politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A week is a long time in politics

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

Yes, we have high employment and low inflation.

We also have stagnating wages, the lowest growth rate in the EU, low productivity, and housing assets consume a truly wasteful percentage of investment while pricing a whole generation out of the property ladder.

PB Tories economic masturbation looks scarily provincial as soon as you leave Dover.

Aaaaaarggh, there's a video by @rcs1000 you need to watch!

Slackbladder said:

Yorkcity said:

SouthamObserver said:

NickPalmer said:

Foxy said:

Ideological purity takes second place to a fresh approach, so Jezza and May are unlikely to be replaced by photocopies of themselves.

If Jezza fell under a bus, I think the party would pick someone equally left-wing but less scrupulous about personal attacks and low cunning. Members aren't longing for a centrist, but they'd mostly like a more cut-throat approach which included savaging hapless Ministers and adopting stances for popular effect. Corbyn seems curiously fastidious in today's world: he thinks that one should simply say what one believes in without abuse or theatrics and in due course the electorate may come round. I like it, but I'm old-fashioned.

If Jezza fell under a bus, Tom Watson would be leader. It would be fascinating to see how long that would last - and who would stand for the leadership in an eventual contest. I am not sure that there is anyone equally as left-wing as Corbyn with the ability to harvest the support that Corbyn does. That's why he has not resigned and will lead labour into the next election.

Tom Watson is looking a lot slimmer these days.

Hasn't he been ill? He was in hospital last week,

Foxy said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Yeah, but apart from all that aren't things going well? Unemployment the lowest since 1975, public borrowing the lowest since 2007 and continuing to fall sharply, growth apparently picking up, inflation low?

I struggle in my adult lifetime to recall a time when there was such a mismatch between an economy doing remarkably well and a government that gives chaos a bad name. Normally governments fall into chaos because they are struggling to cope with adverse economic events.

Here, of course, it is Brexit. May's determination to avoid making decisions for the last 2 years has come home to roost. Will she find a way through to a vaguely credible if suboptimal deal? Who knows? It is a toss of a coin, it really is. We can only hope.

The last years of the Major government are the parallel. The economy doing well, but on a background of cachectic public services, and a government that spends all its time banging on about internal conflicts over Europe.

Blair and Jezza are different people, and I cannot see Jezza getting a 197 majority, but that is the way the wind is blowing. The economy will not save a Tory party that says "F*** Business".

Actually in my view Corbyn may well be another Kinnock who will allow the Tories a historic 4th term they may well have lost against any other leader because he thinks the British people will back him on his second attempt despite losing first time.

In which case is Chuka Umunna Tony Blair?

What on earth do people see in Chuka Umunna? Always struck me as an empty suit. Does he have the ability to appeal to anyone outside EC2?

I used to think that he was an empty suit, but he has rather grown on me since the curious business of his withdrawal from the 2015 Labour Leadership contest. He is articulate, intelligent, and at ease with modern Britain in a way that few other front line politicians are.

Not my first choice as Leader, but not a duffer either.

Yorkcity said:

Slackbladder said:

Yorkcity said:

SouthamObserver said:

NickPalmer said:

Foxy said:

Ideological purity takes second place to a fresh approach, so Jezza and May are unlikely to be replaced by photocopies of themselves.

If Jezza fell under a bus, I think the party would pick someone equally left-wing but less scrupulous about personal attacks and low cunning. Members aren't longing for a centrist, but they'd mostly like a more cut-throat approach which included savaging hapless Ministers and adopting stances for popular effect. Corbyn seems curiously fastidious in today's world: he thinks that one should simply say what one believes in without abuse or theatrics and in due course the electorate may come round. I like it, but I'm old-fashioned.

If Jezza fell under a bus, Tom Watson would be leader. It would be fascinating to see how long that would last - and who would stand for the leadership in an eventual contest. I am not sure that there is anyone equally as left-wing as Corbyn with the ability to harvest the support that Corbyn does. That's why he has not resigned and will lead labour into the next election.

