Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Chris Williamson’s odds to succeed Corbyn move from 100/1 to 3

13567

Comments

  • Options
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:



    That is the issue. There has never been a need for caveats or further explanation.

    Why does the IHRA definition have the huge caveat of "taking into account the overall context", then?
    They are fools.

    Just adopt it and no caveats at all
    So now you're saying that Labour SHOULDN'T include the caveat that the IHRA definition includes? #goalpostmoving
    No. I don't get why you are being so obtuse on this.

    IHRA and examples are what should have been adopted - as is.

    But that is not what has happened.

    Labour appears to have adopted them - with an additional caveat about 'freedom of expression'

    There is - and has never been - a need for additional caveats beyond the printed IHRA text. But Labour is so special that it needs one.
    We're talking about two different caveats here. In that exchange with BigG, I was referring to the caveat in the IHRA's own definition (that their examples only "could" be antisemitic, "taking into account the overall context). In my exchange with you, I was talking about the "caveat" (not really sure it qualifies as a caveat since it's not been directly linked to any other part of the definition, but whatever) that Labour have put in about freedom of expression on Israel/Palestine.

    On the latter, you can call me obtuse all you want, but you've still not explained the objection to Labour specifying something that the IHRA themselves have said over and over again.
    The objection is simple. There is no need for anything above and beyond the IHRA text.

    But Labour has added one - where one was not needed by any other adopter of the IHRA words.

    What makes Labour so much more informed about such matters that they feel the need to go beyond to give 'freedom of expression' caveats on top of those which already exist within the body of the definition?
  • Options
    As even I do not know the details of Chequers it is a leep of faith to think the public do

    I am relaxed at this stage though no one can really be sure how this works out
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    ROFL

    and 99% of them dont even know what it entails, probably the most stupid poll question for a while. Even here in Brexit anal central we debate endlessly what options mean and still dont know or agree.

  • Options
    NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    I did post this last night but can anyone direct me to Corbyn saying something that is either critical of Palestine or supportive of Israel? I have reviewed Hansard. Unfortunately Hansard re-sorts search results whilst you are reading but I couldn’t find anything in the 19 speeches mentioning Gaza, or the 141 mentioning Israel. After an interruption Corbyn does state that he is critical of rockets being fired into Israel as he is against all violence, but it doesn’t seem directly critical of the Palestinians. I’ve also looked on google news.

    Any other ideas where I could find it?
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited September 2018
    O/T
    "Affirmative action should be based on class, not race
    Focusing on the disadvantaged of all races is fairer and more appealing, writes Richard Kahlenberg, a scholar"
    https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/09/04/affirmative-action-should-be-based-on-class-not-race
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,121

    I did post this last night but can anyone direct me to Corbyn saying something that is either critical of Palestine or supportive of Israel? I have reviewed Hansard. Unfortunately Hansard re-sorts search results whilst you are reading but I couldn’t find anything in the 19 speeches mentioning Gaza, or the 141 mentioning Israel. After an interruption Corbyn does state that he is critical of rockets being fired into Israel as he is against all violence, but it doesn’t seem directly critical of the Palestinians. I’ve also looked on google news.

    Any other ideas where I could find it?

    Labour Party Rapid Rebuttal Unit?
  • Options

    ROFL

    and 99% of them dont even know what it entails, probably the most stupid poll question for a while. Even here in Brexit anal central we debate endlessly what options mean and still dont know or agree.

    I cannot honestly say that I know what the Chequers plan is in detail. And I don't know any of my friends who do either.

    I really do question the foundation for this sort of polling - as the level of knowledge necessary to make a truly informed judgement is really going to limit your pool of potential subjects.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,942
    edited September 2018

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    For a start, it can be sold well on the basis that it isn’t a compromise, and was basically as outlined at Lancaster House.

  • Options
    Mortimer said:
    Nope, if you look at the tables, people want a closer relationship than Chequers. It's Norway or Remain.

    https://interactive.news.sky.com/CHEQUERS_TABS_040918.pdf
  • Options
    OT FiveThirtyEight now predicting an 80% chance the Dems will win the house in November. Trumps approval rating has plummeted in recent days.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,005
    John McDonnell would surely be well ahead of Williamson ad the next Corbynite leader
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    edited September 2018

    ROFL

    and 99% of them dont even know what it entails, probably the most stupid poll question for a while. Even here in Brexit anal central we debate endlessly what options mean and still dont know or agree.

    I cannot honestly say that I know what the Chequers plan is in detail. And I don't know any of my friends who do either.

    I really do question the foundation for this sort of polling - as the level of knowledge necessary to make a truly informed judgement is really going to limit your pool of potential subjects.
    Pollster : do you think something you dont understand is good ot bad ?

    Voter : errr

    52% is MoE territory might as well ask voters to toss a coin
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Sane Labour: Right then, that's that sorted then. Now let's start holding the government to account.
    Ultras: No just hold on a minute.
    https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1037021636342493184
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:



    That is the issue. There has never been a need for caveats or further explanation.

    Why does the IHRA definition have the huge caveat of "taking into account the overall context", then?
    They are fools.

    Just adopt it and no caveats at all
    So now you're saying that Labour SHOULDN'T include the caveat that the IHRA definition includes? #goalpostmoving
    You know what I mean
    No I don't. The IHRA definition implicitly says that it's not antisemitic for someone to compare Israeli policy to the Nazis, in certain circumstances, if there is a suitable "context". Do you agree with that?
    What he’s saying is that the IHRA document should stand aloneandvthat the protections contained within it are sufficient, that no further caveats should be added
  • Options

    Richard Angell, director of Progress, the centrist Labour organisation (rightwing in the eyes of its critics, but self-defined as “centre-left”). Angell said:

    The Jewish community made it clear and simple to Labour: pass the IHRA definition in full – no caveats, no compromises. Jeremy Corbyn and the Momentum-dominated NEC have just failed the most basic test. A ‘right to be racist’ protection when debating the Middle East is not just wrong, it is harms the cause of peace but it will also continue a culture where Jewish people cannot feel at home in Labour.

    Today’s decision is an insult. Labour does not know better than Jewish people about antisemitism.

    The four hours it took for today’s retrograde step to appear shows there are committed anti-racists at Labour top table but those apathetic to antisemitism won out, again. The NEC has bought the Labour party into disrepute.

    It is very hard to disagree with Angell's analysis.

    Labour is in a very sorry, sorry state.

    Two of my close friends (both former Labour council candidates) are in despair and will not vote for Labour going forward. They both see a new party as the only solution. They are not alone.
    There would be a delicious irony if Jezza and Milne's refusal to bend on this issue was the final straw that lead to a proper break away.

    They will have thrown the hard left's once in a hundred year chance to win power, all for the sake of being able to compare Israel to Nazi Germany as often as they like.

  • Options

    OT FiveThirtyEight now predicting an 80% chance the Dems will win the house in November. Trumps approval rating has plummeted in recent days.

    Some in the US are claiming that McCain died deliberately in order to harm Trump's presidency. Some are going even further down the conspiracy rabbit-hole.

    Crazy. Yet some believe it.
  • Options
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    For a start, it can be sold well on the basis that it isn’t a compromise, and was basically as outlined at Lancaster House.

    Or attacked on the basis that it would wreck the car industry.

    This is not a static situation where voters have carefully understood and evaluated the implications of each option, it's straws being blown around by media winds.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    How do you compromise with anti-Semitism?

    And, unpleasant though he probably is (I never saw the video) it sticks in the craw to have an elected member of the NEC slung off for events that took place before his election. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.
    Didn't the story break in the middle of voting? Hence some people may well have voted differently if they had known earlier, but had already voted. It's an interesting edge-case.

    Although given the state of Labour's membership atm, anti-Semitic comments would probably have increased his vote ...
    4 days after it started I think. But the start second guessing voting patterns looks like special pleading.

    It sucks that Labour has come to this. But it’s time for any moderates with dignity to leave if they can’t win back control.
    They will cease to have any mechanism to win back control once the rule changes that are being planned go through.

    A new left of centre party is the only hope for Labour moderates. At the moment, it is just lacking potential leaders of real personality, vision and skill - and any real sense of policy direction. Which does make it hard to create a new party. But it still needs to happen.
    Agreed

    The longer you wallow in mud the more like a pig you become
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited September 2018

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    I'd be surprised if more than 5%0.5% of people - generously - could explain what is *actually* in the Chequers proposal.

    [Edited to revise number down after reading other comments. If the majority of nerds, geeks and anoraks on PB don't know what's in chequers, the rest of the population have no chance.]
  • Options
    Anorak said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    I'd be surprised if more than 5% of people - generously - could explain what is *actually* in the Chequers proposal.
    Yep.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,296
    edited September 2018
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    For a start, it can be sold well on the basis that it isn’t a compromise, and was basically as outlined at Lancaster House.

    The problem is that the voter only hears both remain and leave fighting each other and each saying the Chequers deal is dead

    It may well be, but as I have said previously and others have also commented, I do not know the detail of Chequers and Canada ++ or whatever.

    We cannot know TM 's thoughts but she has said several times this week it is part of the negotiation and she will have to explain the details come October/November after the meetings with the EU and that will be the time to come to a conclusion.

    But if anyone thinks Boris, DD or JRM could do any better they have had two years to come up with an answer and all they have done is demonstrated they haven't a clue - just words which are very easy - though not for labour apparently
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,005
    edited September 2018

    Mortimer said:
    Nope, if you look at the tables, people want a closer relationship than Chequers. It's Norway or Remain.

    https://interactive.news.sky.com/CHEQUERS_TABS_040918.pdf
    According to Electoral Calculus ICM have Canada most favoured on +20 net, then Norway on +7, then Chequers on +5, then Remain on +1, then No Deal on -33

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/libleave_brexit_spectrum.html

    So if not Chequers it looks like only Canada or the Norway model are viable with the voters
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    OT FiveThirtyEight now predicting an 80% chance the Dems will win the house in November. Trumps approval rating has plummeted in recent days.

