politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s massive midterms gamble has been to make it about hims
Options
Comments
-
YepJonathan said:
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.Barnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.0 -
Surely that will be the verdict of history?Jonathan said:
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.Barnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.0 -
It's a bit early to say that. It could be like trying to judge Mrs Thatcher's premiership just after the 1981 riots.Foxy said:
Surely that will be the verdict of history?Jonathan said:
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.Barnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.0 -
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remainBarnesian said:
YepJonathan said:
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.Barnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
You cannot remove an option0 -
I would question whether no deal is really an option, although the problem is that too many Brexiteers wouldn't agree.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remainBarnesian said:
YepJonathan said:
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.Barnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
You cannot remove an option0 -
I’m going out on a limb. May won’t last as long as Thatcher. Controversial I know.AndyJS said:
It's a bit early to say that. It could be like trying to judge Mrs Thatcher's premiership just after the 1981 riots.Foxy said:
Surely that will be the verdict of history?Jonathan said:
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.Barnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.0 -
I don't agree. That would be hugely divisive. All options are necessaryBarnesian said:
That's why I think a straight repeat would be the least contentious.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is the key problem with a second referendum. It has to be fair and independently decided on the wording, margins, etcBarnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
And when you say straight repeat that would mean only those eligible to vote the last time.0 -
Since no deal isn’t an option, and since there isn’t a deal, this referendum is looking a bit of a foregone conclusion.williamglenn said:
I would question whether no deal is really an option, although the problem is that too many Brexiteers wouldn't agree.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remainBarnesian said:
YepJonathan said:
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.Barnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
You cannot remove an option0 -
Surely it is one of the more mundane uses of social media to post a "sorry I couldn't be there" message? I'd be surprised if no-one tweeted to Farage that they regretted not being able to meet him in Harrogate.
I suppose Stewart Jackson is probably one of those people who hunts comments on YouTube videos looking for people to disagree with. Maybe we'd find deep in the comments on a BBC Philharmonic performance of Ode to Joy Stewart Jackson hurling invective at someone expressing their pleasure at being able to listen to the piece while washing the dishes.0 -
It has to be fair to all to be validwilliamglenn said:
I would question whether no deal is really an option, although the problem is that too many Brexiteers wouldn't agree.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remainBarnesian said:
YepJonathan said:
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.Barnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
You cannot remove an option0 -
Whether or not the government endorses it, there is a deal on the table.Jonathan said:
Since no deal isn’t an option, and since there isn’t a deal, this referendum is looking a bit of a foregone conclusion.williamglenn said:
I would question whether no deal is really an option, although the problem is that too many Brexiteers wouldn't agree.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remainBarnesian said:
YepJonathan said:
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.Barnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
You cannot remove an option0 -
Yes, I don't see why he felt the need to do it in the first place.dixiedean said:
However, simply calling people who disagree with you cretins is ill-mannered and unbecoming. What's worse is it is entirely ineffective.kle4 said:
I am quite sure he would be referring to the person posting the message a cretin*, and while that is itself a poor thing to be doing and absolutely needless there is a danger in overdoing the criticism by suggesting he was calling the child a cretin, which looks a lot like deliberately misinterpreting things even more hostilely than deserved. See also comments of Corbyn seized upon, over egged, and thus being ineffective even when the comments deserved criticism.williamglenn said:
*should he confirm he meant the child I'll withdraw that
Thrown out by whom? Certainly there are lines, even just with language, which most reasonable people would not regard as acceptable to be crossed even against the most horrible of their opponents, but how many people are going to not vote for Party X because the candidate is an arse? Not enough to make a difference, I'd bet that much.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I think we have seen politics descend into a cesspit of abuse and serious threats.Jonathan said:You shouldn’t call anyone a cretin, least of all a sick child or parent thereof. Politics does seem to attract some very unpleasant people.
The reference to the child is sick.
