politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nunc dimittis: Theresa May’s exit approaches

If May wants to stop the vote for next Tuesday then they’ll have to put down a motion . Which then could be amendable ! The debate has already started , you can’t just stop the vote unless MPs agree . Bear in mind even if the vote doesn’t happen and the government brings in something else to be voted on the Grieve amendment stands in the event of no deal being agreed . Even though it was an amendment to the current programme of business motion it doesn’t end with that .

The ERG have been in desperate spin mode to say Grieves amendment doesn’t change things . No government can plow on with a course of action if a majority of MPs instruct them not to .

I'm calling it now, in the event of No Deal, the DUP get absolutely gubbed next time in the general election.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1070744608559284231
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1070744610329292800
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1070744611486920704
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1070744612560625666
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1070744613760188417
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1070744614968152064

The non DUP Northern Ireland voice is almost entirely absent from parliament, however it is more supportive than not of May (Hermon, SDLP, Sinn Fein!). Not sure about the UUP.

tottenhamWC said:

A deal vs. Norway option is an option.

It isn't because the Norway option means signing exactly the same withdrawal agreement so it wouldn't be a real choice at all.

grabcocque said:

I think you'd find it hard to convince anyone that "no deal" and its implications are clear and understood.

Quite. Plus almost every MP is opposed. No Deal can't be on the ballot.

Deal can't be on there either. Parliament would have already pronounced it unacceptable, it's way too complex for the public, and it does not define the future relationship. We don't discover what leave means until we leave.

Which leaves Remain. And a single option ballot is a bit iffy so we're stuck.

No, 2nd ref not a runner. Parliament should implement or cancel. Man up parliament.

So - how about this? - we leave, negotiate the future relationship, live with it for a few years and then rejoin if it's all gone pear, which it probably will do. Not with a referendum obviously, once bitten twice shy, but via a party winning a GE with rejoin in its manifesto. British democracy at its finest.

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SquareRoot said:

Mexicanpete said:

News from Wales:

New First Minister Mark Drakeford is an absolute Corbynite spanner!

Lets see how a dose of Corbynite "loonacy" goes down in Wales.. A Welsh poll in a few months will be interesting/

Poor Wales - he is useless beyond useless

His big ideas are no smoking in town centres, government-funded baby showers and extra solar panels to catch the sunlight from Corbyn's arse.

He even makes Alun Michael look good, and that's something I never thought I would say.

I actually know Alun Michael. I have solar panels and actually do not like smoking in town centres

But just seeing him now on ITV Wales confirmed he is hopeless and will not be an asset to Wales labour

IanB2 said:

I can't help thinking that need to try get your decision making process onto firmer ground.

:-)

Now that is EXACTLY what you should be telling parliament.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm calling it now, in the event of No Deal, the DUP get absolutely gubbed next time in the general election.

So it wouldn't all be bad news?

Throw in Corbyn and it might almost be worth the economic disas...actually that's not true.

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

grabcocque said:

HYUFD said:

Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote

How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?

As almost all Tory MPs plus the DUP would vote for it plus Hoey, Field, Stringer and Mann.

The electoral commission can have no complaints as Leave won in 2016, this is just on the method of leaving

Grieve Wollaston Soubry Clarke and a.bunch of others would not

Clarke has already said he would back the Deal and Field, Mann, Skinner, Stringer and Hoey would vote for Deal v No Deal anyway, cancelling out the above

He has said he would back the Deal. He has not said that he would back a Deal v No Deal referendum. You've pulled that out of your own backside.

grabcocque said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

My wife reads the daily mail and your connection with daily mail readers being old and the old dying is nasty and unnecessary

I read your comments with an open mind, sometimes agreeing, others not, but you spoil your arguments occasionally by a lack of empathy

Once again, I repeat that my statement is entirely true. The Mail's readership is elderly, and its rapid rate of decline is almost entirely consistent with its readers dropping dead, as is the wont of the elderly.

Do you ever consider you might, just occasionally, be a teeny bit over-sensitive?

I am 75 and my wife is 79 and your comments like 'readers dropping dead' and your general lack of respect for our age group does cause concern

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm calling it now, in the event of No Deal, the DUP get absolutely gubbed next time in the general election.

