politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Listen to the PB / Polling Matters experts dissect polling on
Options
Comments
-
= "Anyone to the right of Lenin".IanB2 said:It seems even Gordon Brown's acolytes are 'Blairites' in the Labour Party nowadays.
Amazing to recall how they were almost seen as relative radicals compared to Blair at the time.0 -
It all started going downhill after the Treaty of Neuberg.Pulpstar said:
1379williamglenn said:
You might need to rearrange the numbers.Theuniondivvie said:
Let me guess, pre 1973?williamglenn said:
https://twitter.com/giles_fraser/status/1098899304712937473?s=21FF43 said:
[Slaps head] Stupid me! Only daughters have the obligation to clear up after incontinent parents. The Rev Fraser is spared the indignity thanks to his Y chromosome and operates in a higher plane.FF43 said:
Astonishing argument. Our freedom of movement - let's stress the word freedom - should be curtailed to prevent us from employing people who can help our elderly parents.williamglenn said:Social mobility is the latest Brexiteer enemy.
https://twitter.com/giles_fraser/status/1098896087425912832?s=21
Although none of my business, I kind of wonder if Giles Fraser cleans up after his parents on day by day, hour by hour, basis that would give him the moral authority to pontificate on how the rest of us look after our families.0 -
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..0 -
The previous result was a recent best. The point is coming third in a mostly rural ward is hardly unusual for Labour.IanB2 said:
Look at the previous result.brokenwheel said:
In a rural ward?IanB2 said:
Labour in third place is a warning sign if ever I saw one.OldKingCole said:In the other by-election last night..... apologies if already posted ........ In Oundle (Northamptonshire) the result was:
CON: 51.3% (-14.1)
LDEM: 35.1% (+24.6)
LAB: 11.1% (-12.9)
UKIP: 2.5% (+2.5)
Given the mess that the Tories are in the that County Council I'm a little surprised that the swing wasn't greater.
Also look at the other by-election yesterday, in Cardiff. Labour loss.
As I have explained the Cardiff ward is almost certainly a reflection of Welsh politics. It’s not a place that will care about hardcore remainers flouncing in Westminster.
0 -
-
While, as I said, it's ten years since I was employed to visit homes, latterly in Essex and Hertfordshire, the picture you describe is what I would, overall, expect.Floater said:
The care home my mother in law was in (outskirts of London) had nearly entirely Afro Caribbean staffing although the (registered) nurse on duty that I spoke to was Ukrainian.OldKingCole said:
When I was in that industry ten or so years ago there were generally some ethnic majority staff.YBarddCwsc said:
Out of interest, have you? Other than your own, of course.viewcode said:
And I will bet you all the money in my pocket, against all the money in yours, that he has never wiped an adult's arse in his life.
My experience of care homes is that the racial fault-lines are at their most exposed.
There are lots of fluffy-haired, mainly white, sweet-looking old ladies with dementia and incontinence being cared for by young Philippinos, Kazaks, Lithuanians, Malays, Ukrainians, Afro-Carribeans and Indians.
There are no white Britons amongst the care home staff, usually.
I did once though come across a home where the front-line staff were almost, if not entirely, Kosovan.
We looked at a care home in North Essex for my father yesterday and the staff were generally white uk nationals - well the ones we spoke to anyway.
Friend of my son and her mother both work in a care home in another part of Essex (white UK) - so I guess the picture is more nuanced than the picture painted above.
Saying that it is not a job I think I could do and hats off to whoever does it.