These people involved in this abusive lanuage need to be taken to task and if a parliamentarian thrown out
Civility is not the be all and end all of course, but it is nice, however until there's a proper cost to it people will generally get away with it.0 -
Still Mrs May's most loyal colleague...williamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
0 -
Or Anthony Eden after Suez.AndyJS said:
It's a bit early to say that. It could be like trying to judge Mrs Thatcher's premiership just after the 1981 riots.Foxy said:
Surely that will be the verdict of history?Jonathan said:
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.Barnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.0 -
The standards committee or even in some cases following a hate crime convictionkle4 said:
Yes, I don't see why he felt the need to do it in the first place.dixiedean said:
However, simply calling people who disagree with you cretins is ill-mannered and unbecoming. What's worse is it is entirely ineffective.kle4 said:
I am quite sure he would be referring to the person posting the message a cretin*, and while that is itself a poor thing to be doing and absolutely needless there is a danger in overdoing the criticism by suggesting he was calling the child a cretin, which looks a lot like deliberately misinterpreting things even more hostilely than deserved. See also comments of Corbyn seized upon, over egged, and thus being ineffective even when the comments deserved criticism.williamglenn said:
*should he confirm he meant the child I'll withdraw that
Thrown out by whom? Certainly there are lines, even just with language, which most reasonable people would not regard as acceptable to be crossed even against the most horrible of their opponents, but how many people are going to not vote for Party X because the candidate is an arse? Not enough to make a difference, I'd bet that much.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I think we have seen politics descend into a cesspit of abuse and serious threats.Jonathan said:You shouldn’t call anyone a cretin, least of all a sick child or parent thereof. Politics does seem to attract some very unpleasant people.
The reference to the child is sick.
These people involved in this abusive lanuage need to be taken to task and if a parliamentarian thrown out
Civility is not the be all and end all of course, but it is nice, however until there's a proper cost to it people will generally get away with it.0 -
Big_G_NorthWales said:
I don't agree. That would be hugely divisive. All options are necessaryBarnesian said:
That's why I think a straight repeat would be the least contentious.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is the key problem with a second referendum. It has to be fair and independently decided on the wording, margins, etcBarnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
And when you say straight repeat that would mean only those eligible to vote the last time.
"No deal" and remain would be the only viable options. There would be no others.
Straight repeat would not mean only those eligible to vote last time! It would be a straight repeat of the wording but the electorate has moved on. Some have died and some have come of age. (I know you are kidding).
0 -
If there are more than 2 questions on a new referendum ballot paper, would AV be used to establish the winner if no option gets more than 50% on first preferences? Because with 3 options it's quite likely that each would get around a third of voters supporting it.0
-
A view that fails to recognise that a deal has to be endorsed by two sides.williamglenn said:
Whether or not the government endorses it, there is a deal on the table.Jonathan said:
Since no deal isn’t an option, and since there isn’t a deal, this referendum is looking a bit of a foregone conclusion.williamglenn said:
I would question whether no deal is really an option, although the problem is that too many Brexiteers wouldn't agree.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remainBarnesian said:
YepJonathan said:
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.Barnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
You cannot remove an option
At present there may be an offer.0 -
The next referendum should have three choices selected by AV:
1. Fudge
2. Long Grass
3. Can Kick
Maybe an option for unicorns.0 -
Who is the principal on the UK side who is capable of accepting an offer and making it stick? Arguably not Theresa May.philiph said:
A view that fails to recognise that a deal has to be endorsed by two sides.williamglenn said:
Whether or not the government endorses it, there is a deal on the table.Jonathan said:
Since no deal isn’t an option, and since there isn’t a deal, this referendum is looking a bit of a foregone conclusion.williamglenn said:
I would question whether no deal is really an option, although the problem is that too many Brexiteers wouldn't agree.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remainBarnesian said:
YepJonathan said:
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.Barnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
You cannot remove an option
At present there may be an offer.0 -
You said straight repeat and we know remainers like to suggest as the elderly die the young vote will overtake them. In our household that would be 2 remain votes lostBarnesian said:Big_G_NorthWales said:
I don't agree. That would be hugely divisive. All options are necessaryBarnesian said:
That's why I think a straight repeat would be the least contentious.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is the key problem with a second referendum. It has to be fair and independently decided on the wording, margins, etcBarnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
And when you say straight repeat that would mean only those eligible to vote the last time.
