Mr Tyndall, Brexit is a myopic xenophobic agenda. Those of you that try to dress it up as something else are hopelessly attempting to kid yourselves and others.
Oh shut up.....
It's democracy. If you don't like things, stand for Parliament and change things.
If only, the local authority getting a financial boost to the tune of your deposit.
Mr. Me, that was an extremely odd state of affairs, I agree.
"Things should stay as they are. Let's hold a vote on changing them."
That said, the gulf widening between the electorate and the political class over the EU was not, despite the comfort the media/political class felt, a good thing.
Said it before, but the time to hold a referendum was Lisbon, if not earlier.
It wasn't not holding a referendum, as such, that caused problems (otherwise we'd all be happy now that we've had a referendum), but not being level with the public about the EU.
All the leading politicians wanted to posture about standing up to the EU in order to win votes from critics, but they didn't see votes in advocating for the status quo.
If they had been honest then either they would have convinced the public, and we wouldn't be in this mess, or they wouldn't have convinced the public and the public would have elected different politicians who agreed with them on the EU, and we wouldn't be in this mess. But the politicians didn't like the idea of not being elected so they were dishonest and they hid behind the idea of a referendum.
FPT That's a fascinating survey from Yougov. Hugo Swire must really have upset his voters.
East Devon / Honiton has been Conservative since 1868 (I think).
The independent has effectively hoovered up the LibDem vote, while the Labour vote stays more loyal. In 1997 the LibDems had 15,000 - last time out, barely 1,500. If she had got all the LibDem and Labour votes last time, Swire would still be the MP.
Yes, I'm sceptical about the Tories losing the seat, but then most people were sceptical when the YouGov model said Labour would win Canterbury, which they did.
I'm far more sceptical about Stephen Kerr retaining his 148 majority in Stirling (68% Remain)
So is this related to the rumour that the existing amphibious assault ships were to be scrapped?
Bulwark and Albion are definitely under threat because they use A LOT of crew and the initial crewing estimates for the QNLZ carriers have now been shown to be over-optimistic by a factor of approximately 100%.
Conveniently paying off Albion and Bulwark would free up enough crew to make operating the PoW a realistic possibility. Something has to give...
Here's a radical thought. They could always invest in more crew. I know it would take time but it has to start somewhere.
Where's the money going to come from?
If you don't have the crew why build the ships?
Because unless a politican (or royal) can cut a ribbon/smash a champagne bottle, they're not interested in funding it. Hence HS2 rather than upgrading the existing railway network.
That rather ignores the inconvenient fact that upgrading the existing network is hideously expensive - and is being done. It's not a case of 'rather', but 'as well'.
We're experiencing this at the moment, with the Great Western electrification (along with a couple of others in the north) being massively delayed and over budget - at the expense of upgrades elsewhere.
Another case of point was the West Coast Upgrade of fifteen years ago: it was five to ten times over budget (just under £10 billion), took years longer than planned, and delivered few of the originally planned upgrades (e.g. it was due to be 140MPH; it became just 125).
BTW, I hope you all caught last night's Dispatches program on Channel 4 about HS2. It was a classic piece of 'journalism' disguised as comedy.
If you ever hear a British politician advocating for a referendum you are listening to someone who does not have the courage of their convictions to ask for your support for a policy.
Sure, you might want to hold a referendum to confirm a major constitutional change, but if the politician is asking for support for a referendum, rather than the policy the referendum would confirm, then they're a coward.
This is the essential weakness of the People's Vote campaign now. If they campaigned on Remain and could convince people to change their minds then they wouldn't need to campaign for a referendum. The weight of public support would make the case for them. But they don't believe they can do that so they're hoping for what the Leavers managed - a small margin in a referendum they were lucky to have.
A guaranteed income of €32k a year is worth more than €500k...
Southam said that you’d need to buy €500k of property and that only rich brits will be able to retire to Spain. That’s not true - you can get a long term residency visa without buying the property and proving €32k per year annual income. So it’s more affordable than he’s making out.
Plus, as I say, you could always travel to Spain 90 days out of every 180 anyway. I’m not saying retiring to Spain is as easy as it is before Brexit, but it’s not totally unattainable.
Do you know how big a pension pit would need to be to produce a gusranteed income of €32,000 a year?
In the private sector around €800-1,000k
In the public sector a 2/3 final salary scheme with a salary of £45k would do it.
Mr. Mariner, that isn't the point Mr. Me was making. He was making the point that offering a referendum to change something when the PM was happy with the status quo is a bit odd, which it was.
Remainers are giving up on Labour. Leavers are solidly for the Tories.
Possibly so. But these polls are good news for Labour. The thing they want and need above all else is a general election this year and the likelihood of them getting one is inversely correlated to the apparent probability that they will win it.
If you ever hear a British politician advocating for a referendum you are listening to someone who does not have the courage of their convictions to ask for your support for a policy.
Sure, you might want to hold a referendum to confirm a major constitutional change, but if the politician is asking for support for a referendum, rather than the policy the referendum would confirm, then they're a coward.
This is the essential weakness of the People's Vote campaign now. If they campaigned on Remain and could convince people to change their minds then they wouldn't need to campaign for a referendum. The weight of public support would make the case for them. But they don't believe they can do that so they're hoping for what the Leavers managed - a small margin in a referendum they were lucky to have.
The weakness of the People's Vote campaign at the moment is that they're not trying to convince anybody. They *know* they're right, and therefore all right-minded people will support them.
It's the same laziness that lost the referendum in the same place.
If they think that we should be in the EU - and IMO there are plenty of good reasons to be in the EU - then they should be selling it. Shout those advantages from the rooftops.
Mr. Observer, wonder if the Lib Dems will end up benefiting. Whatever else one might think, they're quite pro-EU.