And I agree about the care most at any rate of those employed provide.0 -
Let me help you. The statute - even if you refuse to read it - says that "Before making an order under this section in respect of a person the Secretary of State must give the person written notice" specifying certain information. [my emphasis]DougSeal said:
I haven't read the statute recently (if ever) and I am not going down that rabbit hole! In some cases a decision maker makes a decision and only has to notify the effected individual of the right to appeal. The obvious but trivial example of that would be a traffic warden giving a parking ticket. Does the statute allow for the individual to make representations to the SoS before notice is given? If not then there would appear to be no reason for the HS to notify in advance of his making a decision under the act. However, I reiterate, I haven't read it, and I'm not going to!Chris said:
[For the avoidance of doubt, the above communication is not to be construed as a solicitation of professional services. ;-) ]Chris said:
Would you be prepared to go out on a limb and opine as to whether a court would consider written notice to be given, if no one at all had been told what had happened until after the event?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61
I'm sure an "abundance of caution" is a virtue in any lawyer. But if, as a solicitor, you are unable to opine whether doing something after making an order satisfies a statutory requirement to do it before making the order, then I think you are being altogether too cautious. And I really don't think you should criticise others for using their common sense, even if you are unwilling to do so yourself.
The opinion of this barrack-room lawyer, for what it's worth, is that:
(1) The question of whether Shamima Begum is a Bangladeshi citizen isn't as clear as I thought it was on the basis of the SIAC decision of 2017. In that case SIAC didn't actually have to decide the question of whether the child of Bangladeshi-born parents, being under 21, would have Bangladeshi citizenship.
(2) The requirements of the British Nationality Act, 1981 (as subsequently amended), regarding deprival of citizenship, are reasonably clear. Sufficiently so that the lay-person can discuss them sensibly in an Internet forum. Always recognising that the final decision will be a judicial one.
And I think - prima facie - it's clear that the legal requirement to give written notice hasn't been complied with.
0 -
Hats off - you did.IanB2 said:
I did say yesterday that PC would give Labour a run for their money in Cardiff.0 -
Yes, I remember wondering whether we should cancel our planned Liberal jumble sale given that we were destined for government, back then.justin124 said:
The SDP enjoyed its greatest momentum at the time of its launch in late March 1981 with the Gang of Four touring the country and addressing huge crowds in overfilling halls. The SDP alone - in the hypothetical polls - was at over 30% in polls. It went off the boil somewhat by June but then received another boost following the Warrington by-election in July where Roy Jenkins did well. The Alliance with the Liberals was formed in the Autumn - 'Go back to your constituencies and prepare for Government' - at the Liberal Assembly. Two by election wins followed at Croydon NW & Crosby and by the end of the year the Alliance hit 50% in a Gallup poll. As a single entity ,however, the SDP was at its strongest in the early Spring of 1981 - doubtless due to novelty value in part.IanB2 said:
You think they should have matched them on the very first day?justin124 said:Have just sent a Tweet to Keiran Pedley expressing surprise that the podcast failed to mention the hypothetical polls from March & April 1981 which showed the SDP on its own - without the Liberals - in the 25% - 30% range. Compared with those figures , the recent data is hardly exciting.
But I don't think that all happened on the very first day?0 -
Mr Cwsc,
"I suspect Wales may be different, as well as the North of England."
I suspect so too. What my wife noticed was that there was a loss of satisfaction among the staff lately. She still meets them for social occasions - the one time I act as taxi-driver.
Wages are barely above minimum and they are virtually all women and virtually all white. And in nursing homes, the cheery old folks have been largely replaced by the far more demented.
Patients who would have been in hospitals years ago. It certainly seems to be a Cinderella service, and if the NW ever became as prosperous as London, I suspect there'd be a crisis for staffing.0 -
It would be ironic if the final outcome is that Cameron would have ended up having resolved the issue, with us staying in.williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
If there is a second vote, it seems to me that Remain might have a killer argument: if you vote for Leave, you're letting yourself in for another five years of ill-informed squabbling about customs unions, tariff schedules and backstops.0 -
Thank you kindly.MarqueeMark said:
Hats off - you did.IanB2 said:
I did say yesterday that PC would give Labour a run for their money in Cardiff.