They got their vote out through the renewable heating initiative fiasco. So tough to write them off solely because of poor decisions.

grabcocque said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

grabcocque said:

AndyJS said:

grabcocque said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, has readership decline increase or decreased since Greig[sp] took over?

The Daily Mail has lost about 200,000 daily readers since he took over. But that's entirely in keeping with the Mail's trend rate of decline.

He's only been in charge for a very brief time hasn't he? 200,000 seems like a lot of readers to lose in a short time.

The Daily Mail's readers are very old. Old people have a habit of dying.

That is just nasty

That's a completely and totally factual statement, you dolt.

Big G, why do you think every newspaper (bar free rags) has rapidly falling circulations?

Their readership is LITERALLY dying of old age. The Telegraph has the oldest readership, so its audience is dying off the fastest.

No they're not literally dying of old age. A tiny proportion of circulation fall may be, but even the elderly don't literally die at that rapid a rate.

Circulation is falling due to technology and all the other oft-stated reasons. Morbidity is a tiny fraction of the change.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

grabcocque said:

HYUFD said:

Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote

How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?

As almost all Tory MPs plus the DUP would vote for it plus Hoey, Field, Stringer and Mann.

The electoral commission can have no complaints as Leave won in 2016, this is just on the method of leaving

DUP won't vote for deal being an option.

Many 'wet' Tories wouldn't vote for no deal being an option.

Even Ken Clarke backs the Deal, the DUP backed Leave and would prefer Deal v No Deal to Deal v Remain

Ken Clarke backs the Deal, he opposes No Deal.
DUP oppose the Deal.

You can't get MPs to back a referendum just by putting their favourite option as an option, not if something they bitterly oppose is also there and could win.

You can quite easily, indeed the DUP hate Remain just as much as the Deal. Though even without the DUP virtually all Tories and enough Labour Leave MPs would give a Deal v No Deal referendum a majority

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

grabcocque said:

HYUFD said:

Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote

How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?

As almost all Tory MPs plus the DUP would vote for it plus Hoey, Field, Stringer and Mann.

The electoral commission can have no complaints as Leave won in 2016, this is just on the method of leaving

DUP won't vote for deal being an option.

Many 'wet' Tories wouldn't vote for no deal being an option.

Even Ken Clarke backs the Deal, the DUP backed Leave and would prefer Deal v No Deal to Deal v Remain

Ken Clarke backs the Deal, he opposes No Deal.
DUP oppose the Deal.

You can't get MPs to back a referendum just by putting their favourite option as an option, not if something they bitterly oppose is also there and could win.

You can quite easily, indeed the DUP hate Remain just as much as the Deal. Though even without the DUP virtually all Tories and enough Labour Leave MPs would give a Deal v No Deal referendum a majority

No you can't. At the moment MPs can try and oppose what they oppose in Parliament. Throw it to the public and its a lottery what the public chooses.

Not "virtually all Tories" will back a Dead v No Deal referendum. Please quote Clarke saying he thinks it is a good idea. I think he'd find it a terrible idea actually.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

grabcocque said:

HYUFD said:

Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote

How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?

As almost all Tory MPs plus the DUP would vote for it plus Hoey, Field, Stringer and Mann.

The electoral commission can have no complaints as Leave won in 2016, this is just on the method of leaving

Grieve Wollaston Soubry Clarke and a.bunch of others would not

Clarke has already said he would back the Deal and Field, Mann, Skinner, Stringer and Hoey would vote for Deal v No Deal anyway, cancelling out the above

He has said he would back the Deal. He has not said that he would back a Deal v No Deal referendum. You've pulled that out of your own backside.

Yougov has Remain 50% Deal 50% if that was the result it solves NOTHING.

Yougov has Remain 52% No Deal 48% if that was the result it also effectively solves NOTHING, especially as Deltapoll has it Remain 48% No Deal 52%.

Yougov has it Deal 62% No Deal 38%, Deltapoll also has Deal ahead of No Deal by double figures. That is the ONLY choice which may give the clear result to resolve Brexit.

Even Clarke has switched to the Deal as a sensible compromise

tottenhamWC said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

tottenhamWC said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

El_Sid said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

And yet many on here are suggesting - or rather arguing vociferously - that 'No Deal' should be excluded from the vote. An outcome that has the support of at least a third of the electorate.