If Labour offer a second referendum in their manifesto there will be a lot of effective two-way tactical voting between Labour and LDs to the detriment of the Tories. If Labour do not offer a second referendum, Lab will lose LDs, and split the centre left vote to the benefit of the Tories.
It all depends on who is in charge of the Labour manifesto.
Mr Tyndall, Brexit is a myopic xenophobic agenda. Those of you that try to dress it up as something else are hopelessly attempting to kid yourselves and others.
Oh shut up.....
It's democracy. If you don't like things, stand for Parliament and change things.
The hilarious things one reads in online political discussions ...
@JosiasJessop What is the rail spend per user of the railways on the public purse right now ?
I'm unsure. From possibly-poor memory, public subsidy for the railways is about three times what it was in the early 1990s. But passenger mileage has doubled, and the figure includes massive infrastructure enhancement projects such as HS2, Crossrail, the electrification schemes and many more. There were very few of these - and no large ones - in the early 1990s.
Take out those enhancement schemes and the figures are much lower.
BTW, are you following what's going on at Boca Chica?
The innards of the vast YouGov poll confirm that the East and West Midlands have shifted from being marginal regions to being pretty solidly Conservative.
OTOH, Labour are becoming more competitive in the South East and South West, although, still a long way behind the Conservatives. Labour retain their dominance in London.
The innards of the vast YouGov poll confirm that the East and West Midlands have shifted from being marginal regions to being pretty solidly Conservative.
OTOH, Labour are becoming more competitive in the South East and South West, although, still a long way behind the Conservatives. Labour retain their dominance in London.
The innards of the vast YouGov poll confirm that the East and West Midlands have shifted from being marginal regions to being pretty solidly Conservative.
OTOH, Labour are becoming more competitive in the South East and South West, although, still a long way behind the Conservatives. Labour retain their dominance in London.
Remainers are giving up on Labour. Leavers are solidly for the Tories.
They will never give up on Labour, push comes to shove they will all vote Corbyn regardless. He knows that and they know that which is why he can continue with his current fence sitting.
@JosiasJessop What is the rail spend per user of the railways on the public purse right now ?
I'm unsure. From possibly-poor memory, public subsidy for the railways is about three times what it was in the early 1990s. But passenger mileage has doubled, and the figure includes massive infrastructure enhancement projects such as HS2, Crossrail, the electrification schemes and many more. There were very few of these - and no large ones - in the early 1990s.
Take out those enhancement schemes and the figures are much lower.
BTW, are you following what's going on at Boca Chica?
It's an outrage! The EU is threatening our political leaders with decapitation!!
I'VE NEVER BEEN SO .... !?!
FFLLLAAAARRRGGGGHHH
Yes, coffee all over keyboard here too. At least Tusk was only talking about what might happen to the Brexiteers AFTER they have died. This 'Guy' is on about actively hastening that event - and in the most gruesome way possible.
It really won't do, and in fact all it WILL do is harden support in this country for No Deal.
The innards of the vast YouGov poll confirm that the East and West Midlands have shifted from being marginal regions to being pretty solidly Conservative.
OTOH, Labour are becoming more competitive in the South East and South West, although, still a long way behind the Conservatives. Labour retain their dominance in London.
None of them are BINO. The question was clear, both campaigns were rubbish and voters were not largely influenced by their egregious nonsense, and the mandate is straightforward: Leave the EU.
The reasons for voting leave were many and various, and not all compatible which is why the form of 'leave' is a matter for our mature, thoughtful, courteous and intelligent parliament. It has always seemed to me that the process of disentangling from nearly half a century of a particular sort of European commitment and replacing it with another is a venture which must last many years, and must be complex in every way, and that accordingly something like 'Norway for Now' makes best sense.
But of course I may well be wrong. I am sure that our grateful trust in the wisdom of our statesmen will be abundantly justified.
If you ever hear a British politician advocating for a referendum you are listening to someone who does not have the courage of their convictions to ask for your support for a policy.
Sure, you might want to hold a referendum to confirm a major constitutional change, but if the politician is asking for support for a referendum, rather than the policy the referendum would confirm, then they're a coward.
This is the essential weakness of the People's Vote campaign now. If they campaigned on Remain and could convince people to change their minds then they wouldn't need to campaign for a referendum. The weight of public support would make the case for them. But they don't believe they can do that so they're hoping for what the Leavers managed - a small margin in a referendum they were lucky to have.
The weakness of the People's Vote campaign at the moment is that they're not trying to convince anybody. They *know* they're right, and therefore all right-minded people will support them.
It's the same laziness that lost the referendum in the same place.
If they think that we should be in the EU - and IMO there are plenty of good reasons to be in the EU - then they should be selling it. Shout those advantages from the rooftops.
no places like Morrocco or Florida or Turkey. Thats assuming they have a problem in the first place, all those people with dual nationality will just continue with business as normal. And eventually places in the Med will want their investors back some resorts are stuffed full of Russians who seem to have no problem.
They are not full of Russians who have very little money. FoM in the EU27 will now only apply to those few that can afford it.
and brits who dont have much money arent there either, all youre saying is the beter off can afford to go places.
Nonsense. The Costas are home to large numbers of Brits on very average incomes and of very average means. For the last 40 years living, working and retiring to the sun have been attainable dreams for millions. That is about to end. That may not bother you, but it will bother plenty of other Leave voters who never realised ending freedom of movement didn’t only apply to foreigners.
Those people are probably in the top 25% of wealth among the EU population and richer than 90% of those who migrate to the UK from the rest of the EU.
So what? They still lose their FoM.
What do you think the chances are that Spain will refuse to allow any further immigration of Brits without them stumping up £500k post Brexit?
