politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first months of a Corbyn government
Options
Comments
-
That's what it will be. And the people will have the final say as they should.Donny43 said:
An option that has been rejected by Parliament vs an option that has been rejected by the people.Barnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
Genius!0 -
We had 50 years of Labour promises in Scotland and the only thing that profited was their own bank accounts, they promise lots but actually do little.TheJezziah said:
Yeah I can see the logic in (mostly) adding highly motivated parents and children from nice backgrounds to the schooling system dumbing it down.... Presumably these are the bad behaving kids who bring others down?malcolmg said:
.TheJezziah said:
If people want to send their children to private school they will have to pay the fees to keep the place running, those that don't will pressure their representatives into improving school standards for everyone as their children will have to go to such schools. The state shouldn't subsidise better education for the wealthy.malcolmg said:
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.Benpointer said:
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):TheJezziah said:
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...alex. said:
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!ydoethur said:
Yes.edmundintokyo said:
Was that in the manifesto???ydoethur said:He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
Quite frankly even if it works out economically neutral (and I'll question ydoethurs assessment of Labour policies given his track record on them) it is worth it to improve the education system for everyone else.
Well thought out.
Of course PFI is front and centre of our plans... about 2 decades ago. Not sure if you have been missing out on the news in Scotland but the current Labour leadership aren't big fans...
Well thought out.
Given the education system is falling apart at present flooding it with more pupils is certain to do it a lot of good, it is lack of cash and facilities that is the issue and this will mean less teaching for more pupils. Engage your brain rather than sticking to tractor stats.
Where do you think these economically incompetent donkeys are going to get the money for all their hare brained schemes0 -
HYUFD said:
Rebecca Long-Bailey confirms on Marr Labour's only real difference with May's Deal is on the backstop which they want to deal with via a permanent customs union rather than a temporary one
Which the EU can’t give us as the Eu tie single market access to freedom of movement.0 -
You do realise the SNP are sorta left wing right?malcolmg said:
Rubbish, the people will not support the SNP forever if they are not pushing very very hard for a referendum. I am already hacked off with them increasing my taxes , mucking about with drinks prices and generally poking their beaks into ordinary people's lives rather than less interference and getting on with the job they are there for.HYUFD said:
If the SNP lose again they lose it for a generation, they only have a desire for one if they do not get EUref2 and Remain or Scotland leaves the Single Market and Customs Union as those are the only circumstances they may win itkle4 said:
The need for one is never the point it's the desire for one.HYUFD said:
It won't be as Sturgeon and Blackford have made quite clear they will only call indyref2 if they do not get their 'compromise Brexit' of permanent single market and customs union or EUref2. If Corbyn essentially agrees the former hence in the SNP's own words no need for indyref2malcolmg said:
There will be no PM Corbyn then , that will be minimum for SNP to support the idiot.HYUFD said:
Actually far less likely under PM Corbyn than under No Deal, after all the only polls which have Yes ahead in Scotland are under a hard Brexit No Deal scenario. If Corbyn becomes PM and we get permanent Customs Union and Single Market anyway, which would be likely due to his reliance on the SNP, the SNP would have far less grounds to call a referendum as Brexit would be based on the SNP's core policymalcolmg said:
Plus a second Scottish ReferendumHYUFD said:
The whole anti Tory thing wasn't a sneaky way of making a new Scottish Tory party...
If you are looking for lower taxes, a defence of private schools and less interference in drinks prices aren't you more suited to the Tories?
Edit: Independance aside obviously...0 -
Boris on Marr says the issue of the Irish border should be dealt with largely in free trade talks and latches onto Prodi's statement yesterday that the EU will still negotiate if the UK Parliament votes down the Deal as both sides want to avoid No Deal.
Preparations will have to be made for No Deal and payments for half the £39 billion promised will be delayed until a Deal is done
0 -
So we're agreed. Lots of people want a referendum (even argue that it is 'inevitable'), but nobody knows the question. And without a question commanding majority support we can't have a referendum. And you believe that even a question theoretically commanding majority support can't happen either.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.0 -
Possibly. It would definitely harm the Tory party. But under FPTP it wouldn't lead to many UKIP MPs.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.0 -
If you've got MPs from a different parties cutting a deal, like AV, rather than MPs from the same party doing something with a majority, like Cameron did, you'd generally make the referendum binding. So once the voters vote, parliament no longer needs to pass anything to turn the result into law.David_Evershed said:
MPs don't accept the result of the first referendum - why would they accept the result of a second referenedum?
This definitely works for Deal vs Remain, although it's not obvious how you'd do it with No Deal, since you can't prevent a subsequent parliament from passing a similar deal.0 -
Agree, she was totally useless, her only idea ever, HIPs, was dire. Yet another waste of space.old_labour said:
I do not understand this admiration for Cooper. She did not lay a finger on Theresa May when she was shadowing her at the the Home Office.Roger said:At first I thought I was reading a header by David Herdson until I got to 30-35% 'who really like him' at which point I looked. A good balanced header though I think you over-estimate Corbyn's popularity.
Assuming as you have done no imminent General Election or one where Labour depends on other parties the time might have arrived when a new centrist grouping emerges.
It's a pity that at this time of national emergency Labour have the leadership they have. Not just Corbyn but Abbott McDonnell McClusky and some of the least impressive shadow cabinet members ever assembled.
With a Blair or a Brown or a Milliband or a Cooper or even a Thornberry Labour could be on course for a '97 type victory and it could have killed off this bonkers Tory Party and their anachronistic ideas of empire for at least a decade.0 -
MalcG even voted for Thatcher I believe but that does not stop him being a diehard Scottish nationalistTheJezziah said:
You do realise the SNP are sorta left wing right?malcolmg said:
Rubbish, the people will not support the SNP forever if they are not pushing very very hard for a referendum. I am already hacked off with them increasing my taxes , mucking about with drinks prices and generally poking their beaks into ordinary people's lives rather than less interference and getting on with the job they are there for.HYUFD said:
If the SNP lose again they lose it for a generation, they only have a desire for one if they do not get EUref2 and Remain or Scotland leaves the Single Market and Customs Union as those are the only circumstances they may win itkle4 said:
The need for one is never the point it's the desire for one.HYUFD said:
It won't be as Sturgeon and Blackford have made quite clear they will only call indyref2 if they do not get their 'compromise Brexit' of permanent single market and customs union or EUref2. If Corbyn essentially agrees the former hence in the SNP's own words no need for indyref2malcolmg said:
There will be no PM Corbyn then , that will be minimum for SNP to support the idiot.HYUFD said:
Actually far less likely under PM Corbyn than under No Deal, after all the only polls which have Yes ahead in Scotland are under a hard Brexit No Deal scenario. If Corbyn becomes PM and we get permanent Customs Union and Single Market anyway, which would be likely due to his reliance on the SNP, the SNP would have far less grounds to call a referendum as Brexit would be based on the SNP's core policymalcolmg said:
Plus a second Scottish ReferendumHYUFD said:
The whole anti Tory thing wasn't a sneaky way of making a new Scottish Tory party...
If you are looking for lower taxes, a defence of private schools and less interference in drinks prices aren't you more suited to the Tories?0 -
The combinations of magical thinking, contempt for democracy and seeming willingness to plunge the economy headlong into an abyss by opponents of the deal are the biggest load of crap I've ever witnessed in parliament.0
-
Nick Palmer, as a staff member in a private school should I be worried about my job in the event of a Corbyn government?0
-
Has anyone told Boris that the £39billion is paid over nearly half a century?HYUFD said:Boris on Marr says the issue of the Irish border should be dealt with largely in free trade talks and latches onto Prodi's statement yesterday that the EU will still negotiate if the UK Parliament votes down the Deal as both sides want to avoid No Deal.
Preparations will have to be made for No Deal and payments for half the £39 billion promised will be delayed until a Deal is done0 -
Is there actually proof that the majority of private pupils would end up in state schools by removing state subsidies?Nigelb said:
Yes, the it will “improve the educati9nal system for everyone else” smacks of magical thinking.malcolmg said:
All it will do is dumb it down for more people. Where are they going to get the cash to pay for all the extra pupils. How many billions do we still owe from Labour's last PFI shambles, paying a fortune for schools that are substandard..TheJezziah said:
If people want to send their children to private school they will have to pay the fees to keep the place running, those that don't will pressure their representatives into improving school standards for everyone as their children will have to go to such schools. The state shouldn't subsidise better education for the wealthy.malcolmg said:
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.Benpointer said:
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):TheJezziah said:
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...alex. said:
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!ydoethur said:
Yes.edmundintokyo said:
Was that in the manifesto???ydoethur said:He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
Quite frankly even if it works out economically neutral (and I'll question ydoethurs assessment of Labour policies given his track record on them) it is worth it to improve the education system for everyone else.