A third of the electorate are going to be upset regardless - the challlenge is getting it down from 2/3 of the electorate being upset. If the question is some kind of 50/50 then this is just going to rumble on for decades. I've felt for a while that the only way of getting to only 1/3 being upset is some kind of referendum, and probably the only option that allows 2/3 to be happy is some kind of variation on Norway. Right now, getting a stable result is more important than the detail of how much harm each version does.

So that feels like some kind of STV referendum between Deal/Norway/Remain.

I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.

A deal vs. Norway option is an option. No deal can't be listed though.

Why not? Because you don't like it? The fact is that 30% or so of those polled say they do like it.

Now your choice seems the perfect one to me but I am not representative of millions of Leave voters out there who would rightly feel cheated if No Deal was not on the ballot.

By definition no deal is not a deal, which is inherently non-sustainable. Therefore it is a vote to have to negotiate a deal, in chaos, on an unplanned basis. That would be a deeply irresponsible approach.

I also think - on that basis - having no deal would meas you need remain on the ballot as well. People didn't vote to remain, but they didn't vote for a no deal either; and you are offering two "leave" options with Norway vs. the TM deal.

But they would not be voting 'for a deal' they would be voting for an outcome. Leave with a deal or leave without a deal. It is a perfectly valid question and would satisfy the instructions given by the public at the first referendum. It also has the added bonus that both options actually exist. The Norway option - much as I would prefer it - is not something it is within our power to deliver without an external agreement which may very well not be forthcoming. SO you would be asking people to vote for an option it might be impossible to deliver.

Pulpstar said:

Also remember, the DUP never signed the 1998 Belfast agreement.

One of the reasons we are in the current predicament is the Conservaqtive obsession with the Union and Unionism. As it now appears, they are the only ones who care - the rest of su want something different and modern and indeed that includes treating NI separate from the rest of the UK.

Again, a lot of people seem fairly relaxed about it - except of course the Conservative and Unionist Party who want to see us all suffer to protect "our precious union".

nico67 said:

No government even this inept one would allow no deal on the ballot . The Electoral Commission won’t sanction that anyway . You can’t tie the hands of the government , in effect you’d be telling them to not do any deals to mitigate the chaos . And how exactly would you enforce this , will people riot to stop the government from making a deal to bring medicines into the country .

The people pushing no deal should be treated with the utmost disdain , the sane members of the public should not be subjected to the idiocy of a bunch of clueless voters voting to destroy their own country !

I imagine they'd have to firm up a more specific definition of what "No Deal" means. They probably wouldn't use that term on the ballot.

stodge said:

Pulpstar said:

Also remember, the DUP never signed the 1998 Belfast agreement.

One of the reasons we are in the current predicament is the Conservaqtive obsession with the Union and Unionism. As it now appears, they are the only ones who care - the rest of su want something different and modern and indeed that includes treating NI separate from the rest of the UK.

Again, a lot of people seem fairly relaxed about it - except of course the Conservative and Unionist Party who want to see us all suffer to protect "our precious union".

As long as it was agreed by the majority in NI (and the Irish as well since they would be taking on the burden) I would see reunification as a positive outcome of Brexit.

kinabalu said:

Quick scan of this thread. At least a dozen (!) different proposals as to what a 2nd referendum ballot paper would need to have on it and what counting technique would be most appropriate. And this is a community of highly intelligent & politically savvy people. See what I mean? 2nd ref. Not happening.

I think we should have a referendum to choose the question, and then another to choose the method. These should obviously be conducted by AV.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

grabcocque said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

grabcocque said:

AndyJS said:

grabcocque said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, has readership decline increase or decreased since Greig[sp] took over?

The Daily Mail has lost about 200,000 daily readers since he took over. But that's entirely in keeping with the Mail's trend rate of decline.

He's only been in charge for a very brief time hasn't he? 200,000 seems like a lot of readers to lose in a short time.

The Daily Mail's readers are very old. Old people have a habit of dying.

That is just nasty

That's a completely and totally factual statement, you dolt.

Big G, why do you think every newspaper (bar free rags) has rapidly falling circulations?

Their readership is LITERALLY dying of old age. The Telegraph has the oldest readership, so its audience is dying off the fastest.

No they're not literally dying of old age. A tiny proportion of circulation fall may be, but even the elderly don't literally die at that rapid a rate.

Circulation is falling due to technology and all the other oft-stated reasons. Morbidity is a tiny fraction of the change.