50/50?
As long as they can buy property and pay health care the Spanish will care not a jot.
Agree, but that presupposes that the retirees can afford, in particular health care. I was quite fit and healthy until I retired. Since then I've had two types of cancer and I'm waiting for another, unrelated, operation. I can get travel insurance for accidents and so on, but not for 'developments' of the other two. However, as I don't expect any, or if there are they're highly unlikely to require emergency treatment that's OK, but it would cast a shadow over emigration plans.
yes, be tough for lots of people unless they are in south east with expensive property to sell.
FPT That's a fascinating survey from Yougov. Hugo Swire must really have upset his voters.
There’s a very strong independent there.
I believe the Yougov model showed the Independendent winning in 2017 - though she fell far short.It needs to be recalled though that even the final eve of poll predictions from the Yougov model in 2017 were very 'hit and miss'. Of the 7 seats won by Labour in Scotland the model only predicted 1 - in East Lothian Labour was shown in third place behind the Tories. Similarly , it had Labour winning both seats in Pembrokeshire - yet both stayed Tory. Apparently the model shows Labour increasing its majorities in many seats won in 2017 - possibly some indication of a first term incumbency bonus.
No I want someone competent who actually understood what was both practical and necessary rather than pushing a myopic, xenophobic agenda. There were and still are forms of Brexit out there which would have been acceptable to all sides and which would have fulfilled the word and spirit of the referendum. Nothing May has done has been to that end.
Who would have that been? Clearly none of the Buccaneers.
Michael Gove.
Dear God, that thick stupid lying toerag. You must be deranged.
FPT That's a fascinating survey from Yougov. Hugo Swire must really have upset his voters.
There’s a very strong independent there.
I believe the Yougov model showed the Independendent winning in 2017 - though she fell far short.It needs to be recalled though that even the final eve of poll predictions from the Yougov model in 2017 were very 'hit and miss'. Of the 7 seats won by Labour in Scotland the model only predicted 1 - in East Lothian Labour was shown in third place behind the Tories. Similarly , it had Labour winning both seats in Pembrokeshire - yet both stayed Tory.
From a probabilistic point of view that's what you'd expect. Getting the seat totals right should be easier than the detail of which individual seats go each way.
As long as there isn't a systematic flaw in the model the number of seats in error will balance in the totals.
The fact that we are many moons away from FOM being viable for the whole world does not mean that it does not make sense for the continent of Europe.
If that were a respectable argument one would be making the case against the copious supply of clean drinking water across the EU28.
The problems come from the free movement of very poor nations on enlargement. I maybe wrong but I had never sensed either a hostility (or scale) of mass immigration from the continent. Lots of historically poor, fit and willing to work young people and families changed that. Doing a half arsed job for minimum wage because your employer got what he paid for changed.
Highly motivated, highly mobile pool of cheap labour ate into the bottom rung of the job market. I think the damage done has been done. Closing off of free movement now is harmful, at a time of full employment, lowered pound and economic booms in their own countries. . We just needed to tighten our own systems to make sure the chancers and the factors that overdraw taxpayer subsidised low wages were sorted.
Remainers are giving up on Labour. Leavers are solidly for the Tories.
Possibly so. But these polls are good news for Labour. The thing they want and need above all else is a general election this year and the likelihood of them getting one is inversely correlated to the apparent probability that they will win it.
True , May might be tempted to get a con maj. This could be a sucker punch. However Imo May would regain the majority on a it's May or you get Corbyn for five years.
Mr. Jessop, indeed. It's easier to castigate the heretics than seek to persuade them.
Mr. Barnesian, hmm. Whether that flies may depend on whether we've actually left. Remain is a much easier sell than Rejoin.
I think Rejoin is a hopeless sell.
I'm assuming she calls a GE because she can't get her deal through, won't allow a crash out, and thinks a GE is the best bet rather than a 2nd referendum. So we'd still be in.
None of them are BINO. The question was clear, both campaigns were rubbish and voters were not largely influenced by their egregious nonsense, and the mandate is straightforward: Leave the EU.
The reasons for voting leave were many and various, and not all compatible which is why the form of 'leave' is a matter for our mature, thoughtful, courteous and intelligent parliament. It has always seemed to me that the process of disentangling from nearly half a century of a particular sort of European commitment and replacing it with another is a venture which must last many years, and must be complex in every way, and that accordingly something like 'Norway for Now' makes best sense.
But of course I may well be wrong. I am sure that our grateful trust in the wisdom of our statesmen will be abundantly justified.
You are so far from wrong as to be incredibly right.
We leave, but not far, and then we diverge further (or not, or the reverse) in the fullness of time depending on events, circumstances, developments, economic, social and political (e.g. general elections).
Not only is this what should happen it is what after much ado WILL happen.
Mr Tyndall, Brexit is a myopic xenophobic agenda. Those of you that try to dress it up as something else are hopelessly attempting to kid yourselves and others.
Um No. Brexit is only viewed that way by those who are already myopic and cling to the EU for fear of the big wide world out there. I think we call those people Remainers.
If you ever hear a British politician advocating for a referendum you are listening to someone who does not have the courage of their convictions to ask for your support for a policy.
Sure, you might want to hold a referendum to confirm a major constitutional change, but if the politician is asking for support for a referendum, rather than the policy the referendum would confirm, then they're a coward.
This is the essential weakness of the People's Vote campaign now. If they campaigned on Remain and could convince people to change their minds then they wouldn't need to campaign for a referendum. The weight of public support would make the case for them. But they don't believe they can do that so they're hoping for what the Leavers managed - a small margin in a referendum they were lucky to have.