"No deal" and remain would be the only viable options. There would be no others.
Straight repeat would not mean only those eligible to vote last time! It would be a straight repeat of the wording but the electorate has moved on. Some have died and some have come of age. (I know you are kidding).
If TM has a deal that is on the ballot paper0 -
Then accepting the offer could be an option on the table.philiph said:
A view that fails to recognise that a deal has to be endorsed by two sides.williamglenn said:
Whether or not the government endorses it, there is a deal on the table.Jonathan said:
Since no deal isn’t an option, and since there isn’t a deal, this referendum is looking a bit of a foregone conclusion.williamglenn said:
I would question whether no deal is really an option, although the problem is that too many Brexiteers wouldn't agree.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remainBarnesian said:
YepJonathan said:
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.Barnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
You cannot remove an option
At present there may be an offer.
There really is no need for any of this - if Parliament doesn't want May's plan, or no deal, they can demand other things be tried. They just have the not unreasonable desire for democratic cover, but if you are going for democratic cover then how can it be fair to exclude the options you do not want. Either you want to ask the people for their view or you don't. If you don't want to risk the public picking the wrong option, don't ask them at all.0 -
And a counter offerphiliph said:
A view that fails to recognise that a deal has to be endorsed by two sides.williamglenn said:
Whether or not the government endorses it, there is a deal on the table.Jonathan said:
Since no deal isn’t an option, and since there isn’t a deal, this referendum is looking a bit of a foregone conclusion.williamglenn said:
I would question whether no deal is really an option, although the problem is that too many Brexiteers wouldn't agree.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remainBarnesian said:
YepJonathan said:
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.Barnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
You cannot remove an option
At present there may be an offer.0 -
The fairest would surely be:AndyJS said:If there are more than 2 questions on a new referendum ballot paper, would AV be used to establish the winner if no option gets more than 50% on first preferences? Because with 3 options it's quite likely that each would get around a third of voters supporting it.
1. SM + CU for UK
2. FTA for GB, SM + CU for NI
3. EFTA for GB, SM + CU for NI
4. Remain
5. No Deal
AV would be used with the lowest ranked option getting knocked out at each stage until only 2 Remained and the option that got over 50% is the Brexit or Not Brexit we get.
That way nobody could complain and every option is covered including the backstop and the only FTA acceptable to the EU0 -
If we do end up remaining. Can we all have a bit of a lie down?0
-
OK It would be Mrs May's deal (that has been rejected by parliament) versus remain. A straight choice. Leave (in name only) or Remain. It wouldn't be fair to have no deal on the ballot paper as well as that would split the leave vote.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You said straight repeat and we know remainers like to suggest as the elderly die the young vote will overtake them. In our household that would be 2 remain votes lostBarnesian said:Big_G_NorthWales said:
I don't agree. That would be hugely divisive. All options are necessaryBarnesian said:
That's why I think a straight repeat would be the least contentious.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is the key problem with a second referendum. It has to be fair and independently decided on the wording, margins, etcBarnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
And when you say straight repeat that would mean only those eligible to vote the last time.
"No deal" and remain would be the only viable options. There would be no others.
Straight repeat would not mean only those eligible to vote last time! It would be a straight repeat of the wording but the electorate has moved on. Some have died and some have come of age. (I know you are kidding).
If TM has a deal that is on the ballot paper0 -
A question that I have not seem come up often in speculation of a referendum is whether they would make it binding or not. IIRC the AV referendum act contained provisions stating that the results must be implemented according to schedules already prepared. The EU referendum act contained no such provisions therefore was, legally, only advisory. Would anyone, assuming for the sake of argument a bill could even get through parliament, dare try to insist that the result must be implemented?0
-
If there is a 60 - 40 or larger margin to remain it should settle itJonathan said:If we do end up remaining. Can we all have a bit of a lie down?
But a 52 - 48 remain would be a disaster and chaos would continue indefinitely0 -
A sit down and a nice cup of tea. With a biscuit.Jonathan said:If we do end up remaining. Can we all have a bit of a lie down?