Both by-election results yesterday suggest that Labour is in for a torrid time at the polls, short term at least.0 -
Sure, I want to outsource bottom wiping. Don't you?YBarddCwsc said:
I don't see your position being much different -- you want to outsource the bottom wiping to others ("employing people who can help out elderly parents", which you envisage as coming from outside the UK, as you blather about freedom of movement).FF43 said:
[Slaps head] Stupid me! Only daughters have the obligation to clear up after incontinent parents. The Rev Fraser is spared the indignity thanks to his Y chromosome and operates in a higher plane.FF43 said:
Astonishing argument. Our freedom of movement - let's stress the word freedom - should be curtailed to prevent us from employing people who can help our elderly parents.williamglenn said:Social mobility is the latest Brexiteer enemy.
https://twitter.com/giles_fraser/status/1098896087425912832?s=21
Although none of my business, I kind of wonder if Giles Fraser cleans up after his parents on day by day, hour by hour, basis that would give him the moral authority to pontificate on how the rest of us look after our families.
In any case, wiping bottoms is not the only thing that needs to be done to look after elderly parents -- there are many things that ONLY family members will do. I gave a whole list of them below.
Unlike hypocrite Fraser, I don't exclude myself on grounds of belonging to the master sex and I have had to deal with it.0 -
Just curious about why you think laying the No Deal would be good value.IanB2 said:There are two stunning bets on offer right now on BF exchange:
- lay Corbyn as PM after May at 7.8
- lay a no deal exit on 29/3 at 5.0 (out from 4.4 just a few hours ago)
Do we have any tangible evidence that the EU will agree an extension if there is still deadlock in the Commons?0 -
still wouldn't solve anything.. the country is split roughly 50/50williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..0 -
Your thesis being that Labour losing a 'safe' seat in Cardiff and falling to third place in Northamptonshire are unconnected with the party nationally falling apart before our eyes?brokenwheel said:
The previous result was a recent best. The point is coming third in a mostly rural ward is hardly unusual for Labour.IanB2 said:
Look at the previous result.brokenwheel said:
In a rural ward?IanB2 said:
Labour in third place is a warning sign if ever I saw one.OldKingCole said:In the other by-election last night..... apologies if already posted ........ In Oundle (Northamptonshire) the result was:
CON: 51.3% (-14.1)
LDEM: 35.1% (+24.6)
LAB: 11.1% (-12.9)
UKIP: 2.5% (+2.5)
Given the mess that the Tories are in the that County Council I'm a little surprised that the swing wasn't greater.
Also look at the other by-election yesterday, in Cardiff. Labour loss.
As I have explained the Cardiff ward is almost certainly a reflection of Welsh politics. It’s not a place that will care about hardcore remainers flouncing in Westminster.
It's a theory, I guess.0 -
Announcer: And now on Radio 4, A Book at Bedtime. Leanne Wood reads from her collected anthology "Plaid manifestoes 2015-2017"IanB2 said:
For sure. I would buy all her audio books, if she went into that line of work._Anazina_ said:OldKingCole said:
It's to Leanne's credit that she's accepted the result and continued to campaign, although perhaps not quite as vigorously as previously.llef said:
Don't know much about McEvoy, but PC new leader Adam Price is very impressive, and a huge improvement on Leanne Wood, (which is admittedly not difficult).YBarddCwsc said:
Neil NcEvoy deserves a lot of credit in hugely increasing Plaid Cymru's profile in Cardiff.llef said:re Welsh polls, there was a council by election in Ely (part of Cardiff) last night.
Plaid won the seat from Labour with 831 votes, 43% of the vote (+17%)
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/plaid-cymru-cardiff-ely-election-15869369
In fact, McEvoy could become Wales' Alex Salmond, if Plaid Cymru stopped expelling him.
So far as I can see anyway.
Careful.llef said:
Don't know much about McEvoy, but PC new leader Adam Price is very impressive, and a huge improvement on Leanne Wood, (which is admittedly not difficult).YBarddCwsc said:
Neil NcEvoy deserves a lot of credit in hugely increasing Plaid Cymru's profile in Cardiff.llef said:re Welsh polls, there was a council by election in Ely (part of Cardiff) last night.