The weakness of the People's Vote campaign at the moment is that they're not trying to convince anybody. They *know* they're right, and therefore all right-minded people will support them.
It's the same laziness that lost the referendum in the same place.
If they think that we should be in the EU - and IMO there are plenty of good reasons to be in the EU - then they should be selling it. Shout those advantages from the rooftops.
But that involves real work.
Yes. That too.
That sums up my opinion of the continuity remain. So many people insulting the intelligence of those who voted Leave, and still no positI’ve campaign. If they are going to morph into rejoin they are going to have to rethink
FPT That's a fascinating survey from Yougov. Hugo Swire must really have upset his voters.
There’s a very strong independent there.
I believe the Yougov model showed the Independendent winning in 2017 - though she fell far short.It needs to be recalled though that even the final eve of poll predictions from the Yougov model in 2017 were very 'hit and miss'. Of the 7 seats won by Labour in Scotland the model only predicted 1 - in East Lothian Labour was shown in third place behind the Tories. Similarly , it had Labour winning both seats in Pembrokeshire - yet both stayed Tory.
From a probabilistic point of view that's what you'd expect. Getting the seat totals right should be easier than the detail of which individual seats go each way.
As long as there isn't a systematic flaw in the model the number of seats in error will balance in the totals.
I would agree with that and it has to be acknowledged that the model also had some quite spectacular 'hits' in 2017 - having predicted Labour gains in Canterbury and Portsmouth South to widespread ridicule on here and elsewhere. On the whole , I don't think it fared quite so well in Scotland and Wales - Ceredigion was seen as a LibDem hold for example. My main reservation with this at the moment would be that few people are in pre-election mode - and we lack a clear idea of the candidates & parties likely to be contesting seats etc. Tactical voting calculations will not have entered the consciousness of many voters at this stage.
So we should only ever allow people to vote on things that those in power already support. That is one very strange view of democracy.
And of course not what it says.
People can vote for parties with manifesto commitments to do things, and if they win a majority those things come to pass (generally)
Where we have come to grief is allowing people to vote for something via a referendum without also voting the necessary Parliamentary majority to actually deliver it.
That has not been good, for anyone, and there is an argument against following that path in future
True , May might be tempted to get a con maj. This could be a sucker punch. However Imo May would regain the majority on a it's May or you get Corbyn for five years.
I think that too. I think May would win a snap pre-Brexit GE if she calls it.
However if Labour put Ref2 in their manifesto I give them a decent chance.
What Labour must NOT do is support Ref2 at this point. That would be beyond stupid.
Once again you are blaming the wrong people. May was not and is not a Leaver.
Everything she has said and done since the vote has been to reassure leavers, appease leavers, promote leavers, and facilitate leaving.
What definition of "not a leaver" are you imagining?
One who actually voted and campaigned for it might be a start.
Which is why we should never have held a referendum in which the PM did not want the public to vote for the change offered.
Whatever else happens that must not be allowed to happen again.
So we should only ever allow people to vote on things that those in power already support. That is one very strange view of democracy.
Well since the PM is the leader of the party that won the previous general election I don't see what's strange about it. It would mean that those in charge were more likely to have the plan and determination to see the change through if approved in the referendum - which is what you are claiming is lacking from May's leadership.
If, say, we'd not had the Brexit referendum until a PM Gove called one in 2026, after being elected on a manifesto that called for leaving the EU (to be confirmed with a referendum) then I think the country would be better able to implement this decision.
Turn the radio off, step away from the keyboard. You can do nothing now. Let it wash over you. Wait.
I find it best to accept no deal is happening, no more worries about whether it will happen. Obviously nothing is certain though.
Quite. The lunatics are in charge. They are on an ideological crusade. They don’t want compromise and come up with something acceptable to non believers. They want their Brexit (whatever that means this week) no matter the cost.
So we wait.
What I’m waiting for is the time when I can take my revenge on these lunatics.
Hypothetically if we do leave without a deal (or a minimal series of mini deals) what will it take by the next election for you to determine it wasn't lunacy after all?
Some here are dead set on thinking all will go wrong. Some here are dead set on thinking we will be fine. I don't know it hope we will be fine. What would convince you afterwards or is that bridge already burnt?
At the moment I feel that the Tories and Labour have, in their various ways, burnt their bridges with me.
What might convince me I've implicitly set out in various thread headers.
But - briefly - what might make me revisit is if we have a clear, realistic and workable strategy for what our relationship with the EU should be. Not one based on "I don't want this / I hate this / Look at that drunken EU politician / they're out to get us" which seems to be the limit of political discussion about the EU these days
But one which thinks hard about what Britain's place in Europe and relationship with the rest of the Continent should be in light of (i) the US's withdrawal from the post-WW2 consensus; (ii) China's rise; and (iii) Russia's aggression. One which has a realistic view of how we are going to earn our living and share the fruits of what we earn fairly amongst our people. One which has a generous open-minded sense of what sort of society we are aiming to be, not one spitting with bile at people who admire us and want to contribute.
Sorting out some mini-deals so that we can travel and get food without too much hassle is not enough for me I'm afraid. That is a pathetically low bar.
You should probably add (iv) terrorism movements worldwide.
On Betfair, someone is laying £100 at 6/1 on that A50 will not be revoked. So if you are convinced that Mrs May will not revoke A50 here is your chance for a 16% tax free return.
If you ever hear a British politician advocating for a referendum you are listening to someone who does not have the courage of their convictions to ask for your support for a policy.
Sure, you might want to hold a referendum to confirm a major constitutional change, but if the politician is asking for support for a referendum, rather than the policy the referendum would confirm, then they're a coward.