Tom Watson is looking a lot slimmer these days.

Hasn't he been ill? He was in hospital last week,

My apologies , I was not aware of that .Hope he is ok.

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

NickPalmer said:

Foxy said:

Ideological purity takes second place to a fresh approach, so Jezza and May are unlikely to be replaced by photocopies of themselves.

If Jezza fell under a bus, I think the party would pick someone equally left-wing but less scrupulous about personal attacks and low cunning. Members aren't longing for a centrist, but they'd mostly like a more cut-throat approach which included savaging hapless Ministers and adopting stances for popular effect. Corbyn seems curiously fastidious in today's world: he thinks that one should simply say what one believes in without abuse or theatrics and in due course the electorate may come round. I like it, but I'm old-fashioned.

John McDonnell fits your description.

Yes, he does. He's also pretty uninterested in the politics of the Middle East, like 99% of the electorate - it's not that he feels the urge to be protective of Israel, more that he feels it's not a priority to get into Israeli-Palestinian arguments. He was once nice about the IRA, but I think most people feel that's yesterday's issue. His joke that "Jeremy is teaching me to be a nicer person but I'm only halfway through the course" is dangerously near the truth, though.

He says he doesn't want it, and I'm quite sure he won't move against Jeremy. But in an "under the bus" scenario? I wonder.

notme said:

archer101au said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Seamlessly the death cult moves from “we hold all the cards” to “no deal is for the best”.

We moved from 'we hold plenty of cards in the negotiation to get a CETA FTA' to 'well it is a shame the Remainers running this negotiation threw all the cards away trying to get a BINO deal, but we voted leave and that is what we are going to do.'

No deal has always been better than a bad deal. Since the only deal remotely on offer that fulfils the referendum result is CETA with NI handed over to EU control, we are being perfectly consistent - No Deal is a better outcome than the bad deal on offer.

The only deal that fulfils the referendum result is one that sees us cease to be a member of the European Union.

justin124 said:

Yorkcity said:

notme said:

justin124 said:

OblitusSumMe said:

DavidL said:

Yeah, but apart from all that aren't things going well? Unemployment the lowest since 1975, public borrowing the lowest since 2007 and continuing to fall sharply, growth apparently picking up, inflation low?

I struggle in my adult lifetime to recall a time when there was such a mismatch between an economy doing remarkably well and a government that gives chaos a bad name. Normally governments fall into chaos because they are struggling to cope with adverse economic events.

In reality unemployment is not that low - paricularly in respect of male full time work. Remove all the 'adjustments' of the 1980s & 1990s , and we have figures a good deal higher than the 1970s on a like for like basis - and MUCH higher than the 1950s & 1960s.

It might make you feel better to believe that but its not true. Unemployment is now measured through the ILO. A standardised measure that all EU member states *must* use. And it has been on that measure since about 1998. The changes we have seen since the crash are real. We really now do have Full Employment. Things can always be better, but lets not try and deny the 'Jobs Miracle'.

That is what we will call it in a few years time when something goes wrong and we will look on 4% unemployment as something only possible in a universe inhabited by unicorns on rainbows.

To be fair Justin has a point with the changes in Unemployment from the recording of it in the 70s and 80s.

For example if you are made redundant in your mid to late 50s , with a small pension.
You are seeking work, but are unable to claim .So do not show up on any official figures.

It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly.

If we included students as unemployed, the headline figure would hugely increase, but it would also be very misleading.

notme said:

"It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly. "

These people show up in the headline figures today. They are part of the 4.1%. That figure is not dependent on the eligibility for JSA/UC.

Acorn_Antiques said:

Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.

Acorn_Antiques said:

FF43 said:

I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.

There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.

Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?

Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.

notme said:

Foxy said:

Acorn_Antiques said:

FF43 said:

I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.

There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.

Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?

Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.

A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".

There will be no second referendum with a remain option. That is not how we do things. There might be one with types of leave.

archer101au said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Seamlessly the death cult moves from “we hold all the cards” to “no deal is for the best”.