But which biscuit?0 -
Garibaldis?OblitusSumMe said:
A sit down and a nice cup of tea. With a biscuit.Jonathan said:If we do end up remaining. Can we all have a bit of a lie down?
But which biscuit?0 -
No you just cannot exclude no deal much as I am totally opposed itBarnesian said:
OK It would be Mrs May's deal (that has been rejected by parliament) versus remain. A straight choice. Leave (in name only) or Remain It wouldn't be fair to have no deal on the ballot paper as well as that would split the leave vote.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You said straight repeat and we know remainers like to suggest as the elderly die the young vote will overtake them. In our household that would be 2 remain votes lostBarnesian said:Big_G_NorthWales said:
I don't agree. That would be hugely divisive. All options are necessaryBarnesian said:
That's why I think a straight repeat would be the least contentious.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is the key problem with a second referendum. It has to be fair and independently decided on the wording, margins, etcBarnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
And when you say straight repeat that would mean only those eligible to vote the last time.
"No deal" and remain would be the only viable options. There would be no others.
Straight repeat would not mean only those eligible to vote last time! It would be a straight repeat of the wording but the electorate has moved on. Some have died and some have come of age. (I know you are kidding).
If TM has a deal that is on the ballot paper
You are trying to make t favourable to remain and that would not cut it
Everyone would have to be open to the three options otherwise it would be invalid0 -
-
Only in the Tory party.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If there is a 60 - 40 or larger margin to remain it should settle itJonathan said:If we do end up remaining. Can we all have a bit of a lie down?
But a 52 - 48 remain would be a disaster and chaos would continue indefinitely
The original 52 - 48 leave was done in ignorance of the issues and options. A 52 - 48 remain now would be in the knowledge of the issues and options and would be final.0 -
I am sure you are not that naive. It would be a disasterBarnesian said:
Only in the Tory party.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If there is a 60 - 40 or larger margin to remain it should settle itJonathan said:If we do end up remaining. Can we all have a bit of a lie down?
But a 52 - 48 remain would be a disaster and chaos would continue indefinitely
The original 52 - 48 leave was done in ignorance of the issues and options. A 52 - 48 remain now would be in the knowledge of the issues and options and would be final.0 -
I'm sure this has been posted, but nevertheless...
https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/10543758127267471370 -
The question is what is he onrcs1000 said:I'm sure this has been posted, but nevertheless...
https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/10543758127267471370 -
Is that true? If so, I'm sorry Stewart, but that's a really dickish thing to do.williamglenn said:0 -
That is incredibly wishful thinking, quite clearly based on your preferred outcome and assuming it would all work out fine. Though I support a second vote now, there is simply no strong counter to the suggestion that someone could ask for a third, or fourth or fifth, and blithely stating the first was done in ignorance wouldn't cut it. For one thing since we won't ever have actually left, plenty of people could claim they didn't know for sure what it meant in the second vote, since there were options which people predicted chaos on, but we never saw it. People were told it would be a disaster and chaotic in the run up to the first one too after all, but apparently that doesn't count.Barnesian said:
Only in the Tory party.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If there is a 60 - 40 or larger margin to remain it should settle itJonathan said:If we do end up remaining. Can we all have a bit of a lie down?
But a 52 - 48 remain would be a disaster and chaos would continue indefinitely
The original 52 - 48 leave was done in ignorance of the issues and options. A 52 - 48 remain now would be in the knowledge of the issues and options and would be final.0 -
The retirement/firing of Dacre may prove to be crucial in this whole process.CarlottaVance said:0 -
They've been on maneuvers for goddamn months, who are they kidding?rcs1000 said:I'm sure this has been posted, but nevertheless...
https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/10543758127267471370 -
Who for? Most people would breathe a sigh of relief. Thank God that's settled. Even most of those who voted leave. It would only be a disaster for the zealots and the Tory party.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am sure you are not that naive. It would be a disasterBarnesian said:
Only in the Tory party.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If there is a 60 - 40 or larger margin to remain it should settle itJonathan said:If we do end up remaining. Can we all have a bit of a lie down?