    Some in the US are claiming that McCain died deliberately in order to harm Trump's presidency. Some are going even further down the conspiracy rabbit-hole.

    Crazy. Yet some believe it.
    How is that even possible?
  • Options

    ROFL

    and 99% of them dont even know what it entails, probably the most stupid poll question for a while. Even here in Brexit anal central we debate endlessly what options mean and still dont know or agree.

    I cannot honestly say that I know what the Chequers plan is in detail. And I don't know any of my friends who do either.

    I really do question the foundation for this sort of polling - as the level of knowledge necessary to make a truly informed judgement is really going to limit your pool of potential subjects.
    Pollster : do you think something you dont understand is good ot bad ?

    Voter : errr

    52% is MoE territory might as well ask voters to toss a coin
    I’ll bet with you any day if you think 52:18 is a coin toss.
  • Options

    Anorak said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    I'd be surprised if more than 5% of people - generously - could explain what is *actually* in the Chequers proposal.
    Yep.
    That doesn’t matter. They’ve taken against the named idea whatever it might be. Zero legitimacy Brexit is coming.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,942

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    For a start, it can be sold well on the basis that it isn’t a compromise, and was basically as outlined at Lancaster House.

    Or attacked on the basis that it would wreck the car industry.

    This is not a static situation where voters have carefully understood and evaluated the implications of each option, it's straws being blown around by media winds.
    To be honest, the same happens at elections. People get an impression, and take a view.

    The impression of Chequers is not winning the Brexit argument.

    Time to try something else. All the better, try a solution that’s actually acceptable to the EU...
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:
    Nope, if you look at the tables, people want a closer relationship than Chequers. It's Norway or Remain.

    https://interactive.news.sky.com/CHEQUERS_TABS_040918.pdf
    According to Electoral Calculus ICM have Canada most favoured on +20 net, then Norway on +7, then Chequers on +5, then Remain on +1, then No Deal on -33

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/libleave_brexit_spectrum.html

    So if not Chequers it looks like only Canada or the Norway model are viable with the voters
    the flaw with that is 28% of the voters couldnt be arsed to vote and the option

    " I dont really give a toss and just wish theyd all just shut up and get on with it " wasnt being offered.
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    How do you compromise with anti-Semitism?

    And, unpleasant though he probably is (I never saw the video) it sticks in the craw to have an elected member of the NEC slung off for events that took place before his election. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.
    Didn't the story break in the middle of voting? Hence some people may well have voted differently if they had known earlier, but had already voted. It's an interesting edge-case.

    Although given the state of Labour's membership atm, anti-Semitic comments would probably have increased his vote ...
    4 days after it started I think. But the start second guessing voting patterns looks like special pleading.

    It sucks that Labour has come to this. But it’s time for any moderates with dignity to leave if they can’t win back control.
    They will cease to have any mechanism to win back control once the rule changes that are being planned go through.

    A new left of centre party is the only hope for Labour moderates. At the moment, it is just lacking potential leaders of real personality, vision and skill - and any real sense of policy direction. Which does make it hard to create a new party. But it still needs to happen.
    Agreed

    The longer you wallow in mud the more like a pig you become
    I guess you want the split for partisan reasons.As it would lead to permanent Tory governments .However the the Labour party needs to stay together as a broad church under FPTP
    Nothing stays the same for many years in politics.Better to fight for change inside than annihilation outside under FPTP.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:
    Nope, if you look at the tables, people want a closer relationship than Chequers. It's Norway or Remain.

    https://interactive.news.sky.com/CHEQUERS_TABS_040918.pdf
    According to Electoral Calculus ICM have Canada most favoured on +20 net, then Norway on +7, then Chequers on +5, then Remain on +1, then No Deal on -33

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/libleave_brexit_spectrum.html

    So if not Chequers it looks like only Canada or the Norway model are viable with the voters
    If it gets to Canada ++ or remain (though I need the details on Canada++) and the second referendum campaign (come on peoples vote be honest) I really do not know which would win. I tend to think Canada would
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,845

    Danny565 said:



    Have any other parties added such a clause?

    The Tories haven't adopted the definition at all.

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-conservative-party-rulebook-doesnt-mention-antisemitism
    Of course not. No one is accusing the party of anti-Semitism (apart from a few nutty Corbynistas as a transparent distraction technique).

    As someone said recently about large corporations: "When I see that a corporation has an Ethics Policy, I can't help wondering why they need one".
    And, when a company starts promoting causes in order to win favour with the public, one should ask what they're hiding.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Yorkcity said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    How do you compromise with anti-Semitism?

    And, unpleasant though he probably is (I never saw the video) it sticks in the craw to have an elected member of the NEC slung off for events that took place before his election. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.
    Didn't the story break in the middle of voting? Hence some people may well have voted differently if they had known earlier, but had already voted. It's an interesting edge-case.

    Although given the state of Labour's membership atm, anti-Semitic comments would probably have increased his vote ...
    4 days after it started I think. But the start second guessing voting patterns looks like special pleading.

    It sucks that Labour has come to this. But it’s time for any moderates with dignity to leave if they can’t win back control.
    They will cease to have any mechanism to win back control once the rule changes that are being planned go through.

    A new left of centre party is the only hope for Labour moderates. At the moment, it is just lacking potential leaders of real personality, vision and skill - and any real sense of policy direction. Which does make it hard to create a new party. But it still needs to happen.
    Agreed

    The longer you wallow in mud the more like a pig you become
    I guess you want the split for partisan reasons.As it would lead to permanent Tory governments .However the the Labour party needs to stay together as a broad church under FPTP
    Nothing stays the same for many years in politics.Better to fight for change inside than annihilation outside under FPTP.
    But when one has to compromise integrity and morality to do so? Suspect we'll see an apathy settle over the actual, as opposed to keyboard, activists.
  • Options
    Anorak said:

    OT FiveThirtyEight now predicting an 80% chance the Dems will win the house in November. Trumps approval rating has plummeted in recent days.

    Some in the US are claiming that McCain died deliberately in order to harm Trump's presidency. Some are going even further down the conspiracy rabbit-hole.

    Crazy. Yet some believe it.
    How is that even possible?
    You could say the same about the abyss labour have fallen into - how is it possible?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,845
    SeanT said:

    PM "just to get the job done" - then stand down. Party leadership battle before the next election - but not as a distraction to Brexit. Sounds quite plausible. Party can rally round - as it won't be Boris. Not yet, if at all.

    It looks like Theresa May will rue the day she stepped in and took DD away from negotiating a Canada-style deal. As with Cameron before her, I feel she has been badly advised on Brexit by those close to her.

    I think the problem is that DD wasn't negotiating a Canada-style deal, or indeed any other kind of deal. He seems to have got completely bogged down. One gets the impression that Dominic Raab is much more pro-active, and things are now perhaps inching towards a settlement. Theresa May's and Jeremy Hunt's lobbying of the EU27 leaders directly has probably also helped.
    But she has hitched her remaining scant credibility to the Chequers deal. A deal that had Cabinet ministers resigning - because they said it was unworkable. Now the EU say it is unworkable. She doesn't have the wriggle room to make Chequers workable.

    So it is either No Deal - or it is something else she has already tried to scupper. Who in the Parliamentary Party is going to have the confidence in her to deliver a Brexit she has already actively worked to rubbish? Those who want to avoid No Deal (which to be fair is probably the bulk of the Conservative MPs) must be thinking very hard about a DD caretaker PM. He knows the issues, he knows the players - and with the authority that comes with being PM, even pro tem, he could yet deliver something that is better than No Deal.

    I don't see a route to a 2nd referendum, I don't see the Commons accepting No Deal, I don't see the EU (or the Commons) accepting Chequers, I don't see the EU offering a Chequers-lite which will get the support of MPs or MEPs.

    It has to be Norway? Maybe? Fuck knows.
    What would one be voting on, between now and next March?

    It's perfectly reasonable to put the final agreement with the EU to a public vote, but that agreement won't be finalised for some years.
  • Options
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    For a start, it can be sold well on the basis that it isn’t a compromise, and was basically as outlined at Lancaster House.

    Or attacked on the basis that it would wreck the car industry.

    This is not a static situation where voters have carefully understood and evaluated the implications of each option, it's straws being blown around by media winds.
    To be honest, the same happens at elections. People get an impression, and take a view.

    The impression of Chequers is not winning the Brexit argument.

    Time to try something else. All the better, try a solution that’s actually acceptable to the EU...
    Do you really mean remain !!!!!
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,060
    edited September 2018
    In that Sky Data poll they also ask if people want closer or looser ties with the EU compared to Chequers. The results are:

    Much closer: 34%
    Slightly closer: 12%
    About right: 8%
    Slightly looser: 8%
    Much looser: 25%
    Don't know: 15%
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Yorkcity said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    How do you compromise with anti-Semitism?

    And, unpleasant though he probably is (I never saw the video) it sticks in the craw to have an elected member of the NEC slung off for events that took place before his election. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.
    Didn't the story break in the middle of voting? Hence some people may well have voted differently if they had known earlier, but had already voted. It's an interesting edge-case.

    Although given the state of Labour's membership atm, anti-Semitic comments would probably have increased his vote ...
    4 days after it started I think. But the start second guessing voting patterns looks like special pleading.