I’m not a particular fan of private education, but destroying the bulk of the sector would be highly disruptive in the short to medium term.
It wouldn't happen overnight but the more people that use the state school system the more people will push to improve it. Those individuals with the most push will tend to be those who are better off themselves.0 -
Labour are not yet proposing full single market membershipeek said:HYUFD said:Rebecca Long-Bailey confirms on Marr Labour's only real difference with May's Deal is on the backstop which they want to deal with via a permanent customs union rather than a temporary one
Which the EU can’t give us as the Eu tie single market access to freedom of movement.0 -
Remain, Deal or No Dealalex. said:
So we're agreed. Lots of people want a referendum (even argue that it is 'inevitable'), but nobody knows the question. And without a question commanding majority support we can't have a referendum. And you believe that even a question theoretically commanding majority support can't happen either.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.0 -
Not necessarily, the highest ever UKIP voteshare was at general election 2015 when the Tories won an overall majority. Plenty of Labour voters voted UKIPBarnesian said:
Possibly. It would definitely harm the Tory party. But under FPTP it wouldn't lead to many UKIP MPs.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.0 -
The ones with contempt for democracy are the people who want to put Remain back on the ballot paper.Pulpstar said:The combinations of magical thinking, contempt for democracy and seeming willingness to plunge the economy headlong into an abyss by opponents of the deal are the biggest load of crap I've ever witnessed in parliament.
The (possibly only) benefit of no deal is that it is definitely consistent with the referendum result.0 -
So a choice between remain, and two options rejected by the HoC by enormous majorities. But the task of producing the question has been delegated to HYUFD so everything's rosy.HYUFD said:
Remain, Deal or No Dealalex. said:
So we're agreed. Lots of people want a referendum (even argue that it is 'inevitable'), but nobody knows the question. And without a question commanding majority support we can't have a referendum. And you believe that even a question theoretically commanding majority support can't happen either.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.0 -
I think Boris might be saying that we will advance that half of the payment - which the EU could sell as a big win for the EU, but gets us ALL out of a hole. Given that Hammond is sat on a £15bn Brexit contingency fund, clearly we could afford it....alex. said:
Has anyone told Boris that the £39billion is paid over nearly half a century?HYUFD said:Boris on Marr says the issue of the Irish border should be dealt with largely in free trade talks and latches onto Prodi's statement yesterday that the EU will still negotiate if the UK Parliament votes down the Deal as both sides want to avoid No Deal.
Preparations will have to be made for No Deal and payments for half the £39 billion promised will be delayed until a Deal is done0 -
Parliament won’t allow No Deal anywhere near the ballot paper.HYUFD said:
Remain, Deal or No Dealalex. said:
So we're agreed. Lots of people want a referendum (even argue that it is 'inevitable'), but nobody knows the question. And without a question commanding majority support we can't have a referendum. And you believe that even a question theoretically commanding majority support can't happen either.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
It will surely be Deal v remain.
0 -
It would make little difference as those private pupils would be sent by their middle class parents to either good or outstanding academies or comprehensives or free schools or any grammars still left. The idea barely any will end up in 'inadequate' or 'requires improvement' schools where the real problems in state education lie is absurdTheJezziah said:
Is there actually proof that the majority of private pupils would end up in state schools by removing state subsidies?Nigelb said:
Yes, the it will “improve the educati9nal system for everyone else” smacks of magical thinking.malcolmg said:
All it will do is dumb it down for more pndard..TheJezziah said:
If people want to send their children to private school they will have to pay the fees to keep the place running, those that don't will pressure their representatives into improving school standards for everyone as their children will have to go to such schools. The state shouldn't subsidise better education for the wealthy.malcolmg said:
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.Benpointer said:
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):TheJezziah said:
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...alex. said:
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!ydoethur said:
Yes.edmundintokyo said:
Was that in the manifesto???ydoethur said:He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
Quite frankly even if it works out economically neutral (and I'll question ydoethurs assessment of Labour policies given his track record on them) it is worth it to improve the education system for everyone else.
I’m not a particular fan of private education, but destroying the bulk of the sector would be highly disruptive in the short to medium term.
It wouldn't happen overnight but the more people that use the state school system the more people will push to improve it. Those individuals with the most push will tend to be those who are better off themselves.0 -
How much would you stake on that being what he is saying?MarqueeMark said:
I think Boris might be saying that we will advance that half of the payment - which the EU could sell as a big win for the EU, but gets us ALL out of a hole. Given that Hammond is sat on a £15bn Brexit contingency fund, clearly we could afford it....alex. said:
Has anyone told Boris that the £39billion is paid over nearly half a century?HYUFD said:Boris on Marr says the issue of the Irish border should be dealt with largely in free trade talks and latches onto Prodi's statement yesterday that the EU will still negotiate if the UK Parliament votes down the Deal as both sides want to avoid No Deal.
Preparations will have to be made for No Deal and payments for half the £39 billion promised will be delayed until a Deal is done0 -
He will be by Tuesday....alex. said:
How much would you stake on that being what he is saying?MarqueeMark said:
I think Boris might be saying that we will advance that half of the payment - which the EU could sell as a big win for the EU, but gets us ALL out of a hole. Given that Hammond is sat on a £15bn Brexit contingency fund, clearly we could afford it....alex. said:
Has anyone told Boris that the £39billion is paid over nearly half a century?HYUFD said:Boris on Marr says the issue of the Irish border should be dealt with largely in free trade talks and latches onto Prodi's statement yesterday that the EU will still negotiate if the UK Parliament votes down the Deal as both sides want to avoid No Deal.
Preparations will have to be made for No Deal and payments for half the £39 billion promised will be delayed until a Deal is done
0 -
That's true. But who would the "disenfranchised" voters who were unhappy with Deal or Remain vote for? They would be mostly Tories or UKIP with some Labour. I suspect many wouldn't vote at all. "What's the point? The bastards ignore us anyway".HYUFD said:
Not necessarily, the highest ever UKIP voteshare was at general election 2015 when the Tories won an overall majority. Plenty of Labour voters voted UKIPBarnesian said:
Possibly. It would definitely harm the Tory party. But under FPTP it wouldn't lead to many UKIP MPs.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.0 -
And the method of voting - there is a risk that with our AV voting system the most popular second preference option (which I suspect would be deal) is eliminated in the first round.HYUFD said:
Remain, Deal or No Dealalex. said:
So we're agreed. Lots of people want a referendum (even argue that it is 'inevitable'), but nobody knows the question. And without a question commanding majority support we can't have a referendum. And you believe that even a question theoretically commanding majority support can't happen either.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.0 -
Duh! Of course I do , but they were centre left and are drifting to the nutjob side. They need the centre to have any hope, just putting on Labour's old coat will not help. They were very successful due to being broad based without being rabid commies. They are going the wrong way now.TheJezziah said:
You do realise the SNP are sorta left wing right?malcolmg said:
Rubbish, the people will not support the SNP forever if they are not pushing very very hard for a referendum. I am already hacked off with them increasing my taxes , mucking about with drinks prices and generally poking their beaks into ordinary people's lives rather than less interference and getting on with the job they are there for.HYUFD said:
If the SNP lose again they lose it for a generation, they only have a desire for one if they do not get EUref2 and Remain or Scotland leaves the Single Market and Customs Union as those are the only circumstances they may win itkle4 said:
The need for one is never the point it's the desire for one.HYUFD said:
It won't be as Sturgeon and Blackford have made quite clear they will only call indyref2 if they do not get their 'compromise Brexit' of permanent single market and customs union or EUref2. If Corbyn essentially agrees the former hence in the SNP's own words no need for indyref2malcolmg said:
There will be no PM Corbyn then , that will be minimum for SNP to support the idiot.HYUFD said:
Actually far less likely under PM Corbyn than under No Deal, after all the only polls which have Yes ahead in Scotland are under a hard Brexit No Deal scenario. If Corbyn becomes PM and we get permanent Customs Union and Single Market anyway, which would be likely due to his reliance on the SNP, the SNP would have far less grounds to call a referendum as Brexit would be based on the SNP's core policymalcolmg said:
Plus a second Scottish ReferendumHYUFD said:
The whole anti Tory thing wasn't a sneaky way of making a new Scottish Tory party...
If you are looking for lower taxes, a defence of private schools and less interference in drinks prices aren't you more suited to the Tories?
Edit: Independance aside obviously...
I am a Tory with a heart and want independence. Tories are unprincipled greedy uncaring sorts, far too right wing for me and are fixated on being lackeys for Westminster.