It is exactly the same mistake as lefties make when they talk about demographics acting against the Tory party or Brexit.

To be fair they're generally talking over a much longer timescale where, yes, significant numbers of people do either die or come of age.

nico67 said:

No government even this inept one would allow no deal on the ballot . The Electoral Commission won’t sanction that anyway . You can’t tie the hands of the government , in effect you’d be telling them to not do any deals to mitigate the chaos . And how exactly would you enforce this , will people riot to stop the government from making a deal to bring medicines into the country .

The people pushing no deal should be treated with the utmost disdain , the sane members of the public should not be subjected to the idiocy of a bunch of clueless voters voting to destroy their own country !

Of course the EC would sanction it. And your interpretation of No Deal seems to be particularly 'unique'.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

grabcocque said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

grabcocque said:

AndyJS said:

grabcocque said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, has readership decline increase or decreased since Greig[sp] took over?

The Daily Mail has lost about 200,000 daily readers since he took over. But that's entirely in keeping with the Mail's trend rate of decline.

He's only been in charge for a very brief time hasn't he? 200,000 seems like a lot of readers to lose in a short time.

The Daily Mail's readers are very old. Old people have a habit of dying.

That is just nasty

That's a completely and totally factual statement, you dolt.

Big G, why do you think every newspaper (bar free rags) has rapidly falling circulations?

Their readership is LITERALLY dying of old age. The Telegraph has the oldest readership, so its audience is dying off the fastest.

No they're not literally dying of old age. A tiny proportion of circulation fall may be, but even the elderly don't literally die at that rapid a rate.

Circulation is falling due to technology and all the other oft-stated reasons. Morbidity is a tiny fraction of the change.

It is exactly the same mistake as lefties make when they talk about demographics acting against the Tory party or Brexit.

Its a similar mistake but not that bad. The mistake regarding Tories/Brexit is that many of today's young left-wing will be tomorrow's right-wing. The population turning right as they age replenishes and negates any morbidity impact.

Today's non-newspaper readers are however unlikely to evolve to be tomorrow's newspaper readers. So the morbidity impact won't be negated in full. However morbidity even amongst the elderly is not that high.

Readership levels are falling because former readers are now choosing not to read a paper anymore. Not because they're dead.

Richard_Tyndall said:

As long as it was agreed by the majority in NI (and the Irish as well since they would be taking on the burden) I would see reunification as a positive outcome of Brexit.

Quite so but I'm not even going that far. It seems any kind of economic or regulatory divergence between NI and UK is anathema to the Conservative Government but it doesn't seem to be a concern to the people of NI and gets off any number of backstop-related hooks and probably smooths the way to the Deal getting through.

It is May's obsession with maintaining "our precious union" that has caused so many problems - that and her botched GE leaving her dependent on DUP support.

Pulpstar said:

grabcocque said:

Stereotomy said:

He looks incredibly ineffectual talking to Davies. What on earth does he gain by having that filmed?

"Do we have your support?"
"No"
...
"Well, thanks for your time."

It is Davies he is talking to.

Why?

Why is he filmed talking to Davies?

Why is he talking to Davies and not talking to potential rebels who could be won around?

Why is he texting back those who say they are going to rebel, but has time to be filmed talking to Davies?

https://twitter.com/mygibbo/status/1070669964124848128

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

notme said:

williamglenn said:

This whole article is a must read.

https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1070412979303272448?s=21

Won’t take many malcontents to get such protests working here, though we generally don’t do civil disobedience.

Remember the London riots in 2011?

(The ones that would bring down the evil coalition government?)

But we've had one of these events in a different form: Brexit. Leave's manifesto was simple: whatever's wrong with your life isn't your fault, it's theirs. Without the malign hand of the EU pulling the strings, we'd still be a world power. Everything would be rosy and brilliant.

It's easy to blame others. As we see with Brexiteers on here. Stinking winnets who cannot take responsibility for the mess they've taken the country into.

Except the manifesto didn't say any of that at all. Keep on making stuff up JJ.

Who said anything about the manifesto? Leave were too disorganised to produce a manifesto, and therefore had several campaigns that promised anything to everyone.

And that's why leave are responsible for this mess, as what they - and you - promised was undeliverable.

Take responsibility.

You said 'manifesto'. It is there in black and off grey on the page right in the middle of the comment from you that I answered.

