I come here to listen to people with different points of view, argue with them, but ultimately try to understand them. And that is certainly one point of view. "I think Brexit will be an economic disaster, I will lose my job and not be able to feed my family, that is rather more important to me than the UK's democratic institutions" is a valid point of view, albeit one I disagree with - a strong democracy is such an important guarantor of individual liberty I would personally be prepared to suffer short term economic consequences if I felt it was the only way to preserve them.

TGOHF said:

logical_song said:

TGOHF said:

logical_song said:

philiph said:

The animosity, hurt, vitriol and lingering sense of unfairness felt by the losing side in elections (and by people or causes that lose in other spheres of life) is becoming an unpleasant feature of our society.

What is the root cause of the inability to accept defeat? Are we now reaping the rewards of the 'We can't have losers' mentality in education for the last 30 or so years? Do we have a generation of quasi adults ill equipped to deal with the realities losing or rejection after a cosseted and protected childhood, education and introduction to safe spaces?

Have we produced a society that easily feels cheated and is unable to accept rejection? A society that demands rights without recognising the responsibilities on the other side of the equasion?

There is increasing bitterness in the reaction exhibited by some in Labour / Momentum, and some Remainers. You see it in a wide sphere of life these days, aided by Internet exposure and single issue campaigns.

Sad to see our humanity so devalued and intolerant..

Should we all accept whoever or whatever won a particular election or referendum and shut up?
If Corbyn wins the next election will you do so?

Of course.

I may spend the next 5 years slating him - as with Gordon Brown - but I won't be bleating about the campaign if he kept within the rules.

No problems with remainers wailing about the doom of Brexit (still yet to happen..) but attempts to reverse the result - which was won fair and square - are pathetic.

Looking forward to you 'shutting up' if Corbyn is elected then, although it's difficult to see how you can 'slate him' silently.
You speak as though the result of the referendum was clear, there was a small majority for Leave but no clear agreement on what that means.

You need to re - read.

If Corbo wins fair and square I will spend 5 years slagging off his bonkers policies - loudly.

But I won't be appealing to the high court to overrule the GE if he wins within the rules.

I wish we could expect the same of Labour's 'moderate' MPs.

I'm still bitter they got away with flagrantly changing leadership election rules to hurt Corbyn, like changing the cooling off period before new members could vote. Blair's election it was two weeks, Miliband's four weeks, Corbyn's first election two weeks, his second election nine months backdated. The thousands of spurious suspensions etc.

If you dislike these 11 Tory Remainers, you'll understand why some want to deselect this lot who are just waiting for another chance to stick the knife in at the first spot of bother.

/grumble over.

Well, I have not been reading PB this am and have no idea what has been going on.

But can I recommend to any stressed or depressed PB'ers that a couple of hours in the garden, pruning, mulching, viewing the growth of spring bulbs and winter-flowering bushes (my viburnum and hollies are full of colour) not to mention the bizarre sight of two spring-flowering clematis in flower) and generally enjoying the fresh air, as I have just been doing, is enough to soothe the most fractious soul.

I have also decorated the Xmas tree and this afternoon will be setting up our magnificent Neapolitan crib, complete with proper Neapolitan pizza makers (no pineapple anywhere in our crib, I can assure you!) before sinking into a comfy sofa in front of a proper fire to watch The Crown.

There is more to life than politics........

**.....runs and hides.....**

archer101au said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Why do people persist in ignorantly basing the EEA membership costs on population when they're explicitly based on GDP?
It comes over as being deliberately misleading.
Given our economy is just over 7 times the size of Norway's, the equivalent calculation would be about 2.9bn euros. It's a scale error similar to the 350-million-bus one, and comes across as being quite as deliberate.

It doesn't matter what the figure might be. You don't purchase a trade deficit. It is simply insane.

You do if you're a small business with a Booker's card, of course.

Cyclefree said:

Well, I have not been reading PB this am and have no idea what has been going on.

But can I recommend to any stressed or depressed PB'ers that a couple of hours in the garden, pruning, mulching, viewing the growth of spring bulbs and winter-flowering bushes (my viburnum and hollies are full of colour) not to mention the bizarre sight of two spring-flowering clematis in flower) and generally enjoying the fresh air, as I have just been doing, is enough to soothe the most fractious soul.

I have also decorated the Xmas tree and this afternoon will be setting up our magnificent Neapolitan crib, complete with proper Neapolitan pizza makers (no pineapple anywhere in our crib, I can assure you!) before sinking into a comfy sofa in front of a proper fire to watch The Crown.

There is more to life than politics........

**.....runs and hides.....**

Yes there’s also The Last Jedi.

stevef said:

People see through populist demagogues like Trump, Farage and Corbyn in the end. Interesting that Corbyn uses almost the exact phrases and words that Trump uses like "rigged".

Sanders is more Corbyn and Farage more Trump

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, very cruel of that poster to agree with David Cameron's position on Turkey.

See willianglenn's post at 11:07 to see why that poster was a lie.

It wasn't.

The UK has a border with schengen.

If Turkey has a deal with Schengen allowing for unimpeded tourist transit then, de facto, the Turkish border is the only check between the UK and Syria/Iraq.

It's misleading but within the norms of political knockabout

Sorry Charles but the UK has no land border with Schengen if that is what you were implying.

I was watching a documentary on Jefferson this morning.