I am stuck with only choice of SNP until independent.0 -
Boris says he does not want No Deal and there would be challenges but we must be serious and ready for it and show we are ready to go to No Deal and WTO terms as it is only then when dealing on equal terms with the EU a Deal can be done. Also says he will take responsibility for any jobs lost under No Deal but the backstop must be stopped0
-
Have they proposed anything so far other than they will get a magic deal.HYUFD said:
Labour are not yet proposing full single market membershipeek said:HYUFD said:Rebecca Long-Bailey confirms on Marr Labour's only real difference with May's Deal is on the backstop which they want to deal with via a permanent customs union rather than a temporary one
Which the EU can’t give us as the Eu tie single market access to freedom of movement.0 -
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.David_Evershed said:
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.kyf_100 said:
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.OblitusSumMe said:
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.Toolabati said:Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters, not the profiteering train operating companies."
Most people understand capitalism enough to understand that private companies operate at a profit. They see that profit as going to shareholders when, under a nationalised system, those profits would be poured back into either a) making the service better or b) lowering the cost of tickets.
Also, don't strikes already happen (Southern Rail being a prime example)? Most people figure they have nothing to lose from a policy of rail nationalisation, except the parasitic middle man who takes profit rather than pouring it back into the system.
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.
0 -
Indeed.Pulpstar said:The combinations of magical thinking, contempt for democracy and seeming willingness to plunge the economy headlong into an abyss by opponents of the deal are the biggest load of crap I've ever witnessed in parliament.
0 -
Which with YouGov last week having Deal 50% Remain 50% could both lead to complete stalemate and also outrage amongst the third of voters who back No Deal and end up disenfranchisednumbertwelve said:
Parliament won’t allow No Deal anywhere near the ballot paper.HYUFD said:
Remain, Deal or No Dealalex. said:
So we're agreed. Lots of people want a referendum (even argue that it is 'inevitable'), but nobody knows the question. And without a question commanding majority support we can't have a referendum. And you believe that even a question theoretically commanding majority support can't happen either.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
It will surely be Deal v remain.0 -
I think his argument that you split the questions.eek said:
And the method of voting - there is a risk that with our AV voting system the most popular second preference option (which I suspect would be deal) is eliminated in the first round.HYUFD said:
Remain, Deal or No Dealalex. said:
So we're agreed. Lots of people want a referendum (even argue that it is 'inevitable'), but nobody knows the question. And without a question commanding majority support we can't have a referendum. And you believe that even a question theoretically commanding majority support can't happen either.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
1) Remain vs Leave
2) If the vote is leave which option do we pursue.
0 -
Boris really is a dangerous deluded egotistical fool.0
-
Not reallymalcolmg said:
Have they proposed anything so far other than they will get a magic deal.HYUFD said:
Labour are not yet proposing full single market membershipeek said:HYUFD said:Rebecca Long-Bailey confirms on Marr Labour's only real difference with May's Deal is on the backstop which they want to deal with via a permanent customs union rather than a temporary one
Which the EU can’t give us as the Eu tie single market access to freedom of movement.0 -
The task of producing the question would probably be done during the negotiations between the people with vetos, for example the PM, SNP/LD leaders, and some representative of Remainist Labour MPs. They'd be constrained by the need to get it past the Electoral Commission.alex. said:
So a choice between remain, and two options rejected by the HoC by enormous majorities. But the task of producing the question has been delegated to HYUFD so everything's rosy.
It's not an easy question to answer, but it's hard to answer because there are lots of possible answers, not because there are no possible answers. This kind of problem is quite conducive to normal political negotiations, unlike other Brexit conundrums where none of the answers really work, like "how do we take control of our borders while leaving part of them open".0 -
Just make it head to head, Deal v No Deal first question, winner of Leave preference faces Remain in second questioneek said:
And the method of voting - there is a risk that with our AV voting system the most popular second preference option (which I suspect would be deal) is eliminated in the first round.HYUFD said:
Remain, Deal or No Dealalex. said:
So we're agreed. Lots of people want a referendum (even argue that it is 'inevitable'), but nobody knows the question. And without a question commanding majority support we can't have a referendum. And you believe that even a question theoretically commanding majority support can't happen either.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.0 -
How will he "take responsibility for jobs lost under no deal"? What a ridiculous statement. Also we can claim we are ready for no deal as much as we want. Wishing it doesn't make it so.HYUFD said:Boris says he does not want No Deal and there would be challenges but we must be serious and ready for it and show we are ready to go to No Deal and WTO terms as it is only then when dealing on equal terms with the EU a Deal can be done. Also says he will take responsibility for any jobs lost under No Deal but the backstop must be stopped
0 -
Talks about cuts in pupil funding will be more unpopular across the board. There will be more pressure to at least maintain it if not increase it from those newly affected by it in the way there is from those currently. There will also be pressure to raise standards.HYUFD said:
It would make little difference as those private pupils would be sent by their middle class parents to either good or outstanding academies or comprehensives or free schools or any grammars still left. The idea barely any will end up in 'inadequate' or 'requires improvement' schools where the real problems in state education lie is absurdTheJezziah said:
Is there actually proof that the majority of private pupils would end up in state schools by removing state subsidies?Nigelb said:
Yes, the it will “improve the educati9nal system for everyone else” smacks of magical thinking.malcolmg said:
All it will do is dumb it down for more pndard..TheJezziah said:malcolmg said:
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.Benpointer said:
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):TheJezziah said:
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...alex. said:
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!ydoethur said:
Yes.edmundintokyo said:
Was that in the manifesto???ydoethur said:He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
I’m not a particular fan of private education, but destroying the bulk of the sector would be highly disruptive in the short to medium term.
It wouldn't happen overnight but the more people that use the state school system the more people will push to improve it. Those individuals with the most push will tend to be those who are better off themselves.
They will not suddenly turn up in the worst comprehensive school and turn it around, they will add more pressure to the system to keep up funding and standards which does help the worst schools as well.0 -
I think many "Dealers" would be happy with "Remain". They prefer Remain but feel the referendum has to be honoured. That probably includes Mrs May.HYUFD said:
Which with YouGov last week having Deal 50% Remain 50% could both lead to complete stalemate and also outrage amongst the third of voters who back No Deal and end up disenfranchisednumbertwelve said:
Parliament won’t allow No Deal anywhere near the ballot paper.HYUFD said:
Remain, Deal or No Dealalex. said:
So we're agreed. Lots of people want a referendum (even argue that it is 'inevitable'), but nobody knows the question. And without a question commanding majority support we can't have a referendum. And you believe that even a question theoretically commanding majority support can't happen either.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
It will surely be Deal v remain.
Many "Remainers" would be happy with "Deal" if they can't have Remain as the least worst choice.
There is no possible way that everyone is going to be happy. There is going to be outrage no matter what.0 -
Some may not vote at all, indeed some Leavers barely voted anyway outside the referendum, some will vote for a new far right party or UKIPBarnesian said:
That's true. But who would the "disenfranchised" voters who were unhappy with Deal or Remain vote for? They would be mostly Tories or UKIP with some Labour. I suspect many wouldn't vote at all. "What's the point? The bastards ignore us anyway".HYUFD said:
Not necessarily, the highest ever UKIP voteshare was at general election 2015 when the Tories won an overall majority. Plenty of Labour voters voted UKIPBarnesian said:
Possibly. It would definitely harm the Tory party. But under FPTP it wouldn't lead to many UKIP MPs.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.0 -
Majority of parents who send their children to private schools really push themselves to find the fees, they would not be able to keep up if big increases. Given every one of them taken out of state system increases the funds available per state pupil it will of course be disastrous. The state system would not improve just because some parents complained. Th extra drain on funds would make it worse than it currently is.TheJezziah said:
Is there actually proof that the majority of private pupils would end up in state schools by removing state subsidies?Nigelb said:malcolmg said:TheJezziah said:
If people want to send their children to private school they will have to pay the fees to keep the place running, those that don't will pressure their representatives into improving school standards for everyone as their children will have to go to such schools. The state shouldn't subsidise better education for the wealthy.malcolmg said:
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.Benpointer said:
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):TheJezziah said:
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...alex. said:
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!ydoethur said:
Yes.edmundintokyo said:
Was that in the manifesto???ydoethur said:He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
Quite frankly even if it works out economically neutral (and I'll question ydoethurs assessment of Labour policies given his track record on them) it is worth it to improve the education system for everyone else.
It wouldn't happen overnight but the more people that use the state school system the more people will push to improve it. Those individuals with the most push will tend to be those who are better off themselves.0 -
Many of the students at the private school I work at are either international students who would presumably either be able to pay inflated fees or go study elsewhere, or kids with personal or educational issues who would struggle in the environment of a normal state school with class sizes of 25. But I guess as they are 'privileged' they don't count.