    It sucks that Labour has come to this. But it’s time for any moderates with dignity to leave if they can’t win back control.
    They will cease to have any mechanism to win back control once the rule changes that are being planned go through.

    A new left of centre party is the only hope for Labour moderates. At the moment, it is just lacking potential leaders of real personality, vision and skill - and any real sense of policy direction. Which does make it hard to create a new party. But it still needs to happen.
    Agreed

    The longer you wallow in mud the more like a pig you become
    I guess you want the split for partisan reasons.As it would lead to permanent Tory governments .However the the Labour party needs to stay together as a broad church under FPTP
    Nothing stays the same for many years in politics.Better to fight for change inside than annihilation outside under FPTP.
    No, I don’t.

    The anti-Semites controlling Labour sicken me. Unfortunately for the sane Labourites their names will be tarnished if they stay.

    You might have a few months, but I think youve lost the war. Start again, build a worthwhile left of centre (and I don’t care how left of centre) political party.

    There are millions of voters who want to vote for such a party. The country deserves and needs that option. It will be hard, no doubt, and will take time but I’d hope there are some sane unions who would support you from the start.

    The Labour Party is dead as a respectable party of government. You are led by an evil man and infested with anti-Semitic scum.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    SeanT said:

    Anorak said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    I'd be surprised if more than 5% of people - generously - could explain what is *actually* in the Chequers proposal.
    Yep.
    That's not entirely fair or true. Leave voters might not be attuned to every detail of Chequers, but they take their cue from people who DO understand it, principally David Davis and Boris Johnson, who debated and agreed the damn thing, and are quite clued up about Brexit, given that they have been trying (and failing) to negotiate it.

    Bojo and Davis dislike Chequers so much they have resigned, so Leave voters have concluded that if the experts say it is shite, then it must be shite. That is a fair and rational conclusion. This is the kind of politics Remainers like, isn't it? Expert MPs make the decisions and express their opinions, the voters adjust their attitudes accordingly.
    David Davis is a clueless, lazy arse who after 2 years of negotiating still didn't understand how trade works in practice. He resigned after becoming a laughing stock.
    Boris resigned to further the career of Boris. His dislike of Chequers is calculated to further the career of Boris.
  • Options
    SeanT said:

    Anorak said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    I'd be surprised if more than 5% of people - generously - could explain what is *actually* in the Chequers proposal.
    Yep.
    That's not entirely fair or true. Leave voters might not be attuned to every detail of Chequers, but they take their cue from people who DO understand it, principally David Davis and Boris Johnson, who debated and agreed the damn thing, and are quite clued up about Brexit, given that they have been trying (and failing) to negotiate it.

    Bojo and Davis dislike Chequers so much they have resigned, so Leave voters have concluded that if the experts say it is shite, then it must be shite. That is a fair and rational conclusion. This is the kind of politics Remainers like, isn't it? Expert MPs make the decisions and express their opinions, the voters adjust their attitudes accordingly.
    Whilst you are probably right about DD, I have zero confidence BJ understands anything about it. His is a purely self-serving political position, and he would have opposed whatever May came up with.
  • Options

    Anorak said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    I'd be surprised if more than 5% of people - generously - could explain what is *actually* in the Chequers proposal.
    Yep.
    But I thought the point by Charles Grant of the CER on the previous thread was instructive: HMG haven’t bothered to try and sell it, whilst everyone else has stepped into the vacuum to attack it, so it’s not far off being politically dead.

    That’s because Theresa May is crap at politics. She think she’s made a decision (after lengthy analysis and consideration of all the alternatives) and got her cabinet’s consent, so thinks her job is done.

    That’s what worries me. Not only does she not know how to sell it, I’m not even sure she sees it as her job to sell it. She presumably thinks it will speak for itself.

    That’s absurdly naive and a monumentally huge flaw in a PM and suggests she’s learnt nothing from the events of 2017.
  • Options
    SeanT said:

    Richard Angell, director of Progress, the centrist Labour organisation (rightwing in the eyes of its critics, but self-defined as “centre-left”). Angell said:

    The Jewish community made it clear and simple to Labour: pass the IHRA definition in full – no caveats, no compromises. Jeremy Corbyn and the Momentum-dominated NEC have just failed the most basic test. A ‘right to be racist’ protection when debating the Middle East is not just wrong, it is harms the cause of peace but it will also continue a culture where Jewish people cannot feel at home in Labour.

    Today’s decision is an insult. Labour does not know better than Jewish people about antisemitism.

    The four hours it took for today’s retrograde step to appear shows there are committed anti-racists at Labour top table but those apathetic to antisemitism won out, again. The NEC has bought the Labour party into disrepute.

    It is very hard to disagree with Angell's analysis.

    Labour is in a very sorry, sorry state.

    Two of my close friends (both former Labour council candidates) are in despair and will not vote for Labour going forward. They both see a new party as the only solution. They are not alone.
    There would be a delicious irony if Jezza and Milne's refusal to bend on this issue was the final straw that lead to a proper break away.

    They will have thrown the hard left's once in a hundred year chance to win power, all for the sake of being able to compare Israel to Nazi Germany as often as they like.

    I've heard a lot of anecdotal evidence recently of middle class metropolitan liberal lefties abandoning Labour. Not full on activists, but members and voters, all saying Enough.

    I don't think this endless anti-Semitism stuff is damaging Labour's working class or BAME support, but I wonder what it is doing to their vote in middle class urban Britain. And Corbyn's obvious euroscepticism isn't helping, either.

    I reckon Corbyn, if he stays in power, will get fewer votes and seats in the next GE than he did at the last GE.
    Little sign of it in the polls.
  • Options
    20 years ago, Labour were introducing minimum wage and Human Rights Act, amongst other things.

    Today?

    Well...

  • Options

    SeanT said:

    Richard Angell, director of Progress, the centrist Labour organisation (rightwing in the eyes of its critics, but self-defined as “centre-left”). Angell said:

    The Jewish community made it clear and simple to Labour: pass the IHRA definition in full – no caveats, no compromises. Jeremy Corbyn and the Momentum-dominated NEC have just failed the most basic test. A ‘right to be racist’ protection when debating the Middle East is not just wrong, it is harms the cause of peace but it will also continue a culture where Jewish people cannot feel at home in Labour.

    Today’s decision is an insult. Labour does not know better than Jewish people about antisemitism.

    The four hours it took for today’s retrograde step to appear shows there are committed anti-racists at Labour top table but those apathetic to antisemitism won out, again. The NEC has bought the Labour party into disrepute.

    It is very hard to disagree with Angell's analysis.

    Labour is in a very sorry, sorry state.

    Two of my close friends (both former Labour council candidates) are in despair and will not vote for Labour going forward. They both see a new party as the only solution. They are not alone.
    There would be a delicious irony if Jezza and Milne's refusal to bend on this issue was the final straw that lead to a proper break away.

    They will have thrown the hard left's once in a hundred year chance to win power, all for the sake of being able to compare Israel to Nazi Germany as often as they like.

    I've heard a lot of anecdotal evidence recently of middle class metropolitan liberal lefties abandoning Labour. Not full on activists, but members and voters, all saying Enough.

    I don't think this endless anti-Semitism stuff is damaging Labour's working class or BAME support, but I wonder what it is doing to their vote in middle class urban Britain. And Corbyn's obvious euroscepticism isn't helping, either.

    I reckon Corbyn, if he stays in power, will get fewer votes and seats in the next GE than he did at the last GE.
    Little sign of it in the polls.
    Other than the decline in JC's personal ratings, I would agree. But not everything shows up in polling straight off.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,845
    Charles said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    How do you compromise with anti-Semitism?

    And, unpleasant though he probably is (I never saw the video) it sticks in the craw to have an elected member of the NEC slung off for events that took place before his election. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.
    Didn't the story break in the middle of voting? Hence some people may well have voted differently if they had known earlier, but had already voted. It's an interesting edge-case.

    Although given the state of Labour's membership atm, anti-Semitic comments would probably have increased his vote ...
    4 days after it started I think. But the start second guessing voting patterns looks like special pleading.

    It sucks that Labour has come to this. But it’s time for any moderates with dignity to leave if they can’t win back control.
    They will cease to have any mechanism to win back control once the rule changes that are being planned go through.

    A new left of centre party is the only hope for Labour moderates. At the moment, it is just lacking potential leaders of real personality, vision and skill - and any real sense of policy direction. Which does make it hard to create a new party. But it still needs to happen.
    Agreed

    The longer you wallow in mud the more like a pig you become
    I guess you want the split for partisan reasons.As it would lead to permanent Tory governments .However the the Labour party needs to stay together as a broad church under FPTP
    Nothing stays the same for many years in politics.Better to fight for change inside than annihilation outside under FPTP.
    No, I don’t.

    The anti-Semites controlling Labour sicken me. Unfortunately for the sane Labourites their names will be tarnished if they stay.

    You might have a few months, but I think youve lost the war. Start again, build a worthwhile left of centre (and I don’t care how left of centre) political party.

    There are millions of voters who want to vote for such a party. The country deserves and needs that option. It will be hard, no doubt, and will take time but I’d hope there are some sane unions who would support you from the start.

    The Labour Party is dead as a respectable party of government. You are led by an evil man and infested with anti-Semitic scum.
    The good people in Labour, like @Rochdale Pioneers, all think the Tories are even worse, so there will be no split.
  • Options
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,845

    SeanT said:

    Richard Angell, director of Progress, the centrist Labour organisation (rightwing in the eyes of its critics, but self-defined as “centre-left”). Angell said:

    The Jewish community made it clear and simple to Labour: pass the IHRA definition in full – no caveats, no compromises. Jeremy Corbyn and the Momentum-dominated NEC have just failed the most basic test. A ‘right to be racist’ protection when debating the Middle East is not just wrong, it is harms the cause of peace but it will also continue a culture where Jewish people cannot feel at home in Labour.