We moved from 'we hold plenty of cards in the negotiation to get a CETA FTA' to 'well it is a shame the Remainers running this negotiation threw all the cards away trying to get a BINO deal, but we voted leave and that is what we are going to do.'

No deal has always been better than a bad deal. Since the only deal remotely on offer that fulfils the referendum result is CETA with NI handed over to EU control, we are being perfectly consistent - No Deal is a better outcome than the bad deal on offer.

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Yeah, but apart from all that aren't things going well? Unemployment the lowest since 1975, public borrowing the lowest since 2007 and continuing to fall sharply, growth apparently picking up, inflation low?

I struggle in my adult lifetime to recall a time when there was such a mismatch between an economy doing remarkably well and a government that gives chaos a bad name. Normally governments fall into chaos because they are struggling to cope with adverse economic events.

Here, of course, it is Brexit. May's determination to avoid making decisions for the last 2 years has come home to roost. Will she find a way through to a vaguely credible if suboptimal deal? Who knows? It is a toss of a coin, it really is. We can only hope.

The last years of the Major government are the parallel. The economy doing well, but on a background of cachectic public services, and a government that spends all its time banging on about internal conflicts over Europe.

Blair and Jezza are different people, and I cannot see Jezza getting a 197 majority, but that is the way the wind is blowing. The economy will not save a Tory party that says "F*** Business".

Actually in my view Corbyn may well be another Kinnock who will allow the Tories a historic 4th term they may well have lost against any other leader because he thinks the British people will back him on his second attempt despite losing first time.

In which case is Chuka Umunna Tony Blair?

What on earth do people see in Chuka Umunna? Always struck me as an empty suit. Does he have the ability to appeal to anyone outside EC2?

I used to think that he was an empty suit, but he has rather grown on me since the curious business of his withdrawal from the 2015 Labour Leadership contest. He is articulate, intelligent, and at ease with modern Britain in a way that few other front line politicians are.

Not my first choice as Leader, but not a duffer either.

I have no idea what you mean by 'at ease with modern britain'. Some assisrance?

Imagine the opposite of Mogg, who clearly is not at ease with 20th century Britain, never mind 21st century.

Acorn_Antiques said:

FF43 said:

I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.

There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.

Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?

Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.

archer101au said:

Acorn_Antiques said:

FF43 said:

I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.

There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.

Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?

Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.

An excellent analysis. Welcome to PB.

Scott_P said:

Acorn_Antiques said:

Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.

https://twitter.com/mrdavidwhitley/status/1020089741553930242

El_Capitano said:

HYUFD said:

Acorn_Antiques said:

HYUFD said:

Except Corbyn will not be Attlee or Wilson who were the only 2 competent socialist leaders the British have ever voted for and given a majority to (and in the case of Wilson that is stretching competent somewhat) but most likely an incompetent socialist leader which British voters have never voted for.

Whatever you think of May she is hardly a Thatcherite, headline Brexiteer rabid Tory either and neither is Hammond unlike the rabid socialists Corbyn and McDonnell

And still 40% of the electorate voted for Corbyn Labour last year.

That's why a no deal Brexit is the best of the limited options available. Whatever the economic damage caused by it (and it would behove us not to take every report of looming catastrophe at face value, given what we've learned about the not entirely accurate predictions of Project Fear,) that would be as nothing compared to the threat of a disastrous political realignment if the betrayal narrative is allowed to take root: an extremist Ukip raised from the dead, quite possibly an actual break-up of the Tory party, and the far-Left coming to power.

Compared to the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street, with the Conservative Party in ruins and the far-Right gunning to take its place as the Opposition, Britain's relationship with Europe is a matter of trifling importance. And besides, we are probably living through the twilight years of the EU - and, in turn, the rupture of which so many people are afraid is something we're most likely going to have to live through at some point, anyway.

It is true the Tories only beat Corbyn as their hard Brexit platform in 2017 got them to 42% thanks to ex UKIP voters as Cummings said.