0 -
https://twitter.com/bricksilk/status/1071698919564951552?s=21Pulpstar said:The combinations of magical thinking, contempt for democracy and seeming willingness to plunge the economy headlong into an abyss by opponents of the deal are the biggest load of crap I've ever witnessed in parliament.
0 -
Thanks all for the friendly comments. Roger - I wasn't saying that 30-35% think Corbyn was wonderful (his personal baseline is about 25%), only that 30-35% either admire Corbyn or are simply Labour loyalists regardless.
The real division is between people who hope/fear that a Corbyn government would be really revolutionary - scrap private schools, nationalise everything, seize land, etc. - and people who think that it'll be quite cautious, Social Democracy plus, to use Brexit language. Evidence for the former mostly rests on past speeches by Corbyn and McDonnell when they were simply left-wing campaigners. Evidence for the latter is the 2017 Labour manifesto and any number of recent speeches by McDonnell in particular.
The point I was hinting at in the header is that Corbyn's team have a lot of potential credit on the left and can afford to take it slowly and realistically. There are a few SWP types out there who think they're just Blairites in disguise, but it'll be a long time before that notion takes hold. I think that McDonnell in particular realises the need not to upset the applecart, and all those years of leftist activism give the credibility to get away with caution in a way that centrist Labour leaders would struggle with. There will certainly be some flagship left-wing policies, but overall - as, perhaps, with Brexit - the reality will be less dramatic than people might either hope or fear.0 -
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.kyf_100 said:
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.David_Evershed said:
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.kyf_100 said:
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.OblitusSumMe said:
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.Toolabati said:Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters, not the profiteering train operating companies."
Most people understand capitalism enough to understand that private companies operate at a profit. They see that profit as going to shareholders when, under a nationalised system, those profits would be poured back into either a) making the service better or b) lowering the cost of tickets.
Also, don't strikes already happen (Southern Rail being a prime example)? Most people figure they have nothing to lose from a policy of rail nationalisation, except the parasitic middle man who takes profit rather than pouring it back into the system.
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.0 -
Agreed. It will make them feel better but have no effect on Parliament. That is the prime purpose of our democracy.HYUFD said:
Some may not vote at all, indeed some Leavers barely voted anyway outside the referendum, some will vote for a new far right party or UKIPBarnesian said:
That's true. But who would the "disenfranchised" voters who were unhappy with Deal or Remain vote for? They would be mostly Tories or UKIP with some Labour. I suspect many wouldn't vote at all. "What's the point? The bastards ignore us anyway".HYUFD said:
Not necessarily, the highest ever UKIP voteshare was at general election 2015 when the Tories won an overall majority. Plenty of Labour voters voted UKIPBarnesian said:
Possibly. It would definitely harm the Tory party. But under FPTP it wouldn't lead to many UKIP MPs.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.0 -
And question 1 has already been asked and answered.alex. said:
I think his argument that you split the questions.eek said:
And the method of voting - there is a risk that with our AV voting system the most popular second preference option (which I suspect would be deal) is eliminated in the first round.HYUFD said:
Remain, Deal or No Dealalex. said:
So we're agreed. Lots of people want a referendum (even argue that it is 'inevitable'), but nobody knows the question. And without a question commanding majority support we can't have a referendum. And you believe that even a question theoretically commanding majority support can't happen either.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
1) Remain vs Leave
2) If the vote is leave which option do we pursue.0 -
There are only three possible outcomes for April.
Deal
Remain
No Deal
The referendum simply should ask the electorate to rank their preferences. The one with 50% + 1 once second preference is allocated is what we will do.
That’s it. No rounds. No exclusions. Just a simple choice from the three possible futures.
In my opinion each could win.0 -
That creates a different problem of tactical voting. Because adding a second preference can work against your first preference.Jonathan said:There are only three possible outcomes for April.
Deal
Remain
No Deal
The referendum simply should ask the electorate to rank their preferences. The one with 50% + 1 once second preference is allocated is what we will do.
That’s it. No rounds. No exclusions. Just a simple choice from the three possible futures.
In my opinion each could win.
Or are you going to disqualify every ballot that doesn't include a second preference?0 -
Labour are a big threat to their left flank, the choices seem somewhat sound from a tactical point of view. SNP damaged Labour with the red Tory vibe, given Corbyn and what has gone down not only does that not work but the jibe could be turned around (with some small success) without some left wing policies from the SNP. Some were attracted to the idea of the SNP because Britain is a Tory country or they weren't impressed with new Labour and don't like the Tories, which at the time might have seemed like an inescapable choice forever.malcolmg said:
Duh! Of course I do , but they were centre left and are drifting to the nutjob side. They need the centre to have any hope, just putting on Labour's old coat will not help. They were very successful due to being broad based without being rabid commies. They are going the wrong way now.TheJezziah said:
You do realise the SNP are sorta left wing right?malcolmg said:
Rubbish, the people will not support the SNP forever if they are not pushing very very hard for a referendum. I am already hacked off with them increasing my taxes , mucking about with drinks prices and generally poking their beaks into ordinary people's lives rather than less interference and getting on with the job they are there for.HYUFD said:
If the SNP lose again they lose it for a generation, they only have a desire for one if they do not get EUref2 and Remain or Scotland leaves the Single Market and Customs Union as those are the only circumstances they may win itkle4 said:
The whole anti Tory thing wasn't a sneaky way of making a new Scottish Tory party...
If you are looking for lower taxes, a defence of private schools and less interference in drinks prices aren't you more suited to the Tories?
Edit: Independance aside obviously...
I am a Tory with a heart and want independence. Tories are unprincipled greedy uncaring sorts, far too right wing for me and are fixated on being lackeys for Westminster.
I am stuck with only choice of SNP until independent.
My query about your position though is aren't you concerned that Scotland is quite left wing (compared to Britain as a whole) and without a Tory party to hold it back (to the right) it will be more left wing?
So stuff like higher taxes on the rich, sugar taxes etc.0 -
Normal rules apply. If you have one preference, just vote for that.alex. said:
That creates a different problem of tactical voting. Because adding a second preference can work against your first preference.Jonathan said:There are only three possible outcomes for April.
Deal
Remain
No Deal
The referendum simply should ask the electorate to rank their preferences. The one with 50% + 1 once second preference is allocated is what we will do.
That’s it. No rounds. No exclusions. Just a simple choice from the three possible futures.
In my opinion each could win.
Or are you going to disqualify every ballot that doesn't include a second preference?0 -
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.Donny43 said:
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.kyf_100 said:
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.David_Evershed said:
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.kyf_100 said:
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.OblitusSumMe said:
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.Toolabati said:Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters, not the profiteering train operating companies."
Most people understand capitalism enough to understand that private companies operate at a profit. They see that profit as going to shareholders when, under a nationalised system, those profits would be poured back into either a) making the service better or b) lowering the cost of tickets.
Also, don't strikes already happen (Southern Rail being a prime example)? Most people figure they have nothing to lose from a policy of rail nationalisation, except the parasitic middle man who takes profit rather than pouring it back into the system.
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.
0 -
One victim of Brexit seems to be Meghan Markle. Now that the Daily Mail has stopped hating on the EU, they have had to find something else to get their frothers to salivate about.0
-
I couldn't even say what is meant by Norway+, there is no way that the public as a whole has a good idea what it means. It's purely down to the name, the very same terms labelled something like Somalia+ would have an entirely different response.alex. said:The public don't know what "Norway+" means, most probably aren't even aware of it, other than it sounds fluffy and nice.
0 -
So you agree there is a tactical choice for voters to make? Do you gamble on maximising the chances of your first preference winning, at the risk of increasing the chance of 3rd preference winning?Jonathan said:
Normal rules apply. If you have one preference, just vote for that.alex. said:
That creates a different problem of tactical voting. Because adding a second preference can work against your first preference.Jonathan said:There are only three possible outcomes for April.
Deal
Remain
No Deal
The referendum simply should ask the electorate to rank their preferences. The one with 50% + 1 once second preference is allocated is what we will do.
That’s it. No rounds. No exclusions. Just a simple choice from the three possible futures.
In my opinion each could win.
Or are you going to disqualify every ballot that doesn't include a second preference?
Put simply, assuming nothing gets a majority on first preferences, your second preference, if cast, will dilute the strength of your first preference.0 -
That was inevitable, they only build them up to knock them down. Sells papers.old_labour said:One victim of Brexit seems to be Meghan Markle. Now that the Daily Mail has stopped hating on the EU, they have had to find something else to get their frothers to salivate about.