    Today’s decision is an insult. Labour does not know better than Jewish people about antisemitism.

    The four hours it took for today’s retrograde step to appear shows there are committed anti-racists at Labour top table but those apathetic to antisemitism won out, again. The NEC has bought the Labour party into disrepute.

    It is very hard to disagree with Angell's analysis.

    Labour is in a very sorry, sorry state.

    Two of my close friends (both former Labour council candidates) are in despair and will not vote for Labour going forward. They both see a new party as the only solution. They are not alone.
    There would be a delicious irony if Jezza and Milne's refusal to bend on this issue was the final straw that lead to a proper break away.

    They will have thrown the hard left's once in a hundred year chance to win power, all for the sake of being able to compare Israel to Nazi Germany as often as they like.

    I've heard a lot of anecdotal evidence recently of middle class metropolitan liberal lefties abandoning Labour. Not full on activists, but members and voters, all saying Enough.

    I don't think this endless anti-Semitism stuff is damaging Labour's working class or BAME support, but I wonder what it is doing to their vote in middle class urban Britain. And Corbyn's obvious euroscepticism isn't helping, either.

    I reckon Corbyn, if he stays in power, will get fewer votes and seats in the next GE than he did at the last GE.
    Little sign of it in the polls.
    I think there is. Labour is about 3% down on the general election, which is unusual for the Opposition, at this point of a Parliament.
  • Options
    Why is the fake twitterer saying that?
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Charles said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    How do you compromise with anti-Semitism?

    And, unpleasant though he probably is (I never saw the video) it sticks in the craw to have an elected member of the NEC slung off for events that took place before his election. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.
    Although given the state of Labour's membership atm, anti-Semitic comments would probably have increased his vote ...
    4 days after it started I think. But the start second guessing voting patterns looks like special pleading.

    It sucks that Labour has come to this. But it’s time for any moderates with dignity to leave if they can’t win back control.
    They will cease to have any mechanism to win back control once the rule changes that are being planned go through.

    A new left of centre party is the only hope for Labour moderates. At the moment, it is just lacking potential leaders of real personality, vision and skill - and any real sense of policy direction. Which does make it hard to create a new party. But it still needs to happen.
    Agreed

    The longer you wallow in mud the more like a pig you become
    I guess you want the split for partisan reasons.As it would lead to permanent Tory governments .However the the Labour party needs to stay together as a broad church under FPTP
    Nothing stays the same for many years in politics.Better to fight for change inside than annihilation outside under FPTP.
    No, I don’t.

    The anti-Semites controlling Labour sicken me. Unfortunately for the sane Labourites their names will be tarnished if they stay.

    You might have a few months, but I think youve lost the war. Start again, build a worthwhile left of centre (and I don’t care how left of centre) political party.

    There are millions of voters who want to vote for such a party. The country deserves and needs that option. It will be hard, no doubt, and will take time but I’d hope there are some sane unions who would support you from the start.

    The Labour Party is dead as a respectable party of government. You are led by an evil man and infested with anti-Semitic scum.
    The good people in Labour, like @Rochdale Pioneers, all think the Tories are even worse, so there will be no split.
    It is that tribal loyalty to a tarnished brand that is hard to understand. I don't see Corbyn's party as the Labour Party. So remaining loyal to something that is so transformed is hard to comprehend.
  • Options
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Anorak said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    I'd be surprised if more than 5% of people - generously - could explain what is *actually* in the Chequers proposal.
    Yep.
    That's not entirely fair or true. Leave voters might not be attuned to every detail of Chequers, but they take their cue from people who DO understand it, principally David Davis and Boris Johnson, who debated and agreed the damn thing, and are quite clued up about Brexit, given that they have been trying (and failing) to negotiate it.

    Bojo and Davis dislike Chequers so much they have resigned, so Leave voters have concluded that if the experts say it is shite, then it must be shite. That is a fair and rational conclusion. This is the kind of politics Remainers like, isn't it? Expert MPs make the decisions and express their opinions, the voters adjust their attitudes accordingly.
    Whilst you are probably right about DD, I have zero confidence BJ understands anything about it. His is a purely self-serving political position, and he would have opposed whatever May came up with.
    It is possible to be careerist - and sincere. Boris is a genuine eurosceptic - and I absolutely believe he genuinely detests Chequers - the fact that certain positions enhance his chance of winning the leadership is just a happy by-product.
    If Boris's career shows us one thing, it's that he's not very good at detail or policy - and that's perhaps being kind. He is a slightly lovable rogue / jester who can turn a good phrase (*), but I have failed to see anything in his history that shows he would have read Chequers, yet alone understood it.

    That would have involved work.

    (*) Remind you of anyone? ;)
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited September 2018
    SeanT said:

    I've heard a lot of anecdotal evidence recently of middle class metropolitan liberal lefties abandoning Labour. Not full on activists, but members and voters, all saying Enough.

    I don't think this endless anti-Semitism stuff is damaging Labour's working class or BAME support, but I wonder what it is doing to their vote in middle class urban Britain. And Corbyn's obvious euroscepticism isn't helping, either.

    Yep, I was talking to a friend a few days ago who is exactly a middle class metropolitan liberal lefty (she's an academic). She had been a life-long Labour Party member, but resigned about 18 months ago because of Corbyn's position on Brexit. She's now even more horrified by Corbyn's anti-Semitism and the whole way the party has gone.

    I asked her whether she was going to vote LibDem (which I would have thought would be a good match for her politics), but she wasn't very keen on them either. She says she feels disenfranchised.
  • Options
    Ah, those right wing posters who happily fell in behind the dog whistling racism of the Leave campaign are again rending their shirts about anti-Semitism. And they say irony is dead.
  • Options

    SeanT said:

    I've heard a lot of anecdotal evidence recently of middle class metropolitan liberal lefties abandoning Labour. Not full on activists, but members and voters, all saying Enough.

    I don't think this endless anti-Semitism stuff is damaging Labour's working class or BAME support, but I wonder what it is doing to their vote in middle class urban Britain. And Corbyn's obvious euroscepticism isn't helping, either.

    Yep, I was talking to a friend a few days ago who is exactly a middle class metropolitan liberal lefty (she's an academic). She had been a life-long Labour Party member, but resigned about 18 months ago because of Corbyn's position on Brexit. She's now even more horrified by Corbyn's anti-Semitism and the whole way the party has gone.

    I asked her whether she was going to vote LibDem (which I would have thought would be a good match for her politics), but she wasn't very keen on them either. She says she feels disenfranchised.
    Watch her don the trademarked Polly nosepeg when the GE comes....
  • Options

    SeanT said:

    I've heard a lot of anecdotal evidence recently of middle class metropolitan liberal lefties abandoning Labour. Not full on activists, but members and voters, all saying Enough.

    I don't think this endless anti-Semitism stuff is damaging Labour's working class or BAME support, but I wonder what it is doing to their vote in middle class urban Britain. And Corbyn's obvious euroscepticism isn't helping, either.

    Yep, I was talking to a friend a few days ago who is exactly a middle class metropolitan liberal lefty (she's an academic). She had been a life-long Labour Party member, but resigned about 18 months ago because of Corbyn's position on Brexit. She's now even more horrified by Corbyn's anti-Semitism and the whole way the party has gone.

    I asked her whether she was going to vote LibDem (which I would have thought would be a good match for her politics), but she wasn't very keen on them either. She says she feels disenfranchised.
    She'll probably vote Labour next GE then.
  • Options

    Anorak said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    I'd be surprised if more than 5% of people - generously - could explain what is *actually* in the Chequers proposal.
    Yep.
    But I thought the point by Charles Grant of the CER on the previous thread was instructive: HMG haven’t bothered to try and sell it, whilst everyone else has stepped into the vacuum to attack it, so it’s not far off being politically dead.

    That’s because Theresa May is crap at politics. She think she’s made a decision (after lengthy analysis and consideration of all the alternatives) and got her cabinet’s consent, so thinks her job is done.

    That’s what worries me. Not only does she not know how to sell it, I’m not even sure she sees it as her job to sell it. She presumably thinks it will speak for itself.

    That’s absurdly naive and a monumentally huge flaw in a PM and suggests she’s learnt nothing from the events of 2017.
    Good point.
  • Options

    glw said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Corbynites and Leave.EUers don't have the batshit market sewn up just yet !, here's a good one from one of the #FBPE twitter lot...

    https://twitter.com/fightbrexit/status/1036662177070047232

    I tell you if there was a moonbat event in the Olympics we could give the Yanks a good run for their money.
    I think the USA would still get the best haul of gold medals, though we might not be far behind as you suggest. Would the Russians used banned substances to increase their performance though?
    The yanks would win it hands down, forget all those nutters who think aliens anally probed them, the moon landings were fake and Elvis is alive and living in idaho, they just need to put up a team of Q believers.
    You joke but we seem to have plenty of them here too.

    I saw two different people I follow on Twitter yesterday, whom I hitherto respected, post totally barking conspiracy theories about secret US military projects and UFOs over “25 years”.

    There’s nothing that makes me run a mile more quickly - and rethink my whole respect for someone from top to toe - that posting, liking or endorsing batshit crazy theories about UFOs, crop circles and the moon landings.
  • Options

    SeanT said:

    I've heard a lot of anecdotal evidence recently of middle class metropolitan liberal lefties abandoning Labour. Not full on activists, but members and voters, all saying Enough.