Now the Tories are only on 36% with a softer Brexit platform and UKIP are up in the polls so inevitably the Tories may have no choice but to have Boris as leader next time

If 2017 saw May hoover up all UKIP’s voters and still fail to get a majority, moving even further right doesn’t seem a sensible strategy for electoral success.

Sandpit said:

archer101au said:

Acorn_Antiques said:

FF43 said:

I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.

There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.

Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?

Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.

An excellent analysis. Welcome to PB.

Indeed so. Welcome to PB @Acorn_Antiques

As someone once said, no deal is better than a bad deal.

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

Acorn_Antiques said:

Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.

https://twitter.com/mrdavidwhitley/status/1020089741553930242

I disagree hard Brexiteers and diehard Leavers and UKIP and Tommy Robinson types are more likely to be protest aggressively than pro EU upper middle class LD types

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

Acorn_Antiques said:

Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.

https://twitter.com/mrdavidwhitley/status/1020089741553930242

I disagree hard Brexiteers and diehard Leavers and UKIP and Tommy Robinson types are more likely to be protest aggressively than pro EU upper middle class LD types

Do you think Tommy Robinson types will be cheering the absence of food on the supermarket shelves?

Morris_Dancer said:

If the Saubers or Williams end up being top 3, I reserve the right to be very annoyed.

notme said:

FF43 said:

No Deal hastens the collapse of the British political system. Quite possibly of Britain itself. At some point reality will hit. It's better for that to happen while we are still talking to people and not when are engulfed in major crisis. To be fair to the European Union they have been more aware of the dangers than our government has been.

What hyperbole. The marketplace is more sustainable than that.

notme said:

Foxy said:

Acorn_Antiques said:

FF43 said:

I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.

There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.

Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?

Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.

A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".

There will be no second referendum with a remain option. That is not how we do things. There might be one with types of leave.

Gardenwalker said:

The No Dealers are incredibly undemocratic of course. Polling shows most people now want to Remain, and of course no one ever voted for No Deal, either at the referendum or in the GE.

Brexit keeps mutating, like a radioactive fatberg. If we No Deal, what will it mutate it into next?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

surby said:

AndyJS said:

What happens if turnout at a second referendum is much lower than before?

It's the result that matters. Did a GE become invalid because the turnout fell ?

Scotland 1979

archer101au said:

Now they have an existential risk that No Deal actually is not a problem because in this case the EU will fall apart. Only the myth of the SM holds it together.

Barnesian said:

notme said:

Foxy said:

Acorn_Antiques said:

FF43 said:

I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.

There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.

Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?

Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.

A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".

There will be no second referendum with a remain option. That is not how we do things. There might be one with types of leave.

"That is not how we do things" sounds very gammony!

But I'm sure that's not you.

Acorn_Antiques said:

Scott_P said:

Acorn_Antiques said:

Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.

https://twitter.com/mrdavidwhitley/status/1020089741553930242

Who is David Whitley, and what actual arguments does he possess beyond insult? (Twitter is 99% mud-slinging and only 1% vaguely useful content anyway.)

I would be very surprised if there were an immediate outbreak of "riots" over a radical change in direction. Only increasing polarisation, extremism and the slow throttling to death of a reasonably tolerant, civilised society.

You cannot create a situation in which you give people a chance to say what they want, then ignore the answer because you don't like it, and expect this decision to be without consequence. Nor, incidentally, will arguing that the referendum question didn't say what *kind* of Leave there should be - and therefore it can be whatever is least unpalatable to the people who never wanted to go - suffice. There was a window of opportunity when the EEA might have been saleable to the electorate as a stepping stone to something new, but we are long past the point at which anyone will trust that proposal if the Government tries to sell it.

There must be trust that votes are meaningful, or else everything else falls.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

surby said:

AndyJS said:

What happens if turnout at a second referendum is much lower than before?

It's the result that matters. Did a GE become invalid because the turnout fell ?