0 -
The deal leaves most things to still be negotiated during a transition period...so let's just have everything still to be negotiated without any agreement of a transition period because that is contingent on there being a WA, which we must throw out (since it won't be substantially altered).williamglenn said:
https://twitter.com/bricksilk/status/1071698919564951552?s=21Pulpstar said:The combinations of magical thinking, contempt for democracy and seeming willingness to plunge the economy headlong into an abyss by opponents of the deal are the biggest load of crap I've ever witnessed in parliament.
Leavers don't need to worry that the WA leaves us at a stand still - very soon we will be going backwards, toward Remain.0 -
Don't you get about half of it back in compensation?kyf_100 said:
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.Donny43 said:
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.kyf_100 said:
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.David_Evershed said:
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.kyf_100 said:
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.OblitusSumMe said:
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.Toolabati said:Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters, not the profiteering train operating companies."
Most people understand capitalism enough to understand that private companies operate at a profit. They see that profit as going to shareholders when, under a nationalised system, those profits would be poured back into either a) making the service better or b) lowering the cost of tickets.
Also, don't strikes already happen (Southern Rail being a prime example)? Most people figure they have nothing to lose from a policy of rail nationalisation, except the parasitic middle man who takes profit rather than pouring it back into the system.
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.
0 -
That’s a Bucklin type voting system which our referendum system doesn’t support - I suspect implementing it would require some work we don’t have time to do.Jonathan said:There are only three possible outcomes for April.
Deal
Remain
No Deal
The referendum simply should ask the electorate to rank their preferences. The one with 50% + 1 once second preference is allocated is what we will do.
That’s it. No rounds. No exclusions. Just a simple choice from the three possible futures.
In my opinion each could win.0 -
She tried to upstage our beautiful white princess by Kate by having the cheek to marry our wonderful white prince Harry. Some people just don't have that old timey class like the Daily Mail for knowing peoples place and where they belong.old_labour said:One victim of Brexit seems to be Meghan Markle. Now that the Daily Mail has stopped hating on the EU, they have had to find something else to get their frothers to salivate about.
0 -
Not really. You should vote for you first preference to make sure it actually happens. If you vote for the thing you hate (but assume is weaker) just to get into the second round, you also assume that enough others will back your true preference to make sure it gets there too. With two big assumptions, you’re taking a bit of a gamble. Much simpler to vote for what you want and spend your effort encouraging others to do the same.alex. said:
So you agree there is a tactical choice for voters to make? Do you gamble on maximising the chances of your first preference winning, at the risk of increasing the chance of 3rd preference winning?Jonathan said:
Normal rules apply. If you have one preference, just vote for that.alex. said:
That creates a different problem of tactical voting. Because adding a second preference can work against your first preference.Jonathan said:There are only three possible outcomes for April.
Deal
Remain
No Deal
The referendum simply should ask the electorate to rank their preferences. The one with 50% + 1 once second preference is allocated is what we will do.
That’s it. No rounds. No exclusions. Just a simple choice from the three possible futures.
In my opinion each could win.
Or are you going to disqualify every ballot that doesn't include a second preference?
Put simply, assuming nothing gets a majority on first preferences, your second preference, if cast, will dilute the strength of your first preference.0 -
These poll questions suggest the only clear referendum result would be on a May's deal versus no deal question, which would see May's Deal win handsomely. Which is presumably why she's keen to phrase the issue that way. A choice between May's Deal and Remain or between No Deal and Remain could go either way.
Leavers are pretty keen on No Deal. (They wouldn't like the reality, but reality has never been a consideration).
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1071448463622225920
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/10714484624687636480 -
Well sure, but on the plus side it is bringing people together from far left to far right, making allies of Rees-Mogg, Corbyn, Grieve, Starmer etc etc. What a wondrous thing to see such implacably opposed people join hands.Pulpstar said:The combinations of magical thinking, contempt for democracy and seeming willingness to plunge the economy headlong into an abyss by opponents of the deal are the biggest load of crap I've ever witnessed in parliament.
0 -
Just because something seems expensive you cannot assume that it’s profitable.kyf_100 said:
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.Donny43 said:
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.kyf_100 said:
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.David_Evershed said:
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.kyf_100 said:
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.OblitusSumMe said:
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.Toolabati said:Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters, not the profiteering train operating companies."
Most people understand capitalism enough to understand that private companies operate at a profit. They see that profit as going to shareholders when, under a nationalised system, those profits would be poured back into either a) making the service better or b) lowering the cost of tickets.
Also, don't strikes already happen (Southern Rail being a prime example)? Most people figure they have nothing to lose from a policy of rail nationalisation, except the parasitic middle man who takes profit rather than pouring it back into the system.
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.0 -
Nah, it’s quite possibleeek said:
That’s a Bucklin type voting system which our referendum system doesn’t support - I suspect implementing it would require some work we don’t have time to do.Jonathan said:There are only three possible outcomes for April.
Deal
Remain
No Deal
The referendum simply should ask the electorate to rank their preferences. The one with 50% + 1 once second preference is allocated is what we will do.
That’s it. No rounds. No exclusions. Just a simple choice from the three possible futures.
In my opinion each could win.0 -
Yes there is. While I would prefer not to remain, I prefer it to no deal, so while I think extremists like Grieve have been taking some big risks, at least they should be able to avoid the biggest risk in their pursuit of extremism.Barnesian said:
I think many "Dealers" would be happy with "Remain". They prefer Remain but feel the referendum has to be honoured. That probably includes Mrs May.HYUFD said:
Which with YouGov last week having Deal 50% Remain 50% could both lead to complete stalemate and also outrage amongst the third of voters who back No Deal and end up disenfranchisednumbertwelve said:
Parliament won’t allow No Deal anywhere near the ballot paper.HYUFD said:
Remain, Deal or No Dealalex. said:
So we're agreed. Lots of people want a referendum (even argue that it is 'inevitable'), but nobody knows the question. And without a question commanding majority support we can't have a referendum. And you believe that even a question theoretically commanding majority support can't happen either.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
It will surely be Deal v remain.
Many "Remainers" would be happy with "Deal" if they can't have Remain as the least worst choice.
There is no possible way that everyone is going to be happy. There is going to be outrage no matter what.0 -
This is nonsense. Up until the point at which your first preference is eliminated, a paper with 1,2,3 counts exactly the same as a paper with just 1. Once your first preference is eliminated, it too late to do it any harm; the former paper is transferred to its second preference and the latter paper set aside.alex. said:
That creates a different problem of tactical voting. Because adding a second preference can work against your first preference.Jonathan said:There are only three possible outcomes for April.
Deal
Remain
No Deal
The referendum simply should ask the electorate to rank their preferences. The one with 50% + 1 once second preference is allocated is what we will do.
That’s it. No rounds. No exclusions. Just a simple choice from the three possible futures.
In my opinion each could win.
Or are you going to disqualify every ballot that doesn't include a second preference?0 -
But clearly needs to be confirmed now that there is a specific proposition on the table.Donny43 said:
And question 1 has already been asked and answered.alex. said:
I think his argument that you split the questions.eek said:
And the method of voting - there is a risk that with our AV voting system the most popular second preference option (which I suspect would be deal) is eliminated in the first round.HYUFD said:
Remain, Deal or No Dealalex. said:
So we're agreed. Lots of people want a referendum (even argue that it is 'inevitable'), but nobody knows the question. And without a question commanding majority support we can't have a referendum. And you believe that even a question theoretically commanding majority support can't happen either.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
1) Remain vs Leave
2) If the vote is leave which option do we pursue.
0 -
Which is why, though it seems least worst option, a referendum is still very difficult to arrange, since parliament is unlikely to want to frame it in such a way that the deal looks likely, but others will be equally keen to avoid the match ups that do not work for them. Hence why we may end up with 2 round or 3 way, simply as it is more of gamble for all of them.FF43 said:These poll questions suggest the only clear referendum result would be on a May's deal versus no deal question, which would see May's Deal win handsomely. Which is presumably why she's keen to phrase the issue that way. A choice between May's Deal and Remain or between No Deal and Remain could go either way.
0 -
You've misunderstood the voting system being proposed, I think. There's no eliminationIanB2 said:
This is nonsense. Up until the point at which your first preference is eliminated, a paper with 1,2,3 counts exactly the same as a paper with just 1. Once your first preference is eliminated, it too late to do it any harm; the former paper is transferred to its second preference and the latter paper set aside.alex. said:
That creates a different problem of tactical voting. Because adding a second preference can work against your first preference.Jonathan said:There are only three possible outcomes for April.