    I don't think this endless anti-Semitism stuff is damaging Labour's working class or BAME support, but I wonder what it is doing to their vote in middle class urban Britain. And Corbyn's obvious euroscepticism isn't helping, either.

    Yep, I was talking to a friend a few days ago who is exactly a middle class metropolitan liberal lefty (she's an academic). She had been a life-long Labour Party member, but resigned about 18 months ago because of Corbyn's position on Brexit. She's now even more horrified by Corbyn's anti-Semitism and the whole way the party has gone.

    I asked her whether she was going to vote LibDem (which I would have thought would be a good match for her politics), but she wasn't very keen on them either. She says she feels disenfranchised.
    She'll probably vote Labour next GE then.
    No, she won't. She absolutely detests what the party has become. I expect she'll vote LibDem or Green.
  • Options

    glw said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Corbynites and Leave.EUers don't have the batshit market sewn up just yet !, here's a good one from one of the #FBPE twitter lot...

    https://twitter.com/fightbrexit/status/1036662177070047232

    I tell you if there was a moonbat event in the Olympics we could give the Yanks a good run for their money.
    I think the USA would still get the best haul of gold medals, though we might not be far behind as you suggest. Would the Russians used banned substances to increase their performance though?
    The yanks would win it hands down, forget all those nutters who think aliens anally probed them, the moon landings were fake and Elvis is alive and living in idaho, they just need to put up a team of Q believers.
    You joke but we seem to have plenty of them here too.

    I saw two different people I follow on Twitter yesterday, whom I hitherto respected, post totally barking conspiracy theories about secret US military projects and UFOs over “25 years”.

    There’s nothing that makes me run a mile more quickly - and rethink my whole respect for someone from top to toe - that posting, liking or endorsing batshit crazy theories about UFOs, crop circles and the moon landings.
    Another good reason not to do Twitter :-)
  • Options

    "Parliament has been living out what the late Nobel Prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow called his "impossibility theorem".

    Essentially, where there is more than a binary choice for a society, it is impossible to infer a decision accurately reflecting the "will of the people" from a binary vote.

    Indeed the big split by the end of the year could well be on how to settle a prolonged impasse.

    Some MPs think a new referendum is the only way to avoid a general election.

    Others anticipate and are planning for a general election to avoid another referendum."

    https://news.sky.com/story/mps-head-back-to-westminster-for-prolonged-panto-season-as-brexit-looms-11489914

    It seems rather optimistic to try to resolve an impasse arising from a binary vote with another binary vote.
    Not if you want revenge and for the other side to feel exactly how you’ve felt for the last 2 years, and then to rub it in some more.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited September 2018
    The woman behind proCorbyn fake news operation theCanary....

    I stand with Palestinians against Apartheid Israel. The adoption of the IHRA & its heinous examples undermines the fight for justice. It provides pro-Israel groups a route to harass anti-Apartheid members & MPs incessantly. The campaign to remove it should start now.

    The maomentumers are going to try and overturn this aren't they.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,005

    SeanT said:

    I've heard a lot of anecdotal evidence recently of middle class metropolitan liberal lefties abandoning Labour. Not full on activists, but members and voters, all saying Enough.

    I don't think this endless anti-Semitism stuff is damaging Labour's working class or BAME support, but I wonder what it is doing to their vote in middle class urban Britain. And Corbyn's obvious euroscepticism isn't helping, either.

    Yep, I was talking to a friend a few days ago who is exactly a middle class metropolitan liberal lefty (she's an academic). She had been a life-long Labour Party member, but resigned about 18 months ago because of Corbyn's position on Brexit. She's now even more horrified by Corbyn's anti-Semitism and the whole way the party has gone.

    I asked her whether she was going to vote LibDem (which I would have thought would be a good match for her politics), but she wasn't very keen on them either. She says she feels disenfranchised.
    Sounds like exactly the type of voter who had it pretty much their own way from 1997 to 2016 when liberalism held sway, now don't like the fact the socially conservative working class through the Leave vote and the hard Left through Corbyn are getting a say too
  • Options
    So we have the moderates and the extremists in the Labour party both unhappy with this decision.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,005

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:
    Nope, if you look at the tables, people want a closer relationship than Chequers. It's Norway or Remain.

    https://interactive.news.sky.com/CHEQUERS_TABS_040918.pdf
    According to Electoral Calculus ICM have Canada most favoured on +20 net, then Norway on +7, then Chequers on +5, then Remain on +1, then No Deal on -33

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/libleave_brexit_spectrum.html

    So if not Chequers it looks like only Canada or the Norway model are viable with the voters
    the flaw with that is 28% of the voters couldnt be arsed to vote and the option

    " I dont really give a toss and just wish theyd all just shut up and get on with it " wasnt being offered.
    Except what do you get on with it to? Is the key question
  • Options

    PM "just to get the job done" - then stand down. Party leadership battle before the next election - but not as a distraction to Brexit. Sounds quite plausible. Party can rally round - as it won't be Boris. Not yet, if at all.

    It looks like Theresa May will rue the day she stepped in and took DD away from negotiating a Canada-style deal. As with Cameron before her, I feel she has been badly advised on Brexit by those close to her.

    I think the problem is that DD wasn't negotiating a Canada-style deal, or indeed any other kind of deal. He seems to have got completely bogged down. One gets the impression that Dominic Raab is much more pro-active, and things are now perhaps inching towards a settlement. Theresa May's and Jeremy Hunt's lobbying of the EU27 leaders directly has probably also helped.
    Helped encourage Macron to kill off Chequers completely?
    Chequers is dead! Long live Chequers!

    However, it is believed that the “zero tariffs, zero quota” offer made by Donald Tusk, the European council president, in March, along with fresh thinking on how to facilitate customs checks to reduce friction at the border, could be developed and packaged as a substantive counter-offer. “There is a lot that can be done to minimise checks,” said an EU diplomat. “What is an internal market in goods? A lot of this is semantics.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/04/eu27-to-offer-theresa-may-a-carrot-and-stick-approach-to-brexit-chequers-plan-irish-border
    It’s entirely semantics.

    Most people on this website react to the political rhetoric, press headlines based on that rhetoric, or overexcited journalists who think they’ve got a killer source, who is usually selectively leaking to them.

    In reality, both sides know the political constraints the other is operating under and finalising the deal is a question of helping both declare a form of victory whilst minimising disruption.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,845

    Sean_F said:

    Charles said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    How do you compromise with anti-Semitism?

    And, unpleasant though he probably is (I never saw the video) it sticks in the craw to have an elected member of the NEC slung off for events that took place before his election. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.
    Although given the state of Labour's membership atm, anti-Semitic comments would probably have increased his vote ...
    4 days after it started I think. But the start second guessing voting patterns looks like special pleading.

    It sucks that Labour has come to this. But it’s time for any moderates with dignity to leave if they can’t win back control.
    They will cease to have any mechanism to win back control once the rule changes that are being planned go through.

    A new left of centre party is the only hope for Labour moderates. At the moment, it is just lacking potential leaders of real personality, vision and skill - and any real sense of policy direction. Which does make it hard to create a new party. But it still needs to happen.
    Agreed

    The longer you wallow in mud the more like a pig you become
    I guess you want the split for partisan reasons.As it would lead to permanent Tory governments .However the the Labour party needs to stay together as a broad church under FPTP
    Nothing stays the same for many years in politics.Better to fight for change inside than annihilation outside under FPTP.
    The good people in Labour, like @Rochdale Pioneers, all think the Tories are even worse, so there will be no split.
    It is that tribal loyalty to a tarnished brand that is hard to understand. I don't see Corbyn's party as the Labour Party. So remaining loyal to something that is so transformed is hard to comprehend.
    I don't find it hard to comprehend. People in Rotherham still returned a Labour council, despite the appalling behaviour of Labour councillors; next door in Doncaster, people returned a Labour council for year after year, even after they had one conviction after another for corruption; Gillian Duffy still voted Labour after her encounter with Gordon Brown.

    There is simply nothing that the Labour Party could do to destroy the faith that c.30% of the population have in the party.
  • Options

    So we have the moderates and the extremists in the Labour party both unhappy with this decision.

    As predicted.

    I expect the party will be arguing over the exact wording for years. It's a sort of reverse Clause 4 moment for Corbyn.
  • Options

    So we have the moderates and the extremists in the Labour party both unhappy with this decision.

    And the possibility that the new NEC will seek to reopen the issue when they take office in October

    They have made things worse. The release of Corbyn's personal preface shows how little he gets it - and he is further tarnished (if that were possible) by his attempt to justify racism.
  • Options

    PM "just to get the job done" - then stand down. Party leadership battle before the next election - but not as a distraction to Brexit. Sounds quite plausible. Party can rally round - as it won't be Boris. Not yet, if at all.

    It looks like Theresa May will rue the day she stepped in and took DD away from negotiating a Canada-style deal. As with Cameron before her, I feel she has been badly advised on Brexit by those close to her.

    I think the problem is that DD wasn't negotiating a Canada-style deal, or indeed any other kind of deal. He seems to have got completely bogged down. One gets the impression that Dominic Raab is much more pro-active, and things are now perhaps inching towards a settlement. Theresa May's and Jeremy Hunt's lobbying of the EU27 leaders directly has probably also helped.
    But she has hitched her remaining scant credibility to the Chequers deal. A deal that had Cabinet ministers resigning - because they said it was unworkable. Now the EU say it is unworkable. She doesn't have the wriggle room to make Chequers workable.