But a 52 - 48 remain would be a disaster and chaos would continue indefinitely
The original 52 - 48 leave was done in ignorance of the issues and options. A 52 - 48 remain now would be in the knowledge of the issues and options and would be final.0 -
Well in fairness whether they oust her or not we are being dragged to the abyss by Parliament as they cannot agree a course of action. It would be nice to think even if only from a stability point of view that not ousting May would ensure they could agree a course of action, but there's little reason to believe that.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Binding forever if it gives the right answer even if by one vote, advisory if not?kle4 said:A question that I have not seem come up often in speculation of a referendum is whether they would make it binding or not. IIRC the AV referendum act contained provisions stating that the results must be implemented according to schedules already prepared. The EU referendum act contained no such provisions therefore was, legally, only advisory. Would anyone, assuming for the sake of argument a bill could even get through parliament, dare try to insist that the result must be implemented?
What’s the Remain option in this scenario btw? Cameron’s “reformed” EU is in the bin isn’t it, so straight rerun isn’t even theoretically possible.
0 -
Kle 4 has given you the perfect answer and I fully endorse his commentsBarnesian said:
Who for? Most people would breathe a sigh of relief. Thank God that's settled. Even most of those who voted leave. It would only be a disaster for the zealots and the Tory party.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am sure you are not that naive. It would be a disasterBarnesian said:
Only in the Tory party.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If there is a 60 - 40 or larger margin to remain it should settle itJonathan said:If we do end up remaining. Can we all have a bit of a lie down?
But a 52 - 48 remain would be a disaster and chaos would continue indefinitely
The original 52 - 48 leave was done in ignorance of the issues and options. A 52 - 48 remain now would be in the knowledge of the issues and options and would be final.0 -
As I said ...Big_G_NorthWales said:
Kle 4 has given you the perfect answer and I fully endorse his commentsBarnesian said:
Who for? Most people would breathe a sigh of relief. Thank God that's settled. Even most of those who voted leave. It would only be a disaster for the zealots and the Tory party.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am sure you are not that naive. It would be a disasterBarnesian said:
Only in the Tory party.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If there is a 60 - 40 or larger margin to remain it should settle itJonathan said:If we do end up remaining. Can we all have a bit of a lie down?
But a 52 - 48 remain would be a disaster and chaos would continue indefinitely
The original 52 - 48 leave was done in ignorance of the issues and options. A 52 - 48 remain now would be in the knowledge of the issues and options and would be final.0 -
They have changed and are very much supporting TMdixiedean said:
The retirement/firing of Dacre may prove to be crucial in this whole process.CarlottaVance said:0 -
It is theoretically possible. It depends if the EU are cooperative to the remain cause.trawl said:
Binding forever if it gives the right answer even if by one vote, advisory if not?kle4 said:A question that I have not seem come up often in speculation of a referendum is whether they would make it binding or not. IIRC the AV referendum act contained provisions stating that the results must be implemented according to schedules already prepared. The EU referendum act contained no such provisions therefore was, legally, only advisory. Would anyone, assuming for the sake of argument a bill could even get through parliament, dare try to insist that the result must be implemented?
What’s the Remain option in this scenario btw? Cameron’s “reformed” EU is in the bin isn’t it, so straight rerun isn’t even theoretically possible.0 -
Time to go
Have a relaxing evening everyone
Good night folks0 -
I'm off too. Good night everyone.Big_G_NorthWales said:Time to go
Have a relaxing evening everyone
Good night folks0 -
I don't think there's any chance of resurrecting Cameron's deal. Macron thinks the EU shouldn't have negotiated with Cameron to begin with.Barnesian said:
It is theoretically possible. It depends if the EU are cooperative to the remain cause.trawl said:
Binding forever if it gives the right answer even if by one vote, advisory if not?kle4 said:A question that I have not seem come up often in speculation of a referendum is whether they would make it binding or not. IIRC the AV referendum act contained provisions stating that the results must be implemented according to schedules already prepared. The EU referendum act contained no such provisions therefore was, legally, only advisory. Would anyone, assuming for the sake of argument a bill could even get through parliament, dare try to insist that the result must be implemented?