Scotland 1979

malcolmg said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

surby said:

AndyJS said:

What happens if turnout at a second referendum is much lower than before?

It's the result that matters. Did a GE become invalid because the turnout fell ?

Scotland 1979

That one worked well, it was a total fix and caused the hatred of Westminster and its Tory troughers.

archer101au said:

Acorn_Antiques said:

Scott_P said:

Acorn_Antiques said:

Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.

https://twitter.com/mrdavidwhitley/status/1020089741553930242

Who is David Whitley, and what actual arguments does he possess beyond insult? (Twitter is 99% mud-slinging and only 1% vaguely useful content anyway.)

I would be very surprised if there were an immediate outbreak of "riots" over a radical change in direction. Only increasing polarisation, extremism and the slow throttling to death of a reasonably tolerant, civilised society.

You cannot create a situation in which you give people a chance to say what they want, then ignore the answer because you don't like it, and expect this decision to be without consequence. Nor, incidentally, will arguing that the referendum question didn't say what *kind* of Leave there should be - and therefore it can be whatever is least unpalatable to the people who never wanted to go - suffice. There was a window of opportunity when the EEA might have been saleable to the electorate as a stepping stone to something new, but we are long past the point at which anyone will trust that proposal if the Government tries to sell it.

There must be trust that votes are meaningful, or else everything else falls.

I actually believe that if the EU had offered the UK the EEA with real restrictions on FOM straight after the referendum, it would have been accepted without too much fuss. I would not have personally welcomed it but at that time it would have worked. As you say, that boat has sailed. The EU were too busy playng tough to grab the opportunity. Now they have an existential risk that No Deal actually is not a problem because in this case the EU will fall apart. Only the myth of the SM holds it together.

FF43 said:

notme said:

FF43 said:

Acorn_Antiques said:

FF43 said:

I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.

There will be the politicians didn't want to honour.

Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?

Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.

No Deal hastens the collapse of the British political system. Quite possibly of Britain itself. At some point reality will hit. It's better for that to happen while we are still talking to people and not when are engulfed in major crisis. To be fair to the European Union they have been more aware of the dangers than our government has been.

What hyperbole. The marketplace is more sustainable than that. The absolute worse case is a temporary discontinuity of service. Something that all sides will rush to avoid at the last minute.

This doom mongering really just doesnt wash. The remain campaign shot their wad on Project fear which didnt come to pass, and even if their predictions had some merit in them, theyre not convincing anyone other than themselves.

I am addressing Acorn's assertion that No Deal is the stability option that will avoid national humiliation. It absolutely isn't and absolutely won't. No Deal isn't agreement by another name. No deal means no arrangements except those agreed by the EU ad hoc, on a temporary basis, to its advantage and in return for the UK doing stuff it wants. For the UK it's the most humiliating outcome of them all and it's not even the end state. At some point there will be a deal on the EU's terms.

FrankBooth said:

I posted this focus group before - I wonder if I should have bothered - but it is at least an insight into where the public might actually be. There's an irony that this issue is all about the politicians having to listen to the public and yet so much of the debate on here is on the terms set by the political class. If you think these Brexit voters have got some kind of disease of the mind please explain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmyHSMWK148

justin124 said:

notme said:

"It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly. "

These people show up in the headline figures today. They are part of the 4.1%. That figure is not dependent on the eligibility for JSA/UC.

16 -18 year olds and students during vacation periods are not included.

not_on_fire said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

surby said:

AndyJS said:

What happens if turnout at a second referendum is much lower than before?

It's the result that matters. Did a GE become invalid because the turnout fell ?

Scotland 1979

That one worked well, it was a total fix and caused the hatred of Westminster and its Tory troughers.

Tory?

It was Labour that set the threshold.
It was Labour that determined the threshold wasn't met so they'd take no further action.
It was Labour the SNP decided they had no confidence in.
It was Labour that lost power for a generation due to that vote.

??? Labour held the vast majority of MPs in Scotland throughout the 80s and 90s. I doubt the vote had any impact on their performance in England and Wales.