This is the essential weakness of the People's Vote campaign now. If they campaigned on Remain and could convince people to change their minds then they wouldn't need to campaign for a referendum. The weight of public support would make the case for them. But they don't believe they can do that so they're hoping for what the Leavers managed - a small margin in a referendum they were lucky to have.
The weakness of the People's Vote campaign at the moment is that they're not trying to convince anybody. They *know* they're right, and therefore all right-minded people will support them.
It's the same laziness that lost the referendum in the same place.
If they think that we should be in the EU - and IMO there are plenty of good reasons to be in the EU - then they should be selling it. Shout those advantages from the rooftops.
But that involves real work.
Yes. That too.
That sums up my opinion of the continuity remain. So many people insulting the intelligence of those who voted Leave, and still no positI’ve campaign. If they are going to morph into rejoin they are going to have to rethink
They won't. Their scornful attitude to the general public is one of such arrogance and disdain that they simply cannot conceive of acting in any other way.
Mr. Jessop, indeed. It's easier to castigate the heretics than seek to persuade them.
Mr. Barnesian, hmm. Whether that flies may depend on whether we've actually left. Remain is a much easier sell than Rejoin.
I think Rejoin is a hopeless sell.
I'm assuming she calls a GE because she can't get her deal through, won't allow a crash out, and thinks a GE is the best bet rather than a 2nd referendum. So we'd still be in.
Thing is even if the the most favourable polls are around correct for the tories, may still wouldn’t end up with a particularly big majority and a significant minority of her own party still against anything other than remain-ing/ BINO.
And then we are still stuck in the loop of parliament not wanting any particular outcome.
On topic: AFAIAC, Brexit means three very simple things: a) Leaving the single market (I am relaxed about the Customs Union, but appreciate that many people do not share this view) b) Ending jurisdiction of the ECJ c) Ending large net payments to Brussels
Any form of Brexit that doesn't deliver these three things is therefore BINO. Norway (plus, minus or otherwise) does not deliver on A, and probably also not on C. Theresa May's Deal is, to my mind, basically perfect and in line with what I vaguely had in mind when I voted Leave.
FPT That's a fascinating survey from Yougov. Hugo Swire must really have upset his voters.
There’s a very strong independent there.
I believe the Yougov model showed the Independendent winning in 2017 - though she fell far short.It needs to be recalled though that even the final eve of poll predictions from the Yougov model in 2017 were very 'hit and miss'. Of the 7 seats won by Labour in Scotland the model only predicted 1 - in East Lothian Labour was shown in third place behind the Tories. Similarly , it had Labour winning both seats in Pembrokeshire - yet both stayed Tory.
From a probabilistic point of view that's what you'd expect. Getting the seat totals right should be easier than the detail of which individual seats go each way.
As long as there isn't a systematic flaw in the model the number of seats in error will balance in the totals.
I would agree with that and it has to be acknowledged that the model also had some quite spectacular 'hits' in 2017 - having predicted Labour gains in Canterbury and Portsmouth South to widespread ridicule on here and elsewhere. On the whole , I don't think it fared quite so well in Scotland and Wales - Ceredigion was seen as a LibDem hold for example. My main reservation with this at the moment would be that few people are in pre-election mode - and we lack a clear idea of the candidates & parties likely to be contesting seats etc. Tactical voting calculations will not have entered the consciousness of many voters at this stage.
The main weakness at this stage is acknowledged by YouGov - they give voters in every constituency the option of voting for UKIP and the Greens. Neither party is likely to stand a candidate in every constituency.
FPT That's a fascinating survey from Yougov. Hugo Swire must really have upset his voters.
There’s a very strong independent there.
I believe the Yougov model showed the Independendent winning in 2017 - though she fell far short.It needs to be recalled though that even the final eve of poll predictions from the Yougov model in 2017 were very 'hit and miss'. Of the 7 seats won by Labour in Scotland the model only predicted 1 - in East Lothian Labour was shown in third place behind the Tories. Similarly , it had Labour winning both seats in Pembrokeshire - yet both stayed Tory. Apparently the model shows Labour increasing its majorities in many seats won in 2017 - possibly some indication of a first term incumbency bonus.
Because the voters of Sheffield and Peterborough, for instance, will have been so impressed with the calibre of their new Labour MPs......
That sums up my opinion of the continuity remain. So many people insulting the intelligence of those who voted Leave, and still no positI’ve campaign. If they are going to morph into rejoin they are going to have to rethink
How long is this bollocks going to continue?
Not having to stockpile food and medicine is a positive reason for staying in the EU.
Not reducing food standards is a positive.
Freedom of movement is a net positive.
Trade deals with Japan and others is a positive.
Just because you don't like them, doesn't make them any less true
On topic: AFAIAC, Brexit means three very simple things: a) Leaving the single market (I am relaxed about the Customs Union, but appreciate that many people do not share this view) b) Ending jurisdiction of the ECJ c) Ending large net payments to Brussels
Any form of Brexit that doesn't deliver these three things is therefore BINO. Norway (plus, minus or otherwise) does not deliver on A, and probably also not on C. Theresa May's Deal is, to my mind, basically perfect and in line with what I vaguely had in mind when I voted Leave.
To a lot of those who voted for it, I'm, sure it also meant ending the jurisidiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
On topic: AFAIAC, Brexit means three very simple things: a) Leaving the single market (I am relaxed about the Customs Union, but appreciate that many people do not share this view) b) Ending jurisdiction of the ECJ c) Ending large net payments to Brussels
Any form of Brexit that doesn't deliver these three things is therefore BINO. Norway (plus, minus or otherwise) does not deliver on A, and probably also not on C. Theresa May's Deal is, to my mind, basically perfect and in line with what I vaguely had in mind when I voted Leave.
But those three things were not on the ballot paper. It's an interpretation you've chosen to take.