Deal
Remain
No Deal
The referendum simply should ask the electorate to rank their preferences. The one with 50% + 1 once second preference is allocated is what we will do.
That’s it. No rounds. No exclusions. Just a simple choice from the three possible futures.
In my opinion each could win.
Or are you going to disqualify every ballot that doesn't include a second preference?0 -
Boris doesn't do taking responsibility. If by some accident the Tory membership ejaculate him into power, he could quickly be running Macron close in popularity with the wider public.alex. said:
How will he "take responsibility for jobs lost under no deal"? What a ridiculous statement. Also we can claim we are ready for no deal as much as we want. Wishing it doesn't make it so.HYUFD said:Boris says he does not want No Deal and there would be challenges but we must be serious and ready for it and show we are ready to go to No Deal and WTO terms as it is only then when dealing on equal terms with the EU a Deal can be done. Also says he will take responsibility for any jobs lost under No Deal but the backstop must be stopped
0 -
Ah yes, the wonderful answer that says 'We are for the people...but the people are too stupid to realise we are best for them, the morons'.SandyRentool said:
A lot of false consciousness to blame for that.kle4 said:
The Tories were the most popular party of the many at the last three elections and remain, bizarrely, about as popular with the many as the alternative.SandyRentool said:I see that the notion of a Labour government has got the blinkered right wing ideologues out in force this morning.
For the many, not the few, comrades.
I don't think Corbyn could do much worse than the Tories now, but the Tories were and possibly still are the most popularly supported political party in the country.
We cannot simultaneously laud the will of the people as sacrosanct and claim they are too stupid to know what is good for them (indeed, this is part of the problem with the people's vote campaign).
People make the wrong decision sometimes, and will again. Labour and remain may well find them more amendable next time.0 -
Sorry i misunderstood. Are you arguing for Alternative vote? The problems with that have been stated. By far the most popular compromise gets eliminated in the first round, leaving a result that generates the most discontent.Jonathan said:
Not really. You should vote for you first preference to make sure it actually happens. If you vote for the thing you hate (but assume is weaker) just to get into the second round, you also assume that enough others will back your true preference to make sure it gets there too. With two big assumptions, you’re taking a bit of a gamble. Much simpler to vote for what you want and spend your effort encouraging others to do the same.alex. said:
So you agree there is a tactical choice for voters to make? Do you gamble on maximising the chances of your first preference winning, at the risk of increasing the chance of 3rd preference winning?Jonathan said:
Normal rules apply. If you have one preference, just vote for that.alex. said:
That creates a different problem of tactical voting. Because adding a second preference can work against your first preference.Jonathan said:There are only three possible outcomes for April.
Deal
Remain
No Deal
The referendum simply should ask the electorate to rank their preferences. The one with 50% + 1 once second preference is allocated is what we will do.
That’s it. No rounds. No exclusions. Just a simple choice from the three possible futures.
In my opinion each could win.
Or are you going to disqualify every ballot that doesn't include a second preference?
Put simply, assuming nothing gets a majority on first preferences, your second preference, if cast, will dilute the strength of your first preference.0 -
The way things are going, they will be spoilt for choice. They could vote Tory, if their local candidate or MP happens to be one of the nutters. They could vote for the original, now anti-Islamic UKIP. They could vote for UKIP2 as launched by Sked yesterday, or for UKIP3 expected to be launched by Farage tomorrow. Even Judea only had the two popular fronts!Barnesian said:
That's true. But who would the "disenfranchised" voters who were unhappy with Deal or Remain vote for? They would be mostly Tories or UKIP with some Labour. I suspect many wouldn't vote at all. "What's the point? The bastards ignore us anyway".HYUFD said:
Not necessarily, the highest ever UKIP voteshare was at general election 2015 when the Tories won an overall majority. Plenty of Labour voters voted UKIPBarnesian said:
Possibly. It would definitely harm the Tory party. But under FPTP it wouldn't lead to many UKIP MPs.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.0 -
He got re-elected in London, didn't he? Of course he was Facing Ken Livingstone both times.IanB2 said:
Boris doesn't do taking responsibility. If by some accident the Tory membership ejaculate him into power, he could quickly be running Macron close in popularity with the wider public.alex. said:
How will he "take responsibility for jobs lost under no deal"? What a ridiculous statement. Also we can claim we are ready for no deal as much as we want. Wishing it doesn't make it so.HYUFD said:Boris says he does not want No Deal and there would be challenges but we must be serious and ready for it and show we are ready to go to No Deal and WTO terms as it is only then when dealing on equal terms with the EU a Deal can be done. Also says he will take responsibility for any jobs lost under No Deal but the backstop must be stopped
0 -
You were obviously in nappies when it was last a nationalised system. It was crap , they were on strike all the time and service was pathetic on old clapped out stock.kyf_100 said:
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.David_Evershed said:
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.kyf_100 said:
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.OblitusSumMe said:
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.Toolabati said:Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters, not the profiteering train operating companies."
Most people understand capitalism enough to understand that private companies operate at a profit. They see that profit as going to shareholders when, under a nationalised system, those profits would be poured back into either a) making the service better or b) lowering the cost of tickets.
Also, don't strikes already happen (Southern Rail being a prime example)? Most people figure they have nothing to lose from a policy of rail nationalisation, except the parasitic middle man who takes profit rather than pouring it back into the system.
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.0 -
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.kyf_100 said:
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.Donny43 said:
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.kyf_100 said:
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.David_Evershed said:
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.kyf_100 said:
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.OblitusSumMe said:
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.Toolabati said:Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters, not the profiteering train operating companies."
Most people understand capitalism enough to understand that private companies operate at a profit. They see that profit as going to shareholders when, under a nationalised system, those profits would be poured back into either a) making the service better or b) lowering the cost of tickets.
Also, don't strikes already happen (Southern Rail being a prime example)? Most people figure they have nothing to lose from a policy of rail nationalisation, except the parasitic middle man who takes profit rather than pouring it back into the system.
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.0 -
Yeah Jonathon made his system sound like it might not have elimination it doesn't work without it though as more than one option could have 50%+1 of first and second options which he stated as the requirement. Presumably second options only came from those whose first option has been eliminated.alex. said:
You've misunderstood the voting system being proposed, I think. There's no eliminationIanB2 said:
This is nonsense. Up until the point at which your first preference is eliminated, a paper with 1,2,3 counts exactly the same as a paper with just 1. Once your first preference is eliminated, it too late to do it any harm; the former paper is transferred to its second preference and the latter paper set aside.alex. said:
That creates a different problem of tactical voting. Because adding a second preference can work against your first preference.Jonathan said:There are only three possible outcomes for April.
Deal
Remain
No Deal
The referendum simply should ask the electorate to rank their preferences. The one with 50% + 1 once second preference is allocated is what we will do.
That’s it. No rounds. No exclusions. Just a simple choice from the three possible futures.
In my opinion each could win.
Or are you going to disqualify every ballot that doesn't include a second preference?0 -
Even I put him second against Livingstone the last time; Ken was already clearly on the way to madness by then. Being elected isn't, however, taking responsibility; that comes afterwards.OldKingCole said:
He got re-elected in London, didn't he? Of course he was Facing Ken Livingstone both times.IanB2 said:
Boris doesn't do taking responsibility. If by some accident the Tory membership ejaculate him into power, he could quickly be running Macron close in popularity with the wider public.alex. said:
How will he "take responsibility for jobs lost under no deal"? What a ridiculous statement. Also we can claim we are ready for no deal as much as we want. Wishing it doesn't make it so.HYUFD said:Boris says he does not want No Deal and there would be challenges but we must be serious and ready for it and show we are ready to go to No Deal and WTO terms as it is only then when dealing on equal terms with the EU a Deal can be done. Also says he will take responsibility for any jobs lost under No Deal but the backstop must be stopped
0 -
Hmm... I suspect private education is fairly price inelastic...
If daddy will pay £100,000 or whatever to ensure thick Timothy gets a place at Oxbridge and a job in the City despite being, well, thick... then I’m sure he will pay £120,000 if he has to.0 -
No it doesn't.IanB2 said:
But clearly needs to be confirmed now that there is a specific proposition on the table.Donny43 said:
And question 1 has already been asked and answered.alex. said:
I think his argument that you split the questions.eek said:
And the method of voting - there is a risk that with our AV voting system the most popular second preference option (which I suspect would be deal) is eliminated in the first round.HYUFD said:
Remain, Deal or No Dealalex. said:
So we're agreed. Lots of people want a referendum (even argue that it is 'inevitable'), but nobody knows the question. And without a question commanding majority support we can't have a referendum. And you believe that even a question theoretically commanding majority support can't happen either.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
1) Remain vs Leave
2) If the vote is leave which option do we pursue.