And I quote:

"Leave's manifesto was simple: "

All I doing was telling you you were wrong. Now you deny saying it even though it is right there.

Yep, fair enough, I was wrong on that. Mea culpa.

Now, how about you admitting where you've goner wrong to end the country in this mess?

https://twitter.com/gordonrayner/status/1070752115235135490

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/mygibbo/status/1070669964124848128

One of the (many) problems with Boris all the way through his career is that he would make Corbyn look like a man of integrity. It is worth remembering that his first job was on the Times - and his own godfather sacked him for falsifying a quote.

Admittedly it was not quite Jayston Blair or Johann Hari, but it set the scene for his later career.

Given his ability, his charisma, his masterful campaigning skills and his almost surreal talent for spinning memorable (sometimes, too memorable) phrases, it is a shame that he is so fundamentally dishonest he simply cannot be trusted with anything serious.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stereotomy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

grabcocque said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

grabcocque said:

AndyJS said:

grabcocque said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, has readership decline increase or decreased since Greig[sp] took over?

The Daily Mail has lost about 200,000 daily readers since he took over. But that's entirely in keeping with the Mail's trend rate of decline.

He's only been in charge for a very brief time hasn't he? 200,000 seems like a lot of readers to lose in a short time.

The Daily Mail's readers are very old. Old people have a habit of dying.

That is just nasty

That's a completely and totally factual statement, you dolt.

Big G, why do you think every newspaper (bar free rags) has rapidly falling circulations?

Their readership is LITERALLY dying of old age. The Telegraph has the oldest readership, so its audience is dying off the fastest.

No they're not literally dying of old age. A tiny proportion of circulation fall may be, but even the elderly don't literally die at that rapid a rate.

Circulation is falling due to technology and all the other oft-stated reasons. Morbidity is a tiny fraction of the change.

It is exactly the same mistake as lefties make when they talk about demographics acting against the Tory party or Brexit.

To be fair they're generally talking over a much longer timescale where, yes, significant numbers of people do either die or come of age.

Of course but the idea it shifts public opinion significantly has long been disproved. If it were true the Tory party wouldn't have won a single election since the 1950s.

That seems like an odd way to look at it. Surely public opinion -has- changed significantly since 1950 and the Tories- all parties in fact- have only survived by moving with it?

I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/mygibbo/status/1070669964124848128

One of the (many) problems with Boris all the way through his career is that he would make Corbyn look like a man of integrity. It is worth remembering that his first job was on the Times - and his own godfather sacked him for falsifying a quote.

Admittedly it was not quite Jayston Blair or Johann Hari, but it set the scene for his later career.

Given his ability, his charisma, his masterful campaigning skills and his almost surreal talent for spinning memorable (sometimes, too memorable) phrases, it is a shame that he is so fundamentally dishonest he simply cannot be trusted with anything serious.

I have some sympathy with MPs and expenses. My financial affairs are simple, and I shouldn't have much trouble meeting the requirements. But many others have financial affairs that are more complex, and even can come from many countries at various and sometimes unexpected times.

But Boris is rich enough to afford to employ someone whose job it is to meet the requirements. (And the same probably goes for Geoffrey Cox and his problems).

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

notme said:

williamglenn said:

This whole article is a must read.

https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1070412979303272448?s=21

Won’t take many malcontents to get such protests working here, though we generally don’t do civil disobedience.

Remember the London riots in 2011?

(The ones that would bring down the evil coalition government?)

But we've had one of these events in a different form: Brexit. Leave's manifesto was simple: whatever's wrong with your life isn't your fault, it's theirs. Without the malign hand of the EU pulling the strings, we'd still be a world power. Everything would be rosy and brilliant.

It's easy to blame others. As we see with Brexiteers on here. Stinking winnets who cannot take responsibility for the mess they've taken the country into.

Except the manifesto didn't say any of that at all. Keep on making stuff up JJ.

Who said anything about the manifesto? Leave were too disorganised to produce a manifesto, and therefore had several campaigns that promised anything to everyone.

And that's why leave are responsible for this mess, as what they - and you - promised was undeliverable.

Take responsibility.

You said 'manifesto'. It is there in black and off grey on the page right in the middle of the comment from you that I answered.

And I quote:

"Leave's manifesto was simple: "

All I doing was telling you you were wrong. Now you deny saying it even though it is right there.