Mr. Jessop, indeed. It's easier to castigate the heretics than seek to persuade them.
Mr. Barnesian, hmm. Whether that flies may depend on whether we've actually left. Remain is a much easier sell than Rejoin.
I think Rejoin is a hopeless sell.
I'm assuming she calls a GE because she can't get her deal through, won't allow a crash out, and thinks a GE is the best bet rather than a 2nd referendum. So we'd still be in.
Thing is even if the the most favourable polls are around correct for the tories, may still wouldn’t end up with a particularly big majority and a significant minority of her own party still against anything other than remain-ing/ BINO.
And then we are still stuck in the loop of parliament not wanting any particular outcome.
I think if she wins any kind of majority on an explicit manifesto commitment to implement her deal, most Tory MPs will honour it. I'm assuming she won't need the DUP. She'll get a bit of support from some Labour MPs. Her deal is not that different from Corbyn's.
I’m always surprised by May. The problem with voters finally realising that Corbyn is pro Brexit is that May now has less reason to compromise. She know Corbyn is unlikely to change his mind, and that is likely to split his party. Is she really going to want to split. The Tories at the same time. Even if there is a small move from ProEu Tories, she will be able to say she has tried to get through a deal, and I still expect the EU to relent, and the deal to get through.
If not then no deal is likely to be more likely to hold her coalition of voters together. How bad can no deal be? In the BBC headlines this morning someone described Brexit as an extinction event for the food and drink sector. Two things about this - multiple businesses in the sector have had serious problems. In Bristol near me there have been so many closures it is difficult to bring to mind all the failures, but in a small area around the Clifton Triangle, there were closures at Byron, Jamie’s Italian, Grillstock. This relates more to the boom in fast casual sector rather than Brexit. Secondly people will still need to eat and drink so I fully expect there to continue to be winners and losers based on demand
I know the BBC like to ramp up the rhetoric but language like that is going to help No dealers as it can’t be tha bad.
On topic: AFAIAC, Brexit means three very simple things: a) Leaving the single market (I am relaxed about the Customs Union, but appreciate that many people do not share this view) b) Ending jurisdiction of the ECJ c) Ending large net payments to Brussels
Any form of Brexit that doesn't deliver these three things is therefore BINO. Norway (plus, minus or otherwise) does not deliver on A, and probably also not on C. Theresa May's Deal is, to my mind, basically perfect and in line with what I vaguely had in mind when I voted Leave.
T Mays deal is not an end state, it is a period whilst the end state is negotiated.
The problems come from the free movement of very poor nations on enlargement. I maybe wrong but I had never sensed either a hostility (or scale) of mass immigration from the continent. Lots of historically poor, fit and willing to work young people and families changed that. Doing a half arsed job for minimum wage because your employer got what he paid for changed.
Highly motivated, highly mobile pool of cheap labour ate into the bottom rung of the job market. I think the damage done has been done. Closing off of free movement now is harmful, at a time of full employment, lowered pound and economic booms in their own countries. . We just needed to tighten our own systems to make sure the chancers and the factors that overdraw taxpayer subsidised low wages were sorted.
I agree. It was a choice of UK govt to open the door in full and at once to the accession countries. It was a choice of UK govt not to use the tools at its disposal to better manage the immigration system. It was a choice of UK govt not to invest as a matter of priority in the people and areas 'left behind' by de-industrialisation. Very poor show indeed to blame 'Brussels'.
On topic: AFAIAC, Brexit means three very simple things: a) Leaving the single market (I am relaxed about the Customs Union, but appreciate that many people do not share this view) b) Ending jurisdiction of the ECJ c) Ending large net payments to Brussels
Any form of Brexit that doesn't deliver these three things is therefore BINO. Norway (plus, minus or otherwise) does not deliver on A, and probably also not on C. Theresa May's Deal is, to my mind, basically perfect and in line with what I vaguely had in mind when I voted Leave.
But those three things were not on the ballot paper. It's an interpretation you've chosen to take.
Agreed. Theresa May has therefore had to try and interpret what the vote "meant" in order to implement Brexit. In my view, she has done so successfully (interpretation, not implementation).
As is the Single Market. We practically invented it. We pushed for it. We benefited from it. It is Britain's single most important contribution to the EU.
And that Leadsom woman was going on this morning about it being an achievement that we were withdrawing from it. Stupid is too polite a word to use about her and her ilk.
This is simply wrong. We may have pushed for it to be completed but the idea of and development towards the single market was fundamental to the original Treaty of Rome in 1957. It is why the Customs Union was created in 1968 and was always an aim of the EEC - hence the name Common Market. At best the British were responsible for the tidying up exercise that finished it all off but even that was not primarily our doing even if we provided the political push.
I disagree - the single market was in effect moribund before Lord Cockfield's White paper paper of 1985 which led directly to the Single European Act barely a year later.
Margaret Thatcher then ordered him to Brussels as Vice-President of the European Commission, a free- market counter-balance to Jacques Delors, whom she had reluctantly accepted as President. The two men worked well together and Cockfield was instrumental in persuading Delors to put the creation of a single European market ahead of plans for a single currency. The Single European Act of 1985, although not solely the product of Cockfield's drive and imagination, was the crowning achievement of a long and highly successful career.
On topic: AFAIAC, Brexit means three very simple things: a) Leaving the single market (I am relaxed about the Customs Union, but appreciate that many people do not share this view) b) Ending jurisdiction of the ECJ c) Ending large net payments to Brussels
Any form of Brexit that doesn't deliver these three things is therefore BINO. Norway (plus, minus or otherwise) does not deliver on A, and probably also not on C. Theresa May's Deal is, to my mind, basically perfect and in line with what I vaguely had in mind when I voted Leave.