Plaid won the seat from Labour with 831 votes, 43% of the vote (+17%)
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/plaid-cymru-cardiff-ely-election-15869369
In fact, McEvoy could become Wales' Alex Salmond, if Plaid Cymru stopped expelling him.
Leanne “Nice Voice” Wood has a large fan club on PB.
Listener: Zzzzz.0 -
This special case here, that there...brokenwheel said:
The previous result was a recent best. The point is coming third in a mostly rural ward is hardly unusual for Labour.IanB2 said:
Look at the previous result.brokenwheel said:
In a rural ward?IanB2 said:
Labour in third place is a warning sign if ever I saw one.OldKingCole said:In the other by-election last night..... apologies if already posted ........ In Oundle (Northamptonshire) the result was:
CON: 51.3% (-14.1)
LDEM: 35.1% (+24.6)
LAB: 11.1% (-12.9)
UKIP: 2.5% (+2.5)
Given the mess that the Tories are in the that County Council I'm a little surprised that the swing wasn't greater.
Also look at the other by-election yesterday, in Cardiff. Labour loss.
As I have explained the Cardiff ward is almost certainly a reflection of Welsh politics. It’s not a place that will care about hardcore remainers flouncing in Westminster.0 -
I'm assuming Remainers wouldn't object to No Deal being an option in R2?0
-
The hypothetical SDP ratings were sky high in the weeks immediately following the launch in late March 1981 - ie SDP not Alliance.IanB2 said:
Yes, I remember wondering whether we should cancel our planned Liberal jumble sale given that we were destined for government, back then.justin124 said:
The SDP enjoyed its greatest momentum at the time of its launch in late March 1981 with the Gang of Four touring the country and addressing huge crowds in overfilling halls. The SDP alone - in the hypothetical polls - was at over 30% in polls. It went off the boil somewhat by June but then received another boost following the Warrington by-election in July where Roy Jenkins did well. The Alliance with the Liberals was formed in the Autumn - 'Go back to your constituencies and prepare for Government' - at the Liberal Assembly. Two by election wins followed at Croydon NW & Crosby and by the end of the year the Alliance hit 50% in a Gallup poll. As a single entity ,however, the SDP was at its strongest in the early Spring of 1981 - doubtless due to novelty value in part.IanB2 said:
You think they should have matched them on the very first day?justin124 said:Have just sent a Tweet to Keiran Pedley expressing surprise that the podcast failed to mention the hypothetical polls from March & April 1981 which showed the SDP on its own - without the Liberals - in the 25% - 30% range. Compared with those figures , the recent data is hardly exciting.
But I don't think that all happened on the very first day?0 -
You are assuming an outcome. If we knew the result of elections before holding them, we wouldn't need elections. The chance of a truly decisive result in a second referendum is much higher than you're allowing for.SquareRoot said:
still wouldn't solve anything.. the country is split roughly 50/50williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
The other aspect is that this referendum would only be about the immediate next step: ratify the deal, or revoke notification. It wouldn't be something that could be twisted into a fascistic "will of the people" that would cripple parliamentary democracy in the way the 2016 vote did.0 -
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.0 -
It took about a year to peak.justin124 said:
The hypothetical SDP ratings were sky high in the weeks immediately following the launch in late March 1981 - ie SDP not Alliance.IanB2 said:
Yes, I remember wondering whether we should cancel our planned Liberal jumble sale given that we were destined for government, back then.justin124 said:
The SDP enjoyed its greatest momentum at the time of its launch in late March 1981 with the Gang of Four touring the country and addressing huge crowds in overfilling halls. The SDP alone - in the hypothetical polls - was at over 30% in polls. It went off the boil somewhat by June but then received another boost following the Warrington by-election in July where Roy Jenkins did well. The Alliance with the Liberals was formed in the Autumn - 'Go back to your constituencies and prepare for Government' - at the Liberal Assembly. Two by election wins followed at Croydon NW & Crosby and by the end of the year the Alliance hit 50% in a Gallup poll. As a single entity ,however, the SDP was at its strongest in the early Spring of 1981 - doubtless due to novelty value in part.IanB2 said:
You think they should have matched them on the very first day?justin124 said:Have just sent a Tweet to Keiran Pedley expressing surprise that the podcast failed to mention the hypothetical polls from March & April 1981 which showed the SDP on its own - without the Liberals - in the 25% - 30% range. Compared with those figures , the recent data is hardly exciting.