Yep, fair enough, I was wrong on that. Mea culpa.

Now, how about you admitting where you've goner wrong to end the country in this mess?

All I did was campaign for and vote Leave. I remain immensely proud of that fact Whatever happens in the short term we will Leave. It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years. I can also say I am pleased I did not vote for May - although in my particular constituency that made bugger al difference. I detested her long before Brexit came along and all she has done is confirm my worst opinions of her.

So no, I don't think that I, nor anyone who voted Leave, has anything at all to be sorry about.

Richard_Tyndall said:

grabcocque said:

From Peter Kellner:

Around 600,000 Britons die each year; a further 700,000 reach voting age. Taking account of polling data about older voters, and recent surveys of the views of new voters, and allowing for the fact that older electors are more likely to vote than younger electors, we find that:

ca. 320,000 Leave voters and 160,000 Remain voters die each year,

ca. 395,000 Remain voters and 60,000 Leave voters reach voting age each year.

Combining these two sets of figures, death and demography alone is shrinking the Leave majority by almost 500,000 a year, or 1,350 a day. As the overall Leave majority in the referendum was 1,269,501, the effect is to cause the Leave majority to disappear entirely on January 19th, 2019.

Except of course that assumes that not a single Remain voter becomes a Leave voter as they age. That is the basic whopping great mistake in your (And Peter Kellner's) thesis

Absolutely, Richard.

We get stupider as we get older, as you and I can attest.

grabcocque said:

From Peter Kellner:

Around 600,000 Britons die each year; a further 700,000 reach voting age. Taking account of polling data about older voters, and recent surveys of the views of new voters, and allowing for the fact that older electors are more likely to vote than younger electors, we find that:

ca. 320,000 Leave voters and 160,000 Remain voters die each year,

ca. 395,000 Remain voters and 60,000 Leave voters reach voting age each year.

Combining these two sets of figures, death and demography alone is shrinking the Leave majority by almost 500,000 a year, or 1,350 a day. As the overall Leave majority in the referendum was 1,269,501, the effect is to cause the Leave majority to disappear entirely on January 19th, 2019.

Nerds obsess on this sort of bollocks and go on to miss the bigger picture. If Peter Kellner and his EU payday wife are so confident let's have that remain v no deal ref and see what happens.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

grabcocque said:

From Peter Kellner:

Around 600,000 Britons die each year; a further 700,000 reach voting age. Taking account of polling data about older voters, and recent surveys of the views of new voters, and allowing for the fact that older electors are more likely to vote than younger electors, we find that:

ca. 320,000 Leave voters and 160,000 Remain voters die each year,

ca. 395,000 Remain voters and 60,000 Leave voters reach voting age each year.

Combining these two sets of figures, death and demography alone is shrinking the Leave majority by almost 500,000 a year, or 1,350 a day. As the overall Leave majority in the referendum was 1,269,501, the effect is to cause the Leave majority to disappear entirely on January 19th, 2019.

Except of course that assumes that not a single Remain voter becomes a Leave voter as they age. That is the basic whopping great mistake in your (And Peter Kellner's) thesis

Absolutely, Richard.

We get stupider as we get older, as you and I can attest.

LOL. That is one fact I am happy to agree with. I cling to the vain hope it is because of all the alcohol I have enjoyed but I fear it is just senility.

TOPPING said:

OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.

There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos).
There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options).
There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad).
There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time).
There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).

Which leaves...The Deal.

Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.

Theresa's Deal it will be.

I know we don't agree on much but I do hope you are right with this. I fear we may be underestimating the stupidity of MPs on both sides of the debate though.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

grabcocque said:

From Peter Kellner:

Around 600,000 Britons die each year; a further 700,000 reach voting age. Taking account of polling data about older voters, and recent surveys of the views of new voters, and allowing for the fact that older electors are more likely to vote than younger electors, we find that:

ca. 320,000 Leave voters and 160,000 Remain voters die each year,

ca. 395,000 Remain voters and 60,000 Leave voters reach voting age each year.

Combining these two sets of figures, death and demography alone is shrinking the Leave majority by almost 500,000 a year, or 1,350 a day. As the overall Leave majority in the referendum was 1,269,501, the effect is to cause the Leave majority to disappear entirely on January 19th, 2019.