    So it is either No Deal - or it is something else she has already tried to scupper. Who in the Parliamentary Party is going to have the confidence in her to deliver a Brexit she has already actively worked to rubbish? Those who want to avoid No Deal (which to be fair is probably the bulk of the Conservative MPs) must be thinking very hard about a DD caretaker PM. He knows the issues, he knows the players - and with the authority that comes with being PM, even pro tem, he could yet deliver something that is better than No Deal.

    You underestimate the powers of politicians to fudge things. 'Chequers' is short hand for a trade deal which includes zero tariffs, very low-impact bureaucracy on moving goods across the channel, no Irish hard boder, no automatic Freedom of Movement commitment, and minimal oversight by the ECJ, but with some theoretical ability to strike our own trade deals elsewhere. If she comes back with a deal which more or less implements that, she'll with sufficient justification be able to claim that it's a deal based on Chequers.

    What's more, contrary to the fears of the nutjobs, we seem to be moving towards marginally less close-coupling with the EU than in the original Chequers text. Is that bad, within the Conservative Party?

    Caveat: Of course we're only going on the odd leak and public posturing, so to a large extent everything is speculation.
    Indeed.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,005
    edited September 2018

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:
    Nope, if you look at the tables, people want a closer relationship than Chequers. It's Norway or Remain.

    https://interactive.news.sky.com/CHEQUERS_TABS_040918.pdf
    According to Electoral Calculus ICM have Canada most favoured on +20 net, then Norway on +7, then Chequers on +5, then Remain on +1, then No Deal on -33

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/libleave_brexit_spectrum.html

    So if not Chequers it looks like only Canada or the Norway model are viable with the voters
    If it gets to Canada ++ or remain (though I need the details on Canada++) and the second referendum campaign (come on peoples vote be honest) I really do not know which would win. I tend to think Canada would
    Canada++ is what most voters want (especially as it ends free movement unlike Norway) but the Irish border remains an obstacle to it, so the detail remains how you get customs checks minimal enough to respect the GFA (even though that is half dead anyway after the Stormont suspension) and close enough to the main Canada+ Deal for the DUP.

    Otherwise it will likely be Norway but with the price likely to be a far right anti immigration party successor to UKIP on the rise
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    edited September 2018
    YouGov in Sweden showing the Swedish Democrats' lead over the Socialists cut from 2.3% to 1% exactly (quote unquote). But still they have a lead when Ipsos has them 10 points behind.

    Overall 2/1 would be fair, currently 5/2.
  • Options

    As even I do not know the details of Chequers it is a leep of faith to think the public do

    I am relaxed at this stage though no one can really be sure how this works out
    Why not read it?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,845

    "Parliament has been living out what the late Nobel Prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow called his "impossibility theorem".

    Essentially, where there is more than a binary choice for a society, it is impossible to infer a decision accurately reflecting the "will of the people" from a binary vote.

    Indeed the big split by the end of the year could well be on how to settle a prolonged impasse.

    Some MPs think a new referendum is the only way to avoid a general election.

    Others anticipate and are planning for a general election to avoid another referendum."

    https://news.sky.com/story/mps-head-back-to-westminster-for-prolonged-panto-season-as-brexit-looms-11489914

    It seems rather optimistic to try to resolve an impasse arising from a binary vote with another binary vote.
    Not if you want revenge and for the other side to feel exactly how you’ve felt for the last 2 years, and then to rub it in some more.
    Especially, when your faction has been dominant, and now you find that it isn't.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    "Parliament has been living out what the late Nobel Prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow called his "impossibility theorem".

    Essentially, where there is more than a binary choice for a society, it is impossible to infer a decision accurately reflecting the "will of the people" from a binary vote.

    Indeed the big split by the end of the year could well be on how to settle a prolonged impasse.

    Some MPs think a new referendum is the only way to avoid a general election.

    Others anticipate and are planning for a general election to avoid another referendum."

    https://news.sky.com/story/mps-head-back-to-westminster-for-prolonged-panto-season-as-brexit-looms-11489914

    It seems rather optimistic to try to resolve an impasse arising from a binary vote with another binary vote.
    Not if you want revenge and for the other side to feel exactly how you’ve felt for the last 2 years, and then to rub it in some more.
    Especially, when your faction has been dominant, and now you find that it isn't.
    Euroscepticism was dominant between 1999 and 2016. The "bastards" couldn't accept yes for an answer and they deserve what's coming to them.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,845

    YouGov in Sweden showing the Swedish Democrats' lead over the Socialists cut from 2.3% to 1% exactly (quote unquote). But still they have a lead when Ipsos has them 10 points behind.

    Overall 2/1 would be fair, currently 5/2.

    Overall, support for the right, at about 56%, and Left, at about 40%, is pretty stable. All the shifts come within those two camps.

    It's good to see Feminist Initiative crashing and burning.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,005
    edited September 2018

    YouGov in Sweden showing the Swedish Democrats' lead over the Socialists cut from 2.3% to 1% exactly (quote unquote). But still they have a lead when Ipsos has them 10 points behind.

    Overall 2/1 would be fair, currently 5/2.

    Sentio last Friday also had the Swedish Democrats ahead, otherwise most polls have the Social Democrats ahead and the Swedish Democrats just ahead of the Moderates in second

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Swedish_general_election,_2018

    The question really is now whether the Social Democrats and Moderates will have to form a Grand Coalition if their own blocks do not have enough to form a government and keep the Swedish Democrats out
  • Options

    Anorak said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    I'd be surprised if more than 5% of people - generously - could explain what is *actually* in the Chequers proposal.
    Yep.
    That doesn’t matter. They’ve taken against the named idea whatever it might be. Zero legitimacy Brexit is coming.
    I don’t think enough Brexiteers realise we’ll be heading straight back in off, say, Labour winning in GE2022 without Corbyn as leader on a rejoin referendum platform if that takes place.
  • Options

    Anorak said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    I'd be surprised if more than 5% of people - generously - could explain what is *actually* in the Chequers proposal.
    Yep.
    That doesn’t matter. They’ve taken against the named idea whatever it might be. Zero legitimacy Brexit is coming.
    I don’t think enough Brexiteers realise we’ll be heading straight back in off, say, Labour winning in GE2022 without Corbyn as leader on a rejoin referendum platform if that takes place.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,845

    Sean_F said:

    "Parliament has been living out what the late Nobel Prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow called his "impossibility theorem".

    Essentially, where there is more than a binary choice for a society, it is impossible to infer a decision accurately reflecting the "will of the people" from a binary vote.

    Indeed the big split by the end of the year could well be on how to settle a prolonged impasse.

    Some MPs think a new referendum is the only way to avoid a general election.

    Others anticipate and are planning for a general election to avoid another referendum."

    https://news.sky.com/story/mps-head-back-to-westminster-for-prolonged-panto-season-as-brexit-looms-11489914

    It seems rather optimistic to try to resolve an impasse arising from a binary vote with another binary vote.
    Not if you want revenge and for the other side to feel exactly how you’ve felt for the last 2 years, and then to rub it in some more.
    Especially, when your faction has been dominant, and now you find that it isn't.
    Euroscepticism was dominant between 1999 and 2016. The "bastards" couldn't accept yes for an answer and they deserve what's coming to them.
    It really wasn't dominant at government level. Governments made some eurosceptic noises, but still kept giving up powers to the EU.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    SeanT said:

    Richard Angell, director of Progress, the centrist Labour organisation (rightwing in the eyes of its critics, but self-defined as “centre-left”). Angell said:

    The Jewish community made it clear and simple to Labour: pass the IHRA definition in full – no caveats, no compromises. Jeremy Corbyn and the Momentum-dominated NEC have just failed the most basic test. A ‘right to be racist’ protection when debating the Middle East is not just wrong, it is harms the cause of peace but it will also continue a culture where Jewish people cannot feel at home in Labour.

    Today’s decision is an insult. Labour does not know better than Jewish people about antisemitism.

    The four hours it took for today’s retrograde step to appear shows there are committed anti-racists at Labour top table but those apathetic to antisemitism won out, again. The NEC has bought the Labour party into disrepute.

    It is very hard to disagree with Angell's analysis.

    Labour is in a very sorry, sorry state.

    Two of my close friends (both former Labour council candidates) are in despair and will not vote for Labour going forward. They both see a new party as the only solution. They are not alone.
    There would be a delicious irony if Jezza and Milne's refusal to bend on this issue was the final straw that lead to a proper break away.

    They will have thrown the hard left's once in a hundred year chance to win power, all for the sake of being able to compare Israel to Nazi Germany as often as they like.

    I've heard a lot of anecdotal evidence recently of middle class metropolitan liberal lefties abandoning Labour. Not full on activists, but members and voters, all saying Enough.

    I don't think this endless anti-Semitism stuff is damaging Labour's working class or BAME support, but I wonder what it is doing to their vote in middle class urban Britain. And Corbyn's obvious euroscepticism isn't helping, either.

    I reckon Corbyn, if he stays in power, will get fewer votes and seats in the next GE than he did at the last GE.
    Little sign of it in the polls.
    I think there is. Labour is about 3% down on the general election, which is unusual for the Opposition, at this point of a Parliament.
    Our own DuraAce seems to have moved from calling Corbyn the Absolute Boy a year ago to He’s an Idiot.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    YouGov in Sweden showing the Swedish Democrats' lead over the Socialists cut from 2.3% to 1% exactly (quote unquote). But still they have a lead when Ipsos has them 10 points behind.

    Overall 2/1 would be fair, currently 5/2.

    Overall, support for the right, at about 56%, and Left, at about 40%, is pretty stable. All the shifts come within those two camps.