But those three things were not on the ballot paper. It's an interpretation you've chosen to take.
Wasn’t the idea of the article to prompt discussion. If you are going to say that’s your interpretation to everything it going to get tedious
FPT That's a fascinating survey from Yougov. Hugo Swire must really have upset his voters.
There’s a very strong independent there.
I believe the Yougov model showed the Independendent winning in 2017 - though she fell far short.It needs to be recalled though that even the final eve of poll predictions from the Yougov model in 2017 were very 'hit and miss'. Of the 7 seats won by Labour in Scotland the model only predicted 1 - in East Lothian Labour was shown in third place behind the Tories. Similarly , it had Labour winning both seats in Pembrokeshire - yet both stayed Tory. Apparently the model shows Labour increasing its majorities in many seats won in 2017 - possibly some indication of a first term incumbency bonus.
Because the voters of Sheffield and Peterborough, for instance, will have been so impressed with the calibre of their new Labour MPs......
Peterborough does not show any sign of a first term bonus. I cannot think why that would be so!
So say TMay calls an election, with her current deal in the manifesto, and gets back in. How much of a majority do we reckon she needs to pass her deal?
Does her whole party suck it up because it was in the manifesto? Do any of the opposition MPs say, "she beat us fair and square, better give the voters the deal they voted for"? Or are all the people who are currently opposed still opposed, and a similar proportion of the new MPs to boot, so she needs like 75% of the seats to make up for the 25% who are still voting against?
On topic: AFAIAC, Brexit means three very simple things: a) Leaving the single market (I am relaxed about the Customs Union, but appreciate that many people do not share this view) b) Ending jurisdiction of the ECJ c) Ending large net payments to Brussels
Any form of Brexit that doesn't deliver these three things is therefore BINO. Norway (plus, minus or otherwise) does not deliver on A, and probably also not on C. Theresa May's Deal is, to my mind, basically perfect and in line with what I vaguely had in mind when I voted Leave.
To a lot of those who voted for it, I'm, sure it also meant ending the jurisidiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
The slight problem for Brexit loons is that none of those things were on the ballot paper. It is complete guesswork to say what people actually wanted other than 52% were persuaded by various means that it was a good idea to "leave the EU". If you are so sure of the other details, why are you terrified of another referendum?
Comments
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1095275466112548864
If that were a respectable argument one would be making the case against the copious supply of clean drinking water across the EU28.
It's democracy. If you don't like things, stand for Parliament and change things.
If only, the local authority getting a financial boost to the tune of your deposit.
All the leading politicians wanted to posture about standing up to the EU in order to win votes from critics, but they didn't see votes in advocating for the status quo.
If they had been honest then either they would have convinced the public, and we wouldn't be in this mess, or they wouldn't have convinced the public and the public would have elected different politicians who agreed with them on the EU, and we wouldn't be in this mess. But the politicians didn't like the idea of not being elected so they were dishonest and they hid behind the idea of a referendum.
Con 309
Lab 262
LD 17
UKIP 0
Green 1
PC 3
SNP 40
Con 17 short of overall majority.
Con+DUP 319
Lab+ minor parties 323
Well and truly hung - but the trend is to the Tories.
I think an early GE is on the cards.
Tory manifesto - May's deal or you get Corbyn
Lab manifesto - Corbyn's deal plus a 2nd referendum
Should be interesting.
We're experiencing this at the moment, with the Great Western electrification (along with a couple of others in the north) being massively delayed and over budget - at the expense of upgrades elsewhere.
Another case of point was the West Coast Upgrade of fifteen years ago: it was five to ten times over budget (just under £10 billion), took years longer than planned, and delivered few of the originally planned upgrades (e.g. it was due to be 140MPH; it became just 125).
BTW, I hope you all caught last night's Dispatches program on Channel 4 about HS2. It was a classic piece of 'journalism' disguised as comedy.
Sounds very EUish to me.
Sure, you might want to hold a referendum to confirm a major constitutional change, but if the politician is asking for support for a referendum, rather than the policy the referendum would confirm, then they're a coward.
This is the essential weakness of the People's Vote campaign now. If they campaigned on Remain and could convince people to change their minds then they wouldn't need to campaign for a referendum. The weight of public support would make the case for them. But they don't believe they can do that so they're hoping for what the Leavers managed - a small margin in a referendum they were lucky to have.
In the public sector a 2/3 final salary scheme with a salary of £45k would do it.
It's the same laziness that lost the referendum in the same place.
If they think that we should be in the EU - and IMO there are plenty of good reasons to be in the EU - then they should be selling it. Shout those advantages from the rooftops.
But that involves real work.
It all depends on who is in charge of the Labour manifesto.
Mr. Barnesian, hmm. Whether that flies may depend on whether we've actually left. Remain is a much easier sell than Rejoin.
Take out those enhancement schemes and the figures are much lower.
BTW, are you following what's going on at Boca Chica?
I'VE NEVER BEEN SO .... !?!
FFLLLAAAARRRGGGGHHH
The innards of the vast YouGov poll confirm that the East and West Midlands have shifted from being marginal regions to being pretty solidly Conservative.
OTOH, Labour are becoming more competitive in the South East and South West, although, still a long way behind the Conservatives. Labour retain their dominance in London.
Although not quite, since I still think she will get the deal through eventually.
But if she can't, IMO her last resort move will not be Revoke, nor Ref2, nor Labour BINO, it will be General Election.