But I don't think that all happened on the very first day?
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1979-19830 -
I always believed that May would never go for no deal. It's the worst legacy in history for any PM. And she promised business she would never go there, two years back.Chris said:
Just curious about why you think laying the No Deal would be good value.IanB2 said:There are two stunning bets on offer right now on BF exchange:
- lay Corbyn as PM after May at 7.8
- lay a no deal exit on 29/3 at 5.0 (out from 4.4 just a few hours ago)
Do we have any tangible evidence that the EU will agree an extension if there is still deadlock in the Commons?
Subsequently, she has clearly been motivated the most by holding her beloved Tory party together, rather than delivering the best outcome for the country (otherwise she would have bitten Corbyn's hand off for his CU proposal). Now, it is obvious that 'no deal' will destroy the Tory party, not withstanding its impact on the country.
Therefore the BF bet is hugely attractive. Especially as it is tied to 29th March.0 -
Any PM agreeing to hold a second referendum is dafter than Maggie Beckett agreeing to nominate Corbyn.
May wont do it.0 -
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.0 -
It's up to the government and Parliament to decide what options go to a referendum. The Commission's remit is simply over the wording of those options. Therefore judicial process doesn't arise.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.0 -
It can be kept off by waiting until the end of March before presenting a deal/Remain referendum as the alternative to the impending disaster.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.0 -
Then at the least you might think about waiting a few weeks before ejaculating your tweet prematurely towards Mr Pedley?justin124 said:
The hypothetical SDP ratings were sky high in the weeks immediately following the launch in late March 1981 - ie SDP not Alliance.IanB2 said:
Yes, I remember wondering whether we should cancel our planned Liberal jumble sale given that we were destined for government, back then.justin124 said:
The SDP enjoyed its greatest momentum at the time of its launch in late March 1981 with the Gang of Four touring the country and addressing huge crowds in overfilling halls. The SDP alone - in the hypothetical polls - was at over 30% in polls. It went off the boil somewhat by June but then received another boost following the Warrington by-election in July where Roy Jenkins did well. The Alliance with the Liberals was formed in the Autumn - 'Go back to your constituencies and prepare for Government' - at the Liberal Assembly. Two by election wins followed at Croydon NW & Crosby and by the end of the year the Alliance hit 50% in a Gallup poll. As a single entity ,however, the SDP was at its strongest in the early Spring of 1981 - doubtless due to novelty value in part.IanB2 said:
You think they should have matched them on the very first day?justin124 said:Have just sent a Tweet to Keiran Pedley expressing surprise that the podcast failed to mention the hypothetical polls from March & April 1981 which showed the SDP on its own - without the Liberals - in the 25% - 30% range. Compared with those figures , the recent data is hardly exciting.
But I don't think that all happened on the very first day?0 -
Thanks. I just wondered whether anything had changed in the last day or so. Obviously the odds have changed quite a bit. I'm not sure why.IanB2 said:
I always believed that May would never go for no deal. It's the worst legacy in history for any PM. And she promised business she would never go there, two years back.Chris said:
Just curious about why you think laying the No Deal would be good value.IanB2 said:There are two stunning bets on offer right now on BF exchange:
- lay Corbyn as PM after May at 7.8
- lay a no deal exit on 29/3 at 5.0 (out from 4.4 just a few hours ago)
Do we have any tangible evidence that the EU will agree an extension if there is still deadlock in the Commons?