What’s the Remain option in this scenario btw? Cameron’s “reformed” EU is in the bin isn’t it, so straight rerun isn’t even theoretically possible.0 -
The shift in tone from the Mail does not, at present, seem to diminished those calling for May to go any (whether they are explicit or implicit - eg demanding she change course or else unspecified threat). To get something through either significant numbers of Labour MPs need to back it, or the number of Tory rebels needs to be low enough to be countered by a handful from other parties. Is there any indication the strength of feeling leading the agitators to do what they are doing can be modulated by believing things like the shift in tone from the Mail indicate the country and party will, in fact, accept May's plans, and therefore back down?dixiedean said:
The retirement/firing of Dacre may prove to be crucial in this whole process.CarlottaVance said:
Good night all.0 -
There is a pathetic cretin. He's not in hospital though.rcs1000 said:
Is that true? If so, I'm sorry Stewart, but that's a really dickish thing to do.williamglenn said:0 -
He was obviously referring to the adult who'd arranged it rather than the child, but it was still a very stupid comment to post.CarlottaVance said:
There is a pathetic cretin. He's not in hospital though.rcs1000 said:
Is that true? If so, I'm sorry Stewart, but that's a really dickish thing to do.williamglenn said:0 -
What sort of parent would use a picture of their seemingly very ill child in a hospital bed to promote the people's vote campaign? Let kids form their own views on political issues as they get older!AndyJS said:
He was obviously referring to the adult who'd arranged it rather than the child, but it was still a very stupid comment to post.CarlottaVance said:
There is a pathetic cretin. He's not in hospital though.rcs1000 said:
Is that true? If so, I'm sorry Stewart, but that's a really dickish thing to do.williamglenn said:
But as you say even though the comment is clearly directed at the tweeter who did the above it will no doubt be construed as a reference to the ill child. Such is the nature of twitter.0 -
He may well have been referring to the parent, but it isn't obvious.AndyJS said:
He was obviously referring to the adult who'd arranged it rather than the child, but it was still a very stupid comment to post.CarlottaVance said:
There is a pathetic cretin. He's not in hospital though.rcs1000 said:
Is that true? If so, I'm sorry Stewart, but that's a really dickish thing to do.williamglenn said:0 -
Surely the argument should be we have already voted to leave - so remain has already been rejected by the people.Barnesian said:
OK It would be Mrs May's deal (that has been rejected by parliament) versus remain. A straight choice. Leave (in name only) or Remain. It wouldn't be fair to have no deal on the ballot paper as well as that would split the leave vote.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You said straight repeat and we know remainers like to suggest as the elderly die the young vote will overtake them. In our household that would be 2 remain votes lostBarnesian said:Big_G_NorthWales said:
I don't agree. That would be hugely divisive. All options are necessaryBarnesian said:
That's why I think a straight repeat would be the least contentious.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is the key problem with a second referendum. It has to be fair and independently decided on the wording, margins, etcBarnesian said:
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much betterwilliamglenn said:Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
And when you say straight repeat that would mean only those eligible to vote the last time.
"No deal" and remain would be the only viable options. There would be no others.
Straight repeat would not mean only those eligible to vote last time! It would be a straight repeat of the wording but the electorate has moved on. Some have died and some have come of age. (I know you are kidding).
If TM has a deal that is on the ballot paper
So give the people's vote campaign what they say they have been asking for for the last few months - a vote on the deal.
Mrs May could then argue here is your vote on the deal - back my deal or its no deal? She might well win easily when push comes to shove - with a dollop of project fear mark II. The people's vote crowd could hardly complain - they will have their vote on the deal.0 -
I see Trump is doing a rally tonight in Houston with Ted Cruz to support his senate campaign.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5OUmoa9rME0 -
If you're aiming for maximum legitimacy it's probably better to do two rounds. I know that's mathematically identical (assuming no changes of mind) but it makes it easier for non-nerds to understand, which is important since both the losing sides will want to say they woz robbed.AndyJS said:If there are more than 2 questions on a new referendum ballot paper, would AV be used to establish the winner if no option gets more than 50% on first preferences? Because with 3 options it's quite likely that each would get around a third of voters supporting it.