The highlighted his belief - which underpinned the deceleration of independence - that "good government can only exist with the explicit consent of the people"

This is the root cause of the vote to Leave - the view that the EU today is not the EU we voted to join (even if some argue the end destination was always know I think it still fails the "explicit consent" criteria) and that we were not asked to re-endorse the decision along the way.

It's also at the root of why there is such a hostile reaction to what are perceived as attempts to create the ability to frustrate the outcome of the referendum. There is a fundamental lack of trust that Remainers - who decry the referendum, the campaign, the result and the subsequent negotiation - will not try to ignore the result if they had half a chance

Alistair said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Remarkable that even a quarter of American women might still have a positive opinion of Trump.

Well on Tuesday nearly 50% of voters in Alabama voted for Roy Moore.

I'm still shocked 3% of African-American voted for him.

3% was within the MoE of 0% for the exit poll.

That's not how moe works.

Yeah, but 0% on a poll does have uncertainty. The normal MoE calculation would give it no uncertainty at all.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, very cruel of that poster to agree with David Cameron's position on Turkey.

See willianglenn's post at 11:07 to see why that poster was a lie.

It wasn't.

The UK has a border with schengen.

If Turkey has a deal with Schengen allowing for unimpeded tourist transit then, de facto, the Turkish border is the only check between the UK and Syria/Iraq.

It's misleading but within the norms of political knockabout

Sorry Charles but the UK has no land border with Schengen if that is what you were implying.

I didn't say "land"

In my view Dover/Calais is a border

HYUFD said:

stevef said:

People see through populist demagogues like Trump, Farage and Corbyn in the end. Interesting that Corbyn uses almost the exact phrases and words that Trump uses like "rigged".

Sanders is more Corbyn and Farage more Trump

Thats the way that Corbyn and his supporters would like to see it. In reality Corbyn is the British Trump. Sanders was no Corbyn. Sanders is much more intelligent and thoughtful than Corbyn. Corbyn, like Trump tries to appeal to people by empty demagoguery, using words like "rigged" Corbyn is very much the British Trump. If he ever gets power -and I doubt he will -he will end up as the most hated politician in the UK, just as Trump is going down in the same way.

edmundintokyo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sorry Max you miss the point. Davis's argument in 2002 and mine now are that, by effectively asking for voters to answer a single question which can have no single answer, Cameron has made it almost impossible to get a Brexit that is agreeable to a wide range of people. Everyone read something different into what they were being asked and trying to square that circle now means that significant numbers of people will be able to claim the spirit of the referendum is not being met.

This is why governments don't usually hold referendums on things they're not actually advocating doing. A better process for a change is to have a party propose something, wait for the voters to elect them as the government and, if it's a big change, go to the voters for permission to do it. That way they can answer questions about what they'll do if the voters vote to accept it, and they're accountable for the way it works out in practice.

Yes, although that wasn't really possible in this case for several reasons.

Firstly, the government did recommend something in the referendum but whereas usually the alternative is 'no change', here it wasn't. That was unusual.

Secondly, even if the government had been advocating Brexit, while it could have put forward a preferred model (as indeed it since has, if in general terms), it still couldn't guarantee the delivery of that because it was dependent on the other EU members.

Thirdly, there wasn't the usual possibility of having a referendum at the end to endorse the process because once A50 is triggered, there's no ability return to the status quo ante (well, there is but the process is so politically unlikely - most likely involving a simultaneous application to rejoin at the moment of exit - that it can be discounted).

Brexit, even had it been the government's plan, would always have been something of a leap in the dark. But to start that process was such a big step that it was nonetheless right that it was put to a public vote.

stevef said:

HYUFD said:

stevef said:

People see through populist demagogues like Trump, Farage and Corbyn in the end. Interesting that Corbyn uses almost the exact phrases and words that Trump uses like "rigged".

Sanders is more Corbyn and Farage more Trump

Thats the way that Corbyn and his supporters would like to see it. In reality Corbyn is the British Trump. Sanders was no Corbyn. Sanders is much more intelligent and thoughtful than Corbyn. Corbyn, like Trump tries to appeal to people by empty demagoguery, using words like "rigged" Corbyn is very much the British Trump. If he ever gets power -and I doubt he will -he will end up as the most hated politician in the UK, just as Trump is going down in the same way.

Sanders represents the same anti globalisation, anti capitalism creed as Corbyn does. Farage is already the most hated politician in the UK.

kyf_100 said:

Yes. I come here to listen to people with different points of view, argue with them, but ultimately try to understand them. And that is certainly one point of view. "I think Brexit will be an economic disaster, I will lose my job and not be able to feed my family, that is rather more important to me than the UK's democratic institutions" is a valid point of view, albeit one I disagree with - a strong democracy is such an important guarantor of individual liberty I would personally be prepared to suffer short term economic consequences if I felt it was the only way to preserve them.

It would also be reasonable to argue (in this country at least) that no-one particularly owes "allegiance" to the place where by a combination of accident-of-birth, convenience, indolence, economic or political constraint, and various forms of self-interest you happen to be allied or embedded in your daily life. If those balances are not working for you, there should be no stigma in seeking other options.

In fact, I don't see how this is any different to the argument in favour of leaving the EU. Anyone in this country under the age of 43, by an accident of birth etc., has been a part of that institution for their entire lives. Choosing to seek another path away from it isn't "treachery". The institutions of the (modern) UK state are roughly 5-6 times older, but that's nothing in the great scheme of things.