And quite right too - this is Britain not some Banana Republic.
https://twitter.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/1095272315569483776?s=21
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/02/11/tories-unlikely-gain-enough-seats-solve-brexit-woe?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=MRP_feb_2019
And here
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/416n3133f2/YouGov Feb 2019 voting intention MRP.pdf
https://www.statista.com/statistics/298667/united-kingdom-uk-public-sector-expenditure-national-roads/
Btw Check this out from the Gov'ts top statistician - http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/39381/rail-finance-statistical-release-2017-18.pdf
So £4.66 Bn roads vs £6.37 Bn railways
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/661933/tsgb-2017-report-summaries.pdf
78% of distance travelled by private car on roads compared to 8% by railway.
Also electric cars = Green (pls forget about lithium for a second for simplicity's sake)
Why not just abandon the railways and give whacking great subsidies for Teslas
It really won't do, and in fact all it WILL do is harden support in this country for No Deal.
Incroyable.
Though to pursue the metaphor, one wonders which is SLab's sighted eye.
https://twitter.com/davieclegg/status/1095281218998947840
The reasons for voting leave were many and various, and not all compatible which is why the form of 'leave' is a matter for our mature, thoughtful, courteous and intelligent parliament. It has always seemed to me that the process of disentangling from nearly half a century of a particular sort of European commitment and replacing it with another is a venture which must last many years, and must be complex in every way, and that accordingly something like 'Norway for Now' makes best sense.
But of course I may well be wrong. I am sure that our grateful trust in the wisdom of our statesmen will be abundantly justified.
Or even Ergo Phobos Dyo?
Apparently the model shows Labour increasing its majorities in many seats won in 2017 - possibly some indication of a first term incumbency bonus.
And therein lies the rub.
Still, if the EU really love us, if they love us more than life itself, all will be well when we send them the mixed tape and the scented letter.
As long as there isn't a systematic flaw in the model the number of seats in error will balance in the totals.
Highly motivated, highly mobile pool of cheap labour ate into the bottom rung of the job market. I think the damage done has been done. Closing off of free movement now is harmful, at a time of full employment, lowered pound and economic booms in their own countries. . We just needed to tighten our own systems to make sure the chancers and the factors that overdraw taxpayer subsidised low wages were sorted.
This could be a sucker punch.
However Imo May would regain the majority on a it's May or you get Corbyn for five years.
I'm assuming she calls a GE because she can't get her deal through, won't allow a crash out, and thinks a GE is the best bet rather than a 2nd referendum. So we'd still be in.
We leave, but not far, and then we diverge further (or not, or the reverse) in the fullness of time depending on events, circumstances, developments, economic, social and political (e.g. general elections).
Not only is this what should happen it is what after much ado WILL happen.
My main reservation with this at the moment would be that few people are in pre-election mode - and we lack a clear idea of the candidates & parties likely to be contesting seats etc. Tactical voting calculations will not have entered the consciousness of many voters at this stage.
People can vote for parties with manifesto commitments to do things, and if they win a majority those things come to pass (generally)
Where we have come to grief is allowing people to vote for something via a referendum without also voting the necessary Parliamentary majority to actually deliver it.
That has not been good, for anyone, and there is an argument against following that path in future
However if Labour put Ref2 in their manifesto I give them a decent chance.
What Labour must NOT do is support Ref2 at this point. That would be beyond stupid.
If, say, we'd not had the Brexit referendum until a PM Gove called one in 2026, after being elected on a manifesto that called for leaving the EU (to be confirmed with a referendum) then I think the country would be better able to implement this decision.
Independence means independence.
And then we are still stuck in the loop of parliament not wanting any particular outcome.
a) Leaving the single market (I am relaxed about the Customs Union, but appreciate that many people do not share this view)
b) Ending jurisdiction of the ECJ
c) Ending large net payments to Brussels
Any form of Brexit that doesn't deliver these three things is therefore BINO. Norway (plus, minus or otherwise) does not deliver on A, and probably also not on C. Theresa May's Deal is, to my mind, basically perfect and in line with what I vaguely had in mind when I voted Leave.
None.
Zero.
They all ran away, and once again you are wrong. A liar even.
Not having to stockpile food and medicine is a positive reason for staying in the EU.
Not reducing food standards is a positive.
Freedom of movement is a net positive.
Trade deals with Japan and others is a positive.
Just because you don't like them, doesn't make them any less true
https://twitter.com/AaronBell80/status/1095294783780782080
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
Nixon got Kissinger to spread the word that Nixon was irrational. May is using the same strategy.
The net cost of leaving is going to be billions of pounds
If not then no deal is likely to be more likely to hold her coalition of voters together. How bad can no deal be? In the BBC headlines this morning someone described Brexit as an extinction event for the food and drink sector. Two things about this - multiple businesses in the sector have had serious problems. In Bristol near me there have been so many closures it is difficult to bring to mind all the failures, but in a small area around the Clifton Triangle, there were closures at Byron, Jamie’s Italian, Grillstock. This relates more to the boom in fast casual sector rather than Brexit. Secondly people will still need to eat and drink so I fully expect there to continue to be winners and losers based on demand
I know the BBC like to ramp up the rhetoric but language like that is going to help No dealers as it can’t be tha bad.
Margaret Thatcher then ordered him to Brussels as Vice-President of the European Commission, a free- market counter-balance to Jacques Delors, whom she had reluctantly accepted as President. The two men worked well together and Cockfield was instrumental in persuading Delors to put the creation of a single European market ahead of plans for a single currency. The Single European Act of 1985, although not solely the product of Cockfield's drive and imagination, was the crowning achievement of a long and highly successful career.
We make large payment to Brussels, which generate a net return.
Does her whole party suck it up because it was in the manifesto? Do any of the opposition MPs say, "she beat us fair and square, better give the voters the deal they voted for"? Or are all the people who are currently opposed still opposed, and a similar proportion of the new MPs to boot, so she needs like 75% of the seats to make up for the 25% who are still voting against?