Also there's no harm in having an extra week to argue about things once you know what the top two are.0 -
Or you could just use AV and save £150 million on having to hold a second vote - and let the councils have the money instead to fund social care. Why not overturn the two most recent national referendums in one go?edmundintokyo said:
If you're aiming for maximum legitimacy it's probably better to do two rounds. I know that's mathematically identical (assuming no changes of mind) but it makes it easier for non-nerds to understand, which is important since both the losing sides will want to say they woz robbed.AndyJS said:If there are more than 2 questions on a new referendum ballot paper, would AV be used to establish the winner if no option gets more than 50% on first preferences? Because with 3 options it's quite likely that each would get around a third of voters supporting it.
Also there's no harm in having an extra week to argue about things once you know what the top two are.0 -
He needs to come back and spend some more time on this site so we can re-civilize himdixiedean said:
However, simply calling people who disagree with you cretins is ill-mannered and unbecoming. What's worse is it is entirely ineffective.kle4 said:
I am quite sure he would be referring to the person posting the message a cretin*, and while that is itself a poor thing to be doing and absolutely needless there is a danger in overdoing the criticism by suggesting he was calling the child a cretin, which looks a lot like deliberately misinterpreting things even more hostilely than deserved. See also comments of Corbyn seized upon, over egged, and thus being ineffective even when the comments deserved criticism.williamglenn said:
*should he confirm he meant the child I'll withdraw that
It is the politics of the playground. And not Secondary School.
Sorry not directed at kle...0 -
I'd have thought if you did two rounds you'd have some serious economies of scale: One mailing, one polling card, etc etc.brendan16 said:
Or you could just use AV and save £150 million on having to hold a second vote - and let the councils have the money instead to fund social care. Why not overturn the two most recent national referendums in one go?edmundintokyo said:
If you're aiming for maximum legitimacy it's probably better to do two rounds. I know that's mathematically identical (assuming no changes of mind) but it makes it easier for non-nerds to understand, which is important since both the losing sides will want to say they woz robbed.AndyJS said:If there are more than 2 questions on a new referendum ballot paper, would AV be used to establish the winner if no option gets more than 50% on first preferences? Because with 3 options it's quite likely that each would get around a third of voters supporting it.
Also there's no harm in having an extra week to argue about things once you know what the top two are.
Generally I'd support AV at times like this but dim people getting angry at politics is actually causing serious real-world damage, some of it quite expensive, so if two rounds helps get the process through a few more of their thick skulls then it's probably a decent investment.0 -
Just to flesh out the AV Dimwit Problem, imagine you get something like this:edmundintokyo said:I'd have thought if you did two rounds you'd have some serious economies of scale: One mailing, one polling card, etc etc.
Generally I'd support AV at times like this but dim people getting angry at politics is actually causing serious real-world damage, some of it quite expensive, so if two rounds helps get the process through a few more of their thick skulls then it's probably a decent investment.
* Remain 45
* No Deal 35
* Deal 20
Now imagine the Deal second preferences split 50/50, so
* Remain 55
* No Deal 45
That's a perfectly clear and reasonable result, but the Facebook posts your racist uncle will be sharing the next day will affect not to understand what second preferences are or why they matter and say that Leave got 55% of the vote, and were robbed by some gerrymandering politician's trick.
Obviously fuckwits are gonna fuckwit and you shouldn't go *too* far to accommodate these people, but we're talking about a movement that has already produced a political assassination, so it seems sensible to make things clearer if you can. In this case you can head it off by doing the same thing over two rounds, which gives you a nice, clear final decision with no voting-system witchery.0 -
North Carolina breaks down its early voting results by person so that will be easy to check.AlastairMeeks said:Here's a thread for those looking at the US elections to ponder:
https://twitter.com/BowTiePolitics/status/1054488734157234177
If the biggest rise is in the unaffiliated, that doesn't sound good to me for the Republicans.
We can even compare if someone voted in previous elections and this one.
African American early vote in NC was well down in 2016 compared to 2012 and so signalled disaster for Clinton.0
This discussion has been closed.