Otherwise you would need to have a referendum following the first queen's speech after a general election before the new PM takes office.0 -
Or they'll be home schooled, or possibly even sent abroad to school.HYUFD said:
It would make little difference as those private pupils would be sent by their middle class parents to either good or outstanding academies or comprehensives or free schools or any grammars still left. The idea barely any will end up in 'inadequate' or 'requires improvement' schools where the real problems in state education lie is absurdTheJezziah said:
Is there actually proof that the majority of private pupils would end up in state schools by removing state subsidies?Nigelb said:
Yes, the it will “improve the educati9nal system for everyone else” smacks of magical thinking.malcolmg said:
All it will do is dumb it down for more pndard..TheJezziah said:
If people want to send their children to private school they will have to pay the fees to keep the place running, those that don't will pressure their representatives into improving school standards for everyone as their children will have to go to such schools. The state shouldn't subsidise better education for the wealthy.malcolmg said:
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.Benpointer said:TheJezziah said:alex. said:ydoethur said:edmundintokyo said:ydoethur said:
Quite frankly even if it works out economically neutral (and I'll question ydoethurs assessment of Labour policies given his track record on them) it is worth it to improve the education system for everyone else.
I’m not a particular fan of private education, but destroying the bulk of the sector would be highly disruptive in the short to medium term.
It wouldn't happen overnight but the more people that use the state school system the more people will push to improve it. Those individuals with the most push will tend to be those who are better off themselves.
Meanwhile our top private schools will still be full of Chinese and Arab kids, for whom money is no object to get the best education in the world - and a good source of foreign revenues for the Exchequer.0 -
The only point of a referendum is if Remain is on the ballot paper; both deal and no deal (or another deal, if there is one) can be agreed by parliament and without the delay, uncertainty and possible market turmoil that another vote could involve. Aside from the small minority of ERG'ers, any MP prepared to vote for a Deal v No Deal referendum is far better off voting for the deal, which they would be getting in the end anyhow.kle4 said:
Which is why, though it seems least worst option, a referendum is still very difficult to arrange, since parliament is unlikely to want to frame it in such a way that the deal looks likely, but others will be equally keen to avoid the match ups that do not work for them. Hence why we may end up with 2 round or 3 way, simply as it is more of gamble for all of them.FF43 said:These poll questions suggest the only clear referendum result would be on a May's deal versus no deal question, which would see May's Deal win handsomely. Which is presumably why she's keen to phrase the issue that way. A choice between May's Deal and Remain or between No Deal and Remain could go either way.
0 -
Any effects on funding will be negligible because extra funding will have to go to funding the extra pupils in the state system no longer in private education.TheJezziah said:
Talks about cuts in pupil funding will be more unpopular across the board. There will be more pressure to at least maintain it if not increase it from those newly affected by it in the way there is from those currently. There will also be pressure to raise standards.HYUFD said:
It would make little difference as those private pupils would be sent by their middle class parents to either good or outstanding acadeovement' schools where the real problems in state education lie is absurdTheJezziah said:
Is there actually proof that the majority of private pupils would end up in state schools by removing state subsidies?Nigelb said:
Yes, the it will “imprhe short to medium term.malcolmg said:
All it will do is dumb it down for more pndard..TheJezziah said:malcolmg said:
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.Benpointer said:
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):TheJezziah said:
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...alex. said:
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!ydoethur said:
Yes.edmundintokyo said:
Was that in the manifesto???ydoethur said:He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
It wouldn't happen overnight but the more people that use the state school system the more people will push to improve it. Those individuals with the most push will tend to be those who are better off themselves.
They will not suddenly turn up in the worst comprehensive school and turn it around, they will add more pressure to the system to keep up funding and standards which does help the worst schools as well.
The reduced choice through lack of private education may even lower standards with the best state schools again largely dependent on catchment area
0 -
Labour are finished for the foreseeable, current lot would struggle to tie their shoelaces. Until they stop being poodles for the Tories because they hate the SNP and stop fixating on the union they are not coming back. Tories are also ineffectual clowns who have no principles and are just poodles for Westminster.TheJezziah said:malcolmg said:
Duh! Of course I do , but they were centre left and are drifting to the nutjob side. They need the centre to have any hope, just putting on Labour's old coat will not help. They were very successful due to being broad based without being rabid commies. They are going the wrong way now.TheJezziah said:
You do realise the SNP are sorta left wing right?malcolmg said:
Rubbish, the people will not support the SNP forever if they are not pushing very very hard for a referendum. I am already hacked off with them increasing my taxes , mucking about with drinks prices and generally poking their beaks into ordinary people's lives rather than less interference and getting on with the job they are there for.HYUFD said:
If the SNP lose again they lose it for a generation, they only have a desire for one if they do not get EUref2 and Remain or Scotland leaves the Single Market and Customs Union as those are the only circumstances they may win itkle4 said:
The whole anti Tory thing wasn't a sneaky way of making a new Scottish Tory party...
If you are looking for lower taxes, a defence of private schools and less interference in drinks prices aren't you more suited to the Tories?
Edit: Independance aside obviously...
I am a Tory with a heart and want independence. Tories are unprincipled greedy uncaring sorts, far too right wing for me and are fixated on being lackeys for Westminster.
I am stuck with only choice of SNP until independent.
Neither have any hope in the foreseeable future without massive change.0 -
It doesn't however follow that nationalisation automatically takes us back to the old ways (which were a feature of much of industry at the time), any more than Brexit would magically transport us back to the 1960s. Look at Royal Mail - the service is basically the same now as it was before privatisation, the only significant difference being that postage now costs twice as much and the bosses get paid even more than before.malcolmg said:
You were obviously in nappies when it was last a nationalised system. It was crap , they were on strike all the time and service was pathetic on old clapped out stock.kyf_100 said:
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.David_Evershed said:
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.kyf_100 said:
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.OblitusSumMe said:
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.Toolabati said:Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters, not the profiteering train operating companies."
Most people understand capitalism enough to understand that private companies operate at a profit. They see that profit as going to shareholders when, under a nationalised system, those profits would be poured back into either a) making the service better or b) lowering the cost of tickets.
Also, don't strikes already happen (Southern Rail being a prime example)? Most people figure they have nothing to lose from a policy of rail nationalisation, except the parasitic middle man who takes profit rather than pouring it back into the system.
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.
0 -
My youngest son works in the private school sector and even now they are losing pupils. If labour put their policy in place the effect on private schools would be immediate closing many of them, throwing their teaching staff and lecturers into unemployment and burdening the education system with tens of thousands of pupils ranging from nursery to senior school, that is wholly unnecessary, under an ideology of class warTheJezziah said:
Is there actually proof that the majority of private pupils would end up in state schools by removing state subsidies?Nigelb said:
Yes, the it will “improve the educati9nal system for everyone else” smacks of magical thinking.malcolmg said:
All it will do is dumb it down for more people. Where are they going to get the cash to pay for all the extra pupils. How many billions do we still owe from Labour's last PFI shambles, paying a fortune for schools that are substandard..TheJezziah said:malcolmg said:
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.Benpointer said:
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):TheJezziah said:
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...alex. said:
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!ydoethur said:
Yes.edmundintokyo said:
Was that in the manifesto???ydoethur said:He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
Quite frankly even if it works out economically neutral (and I'll question ydoethurs assessment of Labour policies given his track record on them) it is worth it to improve the education system for everyone else.
I’m not a particular fan of private education, but destroying the bulk of the sector would be highly disruptive in the short to medium term.
It wouldn't happen overnight but the more people that use the state school system the more people will push to improve it. Those individuals with the most push will tend to be those who are better off themselves.0 -
Having lost the vote in parliament and given these numbers I can see Theresa May pushing for a referendum on her deal versus No Deal, which she would win. Will parliament allow her to do that?kle4 said:
Which is why, though it seems least worst option, a referendum is still very difficult to arrange, since parliament is unlikely to want to frame it in such a way that the deal looks likely, but others will be equally keen to avoid the match ups that do not work for them. Hence why we may end up with 2 round or 3 way, simply as it is more of gamble for all of them.FF43 said:These poll questions suggest the only clear referendum result would be on a May's deal versus no deal question, which would see May's Deal win handsomely. Which is presumably why she's keen to phrase the issue that way. A choice between May's Deal and Remain or between No Deal and Remain could go either way.
0 -
If Daddy is struggling to pay the 12-15K to try and get their child a better education , he will not be able to pay 20K. Not everyone is rich I suspect.Rexel56 said:Hmm... I suspect private education is fairly price inelastic...