Except of course that assumes that not a single Remain voter becomes a Leave voter as they age. That is the basic whopping great mistake in your (And Peter Kellner's) thesis

Absolutely, Richard.

We get stupider as we get older, as you and I can attest.

LOL. That is one fact I am happy to agree with. I cling to the vain hope it is because of all the alcohol I have enjoyed but I fear it is just senility.

TOPPING said:

OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.

There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos).
There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options).
There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad).
There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time).
There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).

Which leaves...The Deal.

Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.

Theresa's Deal it will be.

There cannot be this deal (Irish backstop is an abomination).

Which leaves amending the backstop and having Deal-

Richard_Tyndall said:

All I did was campaign for and vote Leave. I remain immensely proud of that fact Whatever happens in the short term we will Leave. It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years. I can also say I am pleased I did not vote for May - although in my particular constituency that made bugger al difference. I detested her long before Brexit came along and all she has done is confirm my worst opinions of her.

So no, I don't think that I, nor anyone who voted Leave, has anything at all to be sorry about.

Actually, you do. You are totally one-eyed on the EU, that they cannot do any good - and that is fair enough. You admit to having spent decades in that mindset. But in the process you forget that this involved real people. As an example:

"It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years"

This says it all: that pain may not effect you (or you may not care), but it will hurt others. It may hurt my son. Or your daughter. One of the infuriating things pre-referendum was Brexiteers putting their wet dreams ahead of the consequences of those dreams. All cfor some vague and nebulous 'advantage'.

And now you warn in guarded tones about violence if leaves' impossible dreams are unfulfilled (which, due to the way it occurred, is inevitable. That violence too will affect people.

grabcocque said:

Stereotomy said:

I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have

Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.

Which puts a remarkable 40% who don't. That's a hefty chunk.

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/mygibbo/status/1070669964124848128

One of the (many) problems with Boris all the way through his career is that he would make Corbyn look like a man of integrity. It is worth remembering that his first job was on the Times - and his own godfather sacked him for falsifying a quote.

Admittedly it was not quite Jayston Blair or Johann Hari, but it set the scene for his later career.

Given his ability, his charisma, his masterful campaigning skills and his almost surreal talent for spinning memorable (sometimes, too memorable) phrases, it is a shame that he is so fundamentally dishonest he simply cannot be trusted with anything serious.

How is this dishonest? Was he keeping his column in the Telegraph a secret? I think even their diminished readership would make that difficult. This is incompetent, careless and lazy but I don't see dishonesty in this one.

Philip_Thompson said:

grabcocque said:

Stereotomy said:

I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have

Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.

Which puts a remarkable 40% who don't. That's a hefty chunk.

In my life I have voted:

Plaid Cymru
Liberal Democrat
Conservative
Labour
Green
Independent

I wonder how many people can say that in just 17 years of holding the franchise?

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.

There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos).
There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options).
There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad).
There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time).
There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).

Which leaves...The Deal.

Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.

Theresa's Deal it will be.

I fear we may be underestimating the stupidity of MPs on both sides of the debate though.

Very often a winning strategy, sadly.

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/mygibbo/status/1070669964124848128

One of the (many) problems with Boris all the way through his career is that he would make Corbyn look like a man of integrity. It is worth remembering that his first job was on the Times - and his own godfather sacked him for falsifying a quote.

Admittedly it was not quite Jayston Blair or Johann Hari, but it set the scene for his later career.

Given his ability, his charisma, his masterful campaigning skills and his almost surreal talent for spinning memorable (sometimes, too memorable) phrases, it is a shame that he is so fundamentally dishonest he simply cannot be trusted with anything serious.

How is this dishonest? Was he keeping his column in the Telegraph a secret? I think even their diminished readership would make that difficult. This is incompetent, careless and lazy but I don't see dishonesty in this one.

Well, that would rule him out anyway. In fact, more dramatically. Both Bill Clinton and Lloyd George were just as bad as Boris (arguably Kennedy was worse) but at least the two first named had extraordinary executive talent.

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

grabcocque said:

Stereotomy said:

I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have

Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.

Which puts a remarkable 40% who don't. That's a hefty chunk.

In my life I have voted:

Plaid Cymru
Liberal Democrat
Conservative
Labour
Green
Independent

I wonder how many people can say that in just 17 years of holding the franchise?

Have you ever drawn a box with NOTA next to it and ticked that?