    It's good to see Feminist Initiative crashing and burning.
    HYUFD said:

    YouGov in Sweden showing the Swedish Democrats' lead over the Socialists cut from 2.3% to 1% exactly (quote unquote). But still they have a lead when Ipsos has them 10 points behind.

    Overall 2/1 would be fair, currently 5/2.

    Sentio last Friday also had the Swedish Democrats ahead, otherwise most polls have the Social Denocrats ahead and the Swedish Democrats just ahead of the Moderates in second

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Swedish_general_election,_2018

    The question really is now whether the Social Democrats and Moderates will have to form a Grand Coalition if their own blocks do not have enough to form a government and keep the Swedish Democrats out
    Very very split opinions between right-block members about the SD. Moderates would live with it, the Liberals and Centre absolutely not.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754

    Sean_F said:

    "Parliament has been living out what the late Nobel Prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow called his "impossibility theorem".

    Essentially, where there is more than a binary choice for a society, it is impossible to infer a decision accurately reflecting the "will of the people" from a binary vote.

    Indeed the big split by the end of the year could well be on how to settle a prolonged impasse.

    Some MPs think a new referendum is the only way to avoid a general election.

    Others anticipate and are planning for a general election to avoid another referendum."

    https://news.sky.com/story/mps-head-back-to-westminster-for-prolonged-panto-season-as-brexit-looms-11489914

    It seems rather optimistic to try to resolve an impasse arising from a binary vote with another binary vote.
    Not if you want revenge and for the other side to feel exactly how you’ve felt for the last 2 years, and then to rub it in some more.
    Especially, when your faction has been dominant, and now you find that it isn't.
    Euroscepticism was dominant between 1999 and 2016. The "bastards" couldn't accept yes for an answer and they deserve what's coming to them.
    Hows that different from EUfanatics who wouldnt accept no for an answer ?

    does that make them salauds ?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,845

    Sean_F said:

    SeanT said:

    Richard Angell, director of Progress, the centrist Labour organisation (rightwing in the eyes of its critics, but self-defined as “centre-left”). Angell said:

    The Jewish community made it clear and simple to Labour: pass the IHRA definition in full – no caveats, no compromises. Jeremy Corbyn and the Momentum-dominated NEC have just failed the most basic test. A ‘right to be racist’ protection when debating the Middle East is not just wrong, it is harms the cause of peace but it will also continue a culture where Jewish people cannot feel at home in Labour.

    Today’s decision is an insult. Labour does not know better than Jewish people about antisemitism.

    The four hours it took for today’s retrograde step to appear shows there are committed anti-racists at Labour top table but those apathetic to antisemitism won out, again. The NEC has bought the Labour party into disrepute.

    It is very hard to disagree with Angell's analysis.

    Labour is in a very sorry, sorry state.

    Two of my close friends (both former Labour council candidates) are in despair and will not vote for Labour going forward. They both see a new party as the only solution. They are not alone.
    There would be a delicious irony if Jezza and Milne's refusal to bend on this issue was the final straw that lead to a proper break away.

    They will have thrown the hard left's once in a hundred year chance to win power, all for the sake of being able to compare Israel to Nazi Germany as often as they like.

    I've heard a lot of anecdotal evidence recently of middle class metropolitan liberal lefties abandoning Labour. Not full on activists, but members and voters, all saying Enough.

    I don't think this endless anti-Semitism stuff is damaging Labour's working class or BAME support, but I wonder what it is doing to their vote in middle class urban Britain. And Corbyn's obvious euroscepticism isn't helping, either.

    I reckon Corbyn, if he stays in power, will get fewer votes and seats in the next GE than he did at the last GE.
    Little sign of it in the polls.
    I think there is. Labour is about 3% down on the general election, which is unusual for the Opposition, at this point of a Parliament.
    Our own DuraAce seems to have moved from calling Corbyn the Absolute Boy a year ago to He’s an Idiot.
    Dura Ace is motivated by a desire for revenge on people who voted for Brexit, and Corbyn has let him down.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,292

    Anorak said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    I'd be surprised if more than 5% of people - generously - could explain what is *actually* in the Chequers proposal.
    Yep.
    But I thought the point by Charles Grant of the CER on the previous thread was instructive: HMG haven’t bothered to try and sell it, whilst everyone else has stepped into the vacuum to attack it, so it’s not far off being politically dead.

    That’s because Theresa May is crap at politics. She think she’s made a decision (after lengthy analysis and consideration of all the alternatives) and got her cabinet’s consent, so thinks her job is done.

    That’s what worries me. Not only does she not know how to sell it, I’m not even sure she sees it as her job to sell it. She presumably thinks it will speak for itself.

    That’s absurdly naive and a monumentally huge flaw in a PM and suggests she’s learnt nothing from the events of 2017.
    Good point.
    Yep. She should have been selling her vision of what she wants for the last 18 months. Her complete failure to even attempt to sell Chequers has been truly lamentable. Surely the Tories would not trust another election.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Charles said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    How do you compromise with anti-Semitism?

    And, unpleasant though he probably is (I never saw the video) it sticks in the craw to have an elected member of the NEC slung off for events that took place before his election. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.
    Although given the state of Labour's membership atm, anti-Semitic comments would probably have increased his vote ...
    4 days after it started I think. But the start second guessing voting patterns looks like special pleading.

    It sucks that Labour has come to this. But it’s time for any moderates with dignity to leave if they can’t win back control.
    They will cease to have any mechanism to win back control once the rule changes that are being planned go through.

    A new left of centre party is the only hope for Labour moderates. At the moment, it is just lacking potential leaders of real personality, vision and skill - and any real sense of policy direction. Which does make it hard to create a new party. But it still needs to happen.
    Agreed

    The longer you wallow in mud the more like a pig you become
    I guess you want the split for partisan reasons.As it would lead to permanent Tory governments .However the the Labour party needs to stay together as a broad church under FPTP
    Nothing stays the same for many years in politics.Better to fight for change inside than annihilation outside under FPTP.
    The good people in Labour, like @Rochdale Pioneers, all think the Tories are even worse, so there will be no split.
    It is that tribal loyalty to a tarnished brand that is hard to understand. I don't see Corbyn's party as the Labour Party. So remaining loyal to something that is so transformed is hard to comprehend.
    I don't find it hard to comprehend. People in Rotherham still returned a Labour council, despite the appalling behaviour of Labour councillors; next door in Doncaster, people returned a Labour council for year after year, even after they had one conviction after another for corruption; Gillian Duffy still voted Labour after her encounter with Gordon Brown.

    There is simply nothing that the Labour Party could do to destroy the faith that c.30% of the population have in the party.
    It’s about identity in a way it simply isn’t for Conservatives and Liberal Democrats any longer.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,845

    Sean_F said:

    YouGov in Sweden showing the Swedish Democrats' lead over the Socialists cut from 2.3% to 1% exactly (quote unquote). But still they have a lead when Ipsos has them 10 points behind.

    Overall 2/1 would be fair, currently 5/2.

    Overall, support for the right, at about 56%, and Left, at about 40%, is pretty stable. All the shifts come within those two camps.

    It's good to see Feminist Initiative crashing and burning.
    HYUFD said:

    YouGov in Sweden showing the Swedish Democrats' lead over the Socialists cut from 2.3% to 1% exactly (quote unquote). But still they have a lead when Ipsos has them 10 points behind.

    Overall 2/1 would be fair, currently 5/2.

    Sentio last Friday also had the Swedish Democrats ahead, otherwise most polls have the Social Denocrats ahead and the Swedish Democrats just ahead of the Moderates in second

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Swedish_general_election,_2018

    The question really is now whether the Social Democrats and Moderates will have to form a Grand Coalition if their own blocks do not have enough to form a government and keep the Swedish Democrats out
    Very very split opinions between right-block members about the SD. Moderates would live with it, the Liberals and Centre absolutely not.
    The KD's would support it. The Moderates, SD's, and KD's might get a majority between them.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,005
    edited September 2018

    Sean_F said:

    "Parliament has been living out what the late Nobel Prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow called his "impossibility theorem".

    Essentially, where there is more than a binary choice for a society, it is impossible to infer a decision accurately reflecting the "will of the people" from a binary vote.

    Indeed the big split by the end of the year could well be on how to settle a prolonged impasse.

    Some MPs think a new referendum is the only way to avoid a general election.

    Others anticipate and are planning for a general election to avoid another referendum."

    https://news.sky.com/story/mps-head-back-to-westminster-for-prolonged-panto-season-as-brexit-looms-11489914

    It seems rather optimistic to try to resolve an impasse arising from a binary vote with another binary vote.
    Not if you want revenge and for the other side to feel exactly how you’ve felt for the last 2 years, and then to rub it in some more.
    Especially, when your faction has been dominant, and now you find that it isn't.
    Euroscepticism was dominant between 1999 and 2016. The "bastards" couldn't accept yes for an answer and they deserve what's coming to them.
    Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron were not Eurosceptics (though Brown and Cameron were anti Euro) and the Nice and Lisbon Treaties were not Eurosceptic acts either
  • Options

    Anorak said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    I'd be surprised if more than 5% of people - generously - could explain what is *actually* in the Chequers proposal.
    Yep.
    That doesn’t matter. They’ve taken against the named idea whatever it might be. Zero legitimacy Brexit is coming.
    I don’t think enough Brexiteers realise we’ll be heading straight back in off, say, Labour winning in GE2022 without Corbyn as leader on a rejoin referendum platform if that takes place.
    Blame master strategists Davis, Johnson and Rees-Mogg. After they came out against it, Chequers stood no chance of commanding the approval of most Leavers. Now that Boris Johnson has called it a betrayal and touted a conspiracy theory that elements of the government are seeking to sabotage Brexit, the idea is deader than flares.
  • Options
    alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    edited September 2018
    If people say they prefer "Canada", by and large they are just saying they like the idea of living in Canada. Drink is a bit expensive in Norway and it's a bit too cold. How does "Switzerland" do?
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    "Parliament has been living out what the late Nobel Prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow called his "impossibility theorem".