If daddy will pay £100,000 or whatever to ensure thick Timothy gets a place at Oxbridge and a job in the City despite being, well, thick... then I’m sure he will pay £120,000 if he has to.0 -
Some sort of ranked system, whereby voters can give 3, 2, or 1 'points' to the three options, with the highest aggregate number of points being the result - with no eliminations needed.eek said:
And the method of voting - there is a risk that with our AV voting system the most popular second preference option (which I suspect would be deal) is eliminated in the first round.HYUFD said:
Remain, Deal or No Dealalex. said:
So we're agreed. Lots of people want a referendum (even argue that it is 'inevitable'), but nobody knows the question. And without a question commanding majority support we can't have a referendum. And you believe that even a question theoretically commanding majority support can't happen either.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
All this is academic anyway, there isn't close to enough time to have a referendum before we leave in March.0 -
Ahem.IanB2 said:
The way things are going, they will be spoilt for choice. They could vote Tory, if their local candidate or MP happens to be one of the nutters. They could vote for the original, now anti-Islamic UKIP. They could vote for UKIP2 as launched by Sked yesterday, or for UKIP3 expected to be launched by Farage tomorrow. Even Judea only had the two popular fronts!Barnesian said:
That's true. But who would the "disenfranchised" voters who were unhappy with Deal or Remain vote for? They would be mostly Tories or UKIP with some Labour. I suspect many wouldn't vote at all. "What's the point? The bastards ignore us anyway".HYUFD said:
Not necessarily, the highest ever UKIP voteshare was at general election 2015 when the Tories won an overall majority. Plenty of Labour voters voted UKIPBarnesian said:
Possibly. It would definitely harm the Tory party. But under FPTP it wouldn't lead to many UKIP MPs.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AValex. said:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?HYUFD said:Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
People's Front of Judea
Judean People's Front
and
Judean Popular People's Front (Splitters!!)0 -
Deal reduces the outrage as it is Remainers and No Dealers second choice. No Deal or Remain maximises the outrage as either side are adamantly opposed to the other at all costsBarnesian said:
I think many "Dealers" would be happy with "Remain". They prefer Remain but feel the referendum has to be honoured. That probably includes Mrs May.HYUFD said:
Which with YouGov last week having Deal 50% Remain 50% could both lead to complete stalemate and also outrage amongst the third of voters who back No Deal and end up disenfranchisednumbertwelve said:
Parliament won’t allow No Deal anywhere near the ballot paper.HYUFD said:
Remain, Deal or No Dealalex. said:
So we're agreed. Lots either.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
It will surely be Deal v remain.
Many "Remainers" would be happy with "Deal" if they can't have Remain as the least worst choice.
There is no possible way that everyone is going to be happy. There is going to be outrage no matter what.0 -
Mr. 56, plenty of private schools have far fees lower than those at the top end. Private education isn't just the likes of Eton and Harrow.0
-
What bollox. You are talking about a few elite schools. maybe if you lived in this country you would have a clue. Majority would go to the wall and state education would suffer.Sandpit said:
Or they'll be home schooled, or possibly even sent abroad to school.HYUFD said:
It would make little difference as those private pupils would be sent by their middle class parents to either good or outstanding academies or comprehensives or free schools or any grammars still left. The idea barely any will end up in 'inadequate' or 'requires improvement' schools where the real problems in state education lie is absurdTheJezziah said:
Is there actually proof that the majority of private pupils would end up in state schools by removing state subsidies?Nigelb said:
Yes, the it will “improve the educati9nal system for everyone else” smacks of magical thinking.malcolmg said:
All it will do is dumb it down for more pndard..TheJezziah said:
If people want to send their children to private school they will have to pay the fees to keep the place running, those that don't will pressure their representatives into improving school standards for everyone as their children will have to go to such schools. The state shouldn't subsidise better education for the wealthy.malcolmg said:
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.Benpointer said:TheJezziah said:alex. said:ydoethur said:edmundintokyo said:ydoethur said:
Quite frankly even if it works out economically neutral (and I'll question ydoethurs assessment of Labour policies given his track record on them) it is worth it to improve the education system for everyone else.
I’m not a particular fan of private education, but destroying the bulk of the sector would be highly disruptive in the short to medium term.
It wouldn't happen overnight but the more people that use the state school system the more people will push to improve it. Those individuals with the most push will tend to be those who are better off themselves.
Meanwhile our top private schools will still be full of Chinese and Arab kids, for whom money is no object to get the best education in the world - and a good source of foreign revenues for the Exchequer.0 -
Different example.Donny43 said:
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.kyf_100 said:
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.Donny43 said:
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.kyf_100 said:
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters, not the profiteering train operating companies."
Most people understand capitalism enough to understand that private companies operate at a profit. They see that profit as going to shareholders when, under a nationalised system, those profits would be poured back into either a) making the service better or b) lowering the cost of tickets.
Also, don't strikes already happen (Southern Rail being a prime example)? Most people figure they have nothing to lose from a policy of rail nationalisation, except the parasitic middle man who takes profit rather than pouring it back into the system.
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
0 -
State schools need good teachers. The best teachers from the private sector should find work.Big_G_NorthWales said:
My youngest son works in the private school sector and even now they are losing pupils. If labour put their policy in place the effect on private schools would be immediate closing many of them, throwing their teaching staff and lecturers into unemployment and burdening the education system with tens of thousands of pupils ranging from nursery to senior school, that is wholly unnecessary, under an ideology of class warTheJezziah said:
Is there actually proof that the majority of private pupils would end up in state schools by removing state subsidies?Nigelb said:
Yes, the it will “improve the educati9nal system for everyone else” smacks of magical thinking.malcolmg said:
All it will do is dumb it down for more people. Where are they going to get the cash to pay for all the extra pupils. How many billions do we still owe from Labour's last PFI shambles, paying a fortune for schools that are substandard..TheJezziah said:malcolmg said:
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.Benpointer said:
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):TheJezziah said:
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...alex. said:
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!ydoethur said:
Yes.edmundintokyo said:
Was that in the manifesto???ydoethur said:He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
Quite frankly even if it works oute education system for everyone else.
I’m not a particular fan of private education, but destroying the bulk of the sector would be highly disruptive in the short to medium term.
It wouldn't happen overnight but the more people that use the state school system the more people will push to improve it. Those individuals with the most push will tend to be those who are better off themselves.0 -
Not much incentive for remainers to support that really. Or Corbyn.FF43 said:
Having lost the vote in parliament and given these numbers I can see Theresa May pushing for a referendum on her deal versus No Deal, which she would win. Will parliament allow her to do that?
A 3-way referendum would surely pass though.
0 -
I cannot see how they would, particularly since continuity remainers are a big part of the opposition, and when most people justify the need for a peoples' vote they do so on the basis that 'people have changed their minds' and want to remain.FF43 said:
Having lost the vote in parliament and given these numbers I can see Theresa May pushing for a referendum on her deal versus No Deal, which she would win. Will parliament allow her to do that?kle4 said:
Which is why, though it seems least worst option, a referendum is still very difficult to arrange, since parliament is unlikely to want to frame it in such a way that the deal looks likely, but others will be equally keen to avoid the match ups that do not work for them. Hence why we may end up with 2 round or 3 way, simply as it is more of gamble for all of them.FF43 said:These poll questions suggest the only clear referendum result would be on a May's deal versus no deal question, which would see May's Deal win handsomely. Which is presumably why she's keen to phrase the issue that way. A choice between May's Deal and Remain or between No Deal and Remain could go either way.
You might get some more Tories on board with deal vs no deal on the basis perhaps they think no deal would win, but not all of them, only a few Labour people, and no DUP, so deal vs no deal is not getting through.0 -
Many would argue the third referendum was fixed before a vote was cast if there was not a "no deal" question.HYUFD said:
Deal reduces the outrage as it is Remainers and No Dealers second choice. No Deal or Remain maximises the outrage as either side are adamantly opposed to the other at all costsBarnesian said:
I think many "Dealers" would be happy with "Remain". They prefer Remain but feel the referendum has to be honoured. That probably includes Mrs May.HYUFD said:
Which with YouGov last week having Deal 50% Remain 50% could both lead to complete stalemate and also outrage amongst the third of voters who back No Deal and end up disenfranchisednumbertwelve said:
Parliament won’t allow No Deal anywhere near the ballot paper.HYUFD said:
Remain, Deal or No Dealalex. said:
So we're agreed. Lots either.HYUFD said:
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new partyBarnesian said:
Most likely Deal versus Remain.HYUFD said:
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
It will surely be Deal v remain.
Many "Remainers" would be happy with "Deal" if they can't have Remain as the least worst choice.
There is no possible way that everyone is going to be happy. There is going to be outrage no matter what.0