    Essentially, where there is more than a binary choice for a society, it is impossible to infer a decision accurately reflecting the "will of the people" from a binary vote.

    Indeed the big split by the end of the year could well be on how to settle a prolonged impasse.

    Some MPs think a new referendum is the only way to avoid a general election.

    Others anticipate and are planning for a general election to avoid another referendum."

    https://news.sky.com/story/mps-head-back-to-westminster-for-prolonged-panto-season-as-brexit-looms-11489914

    It seems rather optimistic to try to resolve an impasse arising from a binary vote with another binary vote.
    Not if you want revenge and for the other side to feel exactly how you’ve felt for the last 2 years, and then to rub it in some more.
    Especially, when your faction has been dominant, and now you find that it isn't.
    Euroscepticism was dominant between 1999 and 2016. The "bastards" couldn't accept yes for an answer and they deserve what's coming to them.
    It really wasn't dominant at government level. Governments made some eurosceptic noises, but still kept giving up powers to the EU.
    But on the fundamental question of the Euro we were outside with no prospect of ever joining. A consensus had been established that has now been shattered.

    If our level of integration with the EU had been properly understood at government level we might not have ever had the referendum because it would have been seen as too much of a risk to the stability of the country.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    YouGov in Sweden showing the Swedish Democrats' lead over the Socialists cut from 2.3% to 1% exactly (quote unquote). But still they have a lead when Ipsos has them 10 points behind.

    Overall 2/1 would be fair, currently 5/2.

    Overall, support for the right, at about 56%, and Left, at about 40%, is pretty stable. All the shifts come within those two camps.

    It's good to see Feminist Initiative crashing and burning.
    One win I had at the weekend was convincing two lefty friends of mine from North London (well, Islington) of the idiocy of a female James Bond and if it were to be Idris Elba, because they of course wanted he, were to be the next Bond then it should be for the right reasons and not for his skin colour.

    I had less success with them on Diversity and identity politics more broadly, which his wife seem totally obsessed by.

    He thinks Corbyn is an absolute dickhead but it seemed he’d still vote Labour regardless, or at best abstain.
  • Options

    Anorak said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    I'd be surprised if more than 5% of people - generously - could explain what is *actually* in the Chequers proposal.
    Yep.
    That doesn’t matter. They’ve taken against the named idea whatever it might be. Zero legitimacy Brexit is coming.
    I don’t think enough Brexiteers realise we’ll be heading straight back in off, say, Labour winning in GE2022 without Corbyn as leader on a rejoin referendum platform if that takes place.
    Does that imply you think a second referendum is essential to get a mandate for the specific Brexit we're heading for?
  • Options
    MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,288
    edited September 2018
    Britain Elects‏ @britainelects

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 37% (-1)
    UKIP: 7% (+4)
    LDEM: 6% (-4)
    GRN: 2% (-)

    via @Survation, 31 Aug - 01 Sep
    Chgs. w/ 07 Jul
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,845

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    "Parliament has been living out what the late Nobel Prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow called his "impossibility theorem".

    Essentially, where there is more than a binary choice for a society, it is impossible to infer a decision accurately reflecting the "will of the people" from a binary vote.

    Indeed the big split by the end of the year could well be on how to settle a prolonged impasse.

    Some MPs think a new referendum is the only way to avoid a general election.

    Others anticipate and are planning for a general election to avoid another referendum."

    https://news.sky.com/story/mps-head-back-to-westminster-for-prolonged-panto-season-as-brexit-looms-11489914

    It seems rather optimistic to try to resolve an impasse arising from a binary vote with another binary vote.
    Not if you want revenge and for the other side to feel exactly how you’ve felt for the last 2 years, and then to rub it in some more.
    Especially, when your faction has been dominant, and now you find that it isn't.
    Euroscepticism was dominant between 1999 and 2016. The "bastards" couldn't accept yes for an answer and they deserve what's coming to them.
    It really wasn't dominant at government level. Governments made some eurosceptic noises, but still kept giving up powers to the EU.
    But on the fundamental question of the Euro we were outside with no prospect of ever joining. A consensus had been established that has now been shattered.

    If our level of integration with the EU had been properly understood at government level we might not have ever had the referendum because it would have been seen as too much of a risk to the stability of the country.
    If it had been properly understood, we would not have agreed such a level of integration.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    "Parliament has been living out what the late Nobel Prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow called his "impossibility theorem".

    Essentially, where there is more than a binary choice for a society, it is impossible to infer a decision accurately reflecting the "will of the people" from a binary vote.

    Indeed the big split by the end of the year could well be on how to settle a prolonged impasse.

    Some MPs think a new referendum is the only way to avoid a general election.

    Others anticipate and are planning for a general election to avoid another referendum."

    https://news.sky.com/story/mps-head-back-to-westminster-for-prolonged-panto-season-as-brexit-looms-11489914

    It seems rather optimistic to try to resolve an impasse arising from a binary vote with another binary vote.
    Not if you want revenge and for the other side to feel exactly how you’ve felt for the last 2 years, and then to rub it in some more.
    Especially, when your faction has been dominant, and now you find that it isn't.
    The Luvvie alliance, who have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    YouGov in Sweden showing the Swedish Democrats' lead over the Socialists cut from 2.3% to 1% exactly (quote unquote). But still they have a lead when Ipsos has them 10 points behind.

    Overall 2/1 would be fair, currently 5/2.

    Overall, support for the right, at about 56%, and Left, at about 40%, is pretty stable. All the shifts come within those two camps.

    It's good to see Feminist Initiative crashing and burning.
    HYUFD said:

    YouGov in Sweden showing the Swedish Democrats' lead over the Socialists cut from 2.3% to 1% exactly (quote unquote). But still they have a lead when Ipsos has them 10 points behind.

    Overall 2/1 would be fair, currently 5/2.

    Sentio last Friday also had the Swedish Democrats ahead, otherwise most polls have the Social Denocrats ahead and the Swedish Democrats just ahead of the Moderates in second

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Swedish_general_election,_2018

    The question really is now whether the Social Democrats and Moderates will have to form a Grand Coalition if their own blocks do not have enough to form a government and keep the Swedish Democrats out
    Very very split opinions between right-block members about the SD. Moderates would live with it, the Liberals and Centre absolutely not.
    The KD's would support it. The Moderates, SD's, and KD's might get a majority between them.
    M, SD + KD get 54% with YouGov and 40% with Ipsos. So your guess is as good as mine with that one...

    At least KD are up above 4% with all pollsters now I think
  • Options
    alex. said:

    If people say they prefer "Canada", by and large they are just saying they like the idea of living in Canada. Drink is a bit expensive in Norway and it's a bit too cold. How does "Switzerland" do?

    I love Canada and my eldest and his wife live in Vancouver and it is magical. But it is not home, and home is where the heart is and for me that is here in Llandudno
  • Options

    Anorak said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    I'd be surprised if more than 5% of people - generously - could explain what is *actually* in the Chequers proposal.
    Yep.
    That doesn’t matter. They’ve taken against the named idea whatever it might be. Zero legitimacy Brexit is coming.
    I don’t think enough Brexiteers realise we’ll be heading straight back in off, say, Labour winning in GE2022 without Corbyn as leader on a rejoin referendum platform if that takes place.
    Does that imply you think a second referendum is essential to get a mandate for the specific Brexit we're heading for?
    No.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited September 2018
    MikeL said:

    Britain Elects‏ @britainelects

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 37% (-1)
    UKIP: 7% (+4)
    LDEM: 6% (-4)
    GRN: 2% (-)

    via @Survation, 31 Aug - 01 Sep
    Chgs. w/ 07 Jul

    What was I saying about this anti-Semitism stuff not making a difference....the lib dems really are right royally screwed.
  • Options

    Anorak said:

    Mortimer said:
    Why do you think the results would be any better for Canada+ (even assuming anyone could explain the difference)?
    I'd be surprised if more than 5% of people - generously - could explain what is *actually* in the Chequers proposal.
    Yep.
    That doesn’t matter. They’ve taken against the named idea whatever it might be. Zero legitimacy Brexit is coming.
    I don’t think enough Brexiteers realise we’ll be heading straight back in off, say, Labour winning in GE2022 without Corbyn as leader on a rejoin referendum platform if that takes place.
    Blame master strategists Davis, Johnson and Rees-Mogg. After they came out against it, Chequers stood no chance of commanding the approval of most Leavers. Now that Boris Johnson has called it a betrayal and touted a conspiracy theory that elements of the government are seeking to sabotage Brexit, the idea is deader than flares.
    I’m not particularly impressed by any of them at the moment.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited September 2018

    alex. said:

    If people say they prefer "Canada", by and large they are just saying they like the idea of living in Canada. Drink is a bit expensive in Norway and it's a bit too cold. How does "Switzerland" do?

    I love Canada and my eldest and his wife live in Vancouver and it is magical. But it is not home, and home is where the heart is and for me that is here in Llandudno
    I was in Llandudno a few weeks back and I did toy with the idea of posting something here, but you were not about and I figured you might have been away on one of your cruises or some such :)
This discussion has been closed.