Subsequently, she has clearly been motivated the most by holding her beloved Tory party together, rather than delivering the best outcome for the country (otherwise she would have bitten Corbyn's hand off for his CU proposal). Now, it is obvious that 'no deal' will destroy the Tory party, not withstanding its impact on the country.
Therefore the BF bet is hugely attractive. Especially as it is tied to 29th March.
I have a bet on No Deal, but essentially as an insurance policy. I'll be very happy if I lose the bet (provided No Deal doesn't materialise in May).0 -
Sorry - but not so! That data only shows the headline voting intention figures. It does not include the hypothetical - 'how would you vote if there were a SDP candidate in your constituency? '- voting figures. Those questions were asked at the time , and showed the SDP - on it own - in excess of 30%williamglenn said:
It took about a year to peak.justin124 said:
The hypothetical SDP ratings were sky high in the weeks immediately following the launch in late March 1981 - ie SDP not Alliance.IanB2 said:
Yes, I remember wondering whether we should cancel our planned Liberal jumble sale given that we were destined for government, back then.justin124 said:
The SDP enjoyed its greatest momentum at the time of its launch in late March 1981 with the Gang of Four touring the country and addressing huge crowds in overfilling halls. The SDP alone - in the hypothetical polls - was at over 30% in polls. It went off the boil somewhat by June but then received another boost following the Warrington by-election in July where Roy Jenkins did well. The Alliance with the Liberals was formed in the Autumn - 'Go back to your constituencies and prepare for Government' - at the Liberal Assembly. Two by election wins followed at Croydon NW & Crosby and by the end of the year the Alliance hit 50% in a Gallup poll. As a single entity ,however, the SDP was at its strongest in the early Spring of 1981 - doubtless due to novelty value in part.IanB2 said:
You think they should have matched them on the very first day?justin124 said:Have just sent a Tweet to Keiran Pedley expressing surprise that the podcast failed to mention the hypothetical polls from March & April 1981 which showed the SDP on its own - without the Liberals - in the 25% - 30% range. Compared with those figures , the recent data is hardly exciting.
But I don't think that all happened on the very first day?
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1979-19830 -
Can you point to where in the article where he says this, please? I've been through twice and can't find anything beyond an anecdote that happens to involve a woman. I can't see anything that indicates he believes it would be any different if she was male. In fact, he says "Children have a responsibility to look after their parents".FF43 said:
Unlike hypocrite Fraser, I don't exclude myself on grounds of belonging to the master sex and I have had to deal with it.
What have I missed?0 -
If you fancy adding to your insurance policy, I will happily take the other side of the bet.Chris said:
Thanks. I just wondered whether anything had changed in the last day or so. Obviously the odds have changed quite a bit. I'm not sure why.IanB2 said:
I always believed that May would never go for no deal. It's the worst legacy in history for any PM. And she promised business she would never go there, two years back.Chris said:
Just curious about why you think laying the No Deal would be good value.IanB2 said:There are two stunning bets on offer right now on BF exchange:
- lay Corbyn as PM after May at 7.8
- lay a no deal exit on 29/3 at 5.0 (out from 4.4 just a few hours ago)
Do we have any tangible evidence that the EU will agree an extension if there is still deadlock in the Commons?
Subsequently, she has clearly been motivated the most by holding her beloved Tory party together, rather than delivering the best outcome for the country (otherwise she would have bitten Corbyn's hand off for his CU proposal). Now, it is obvious that 'no deal' will destroy the Tory party, not withstanding its impact on the country.
Therefore the BF bet is hugely attractive. Especially as it is tied to 29th March.
I have a bet on No Deal, but essentially as an insurance policy. I'll be very happy if I lose the bet (provided No Deal doesn't materialise in May).0 -
In the first paragraph:Endillion said:
Can you point to where in the article where he says this, please? I've been through twice and can't find anything beyond an anecdote that happens to involve a woman. I can't see anything that indicates he believes it would be any different if she was male. In fact, he says "Children have a responsibility to look after their parents".FF43 said:
Unlike hypocrite Fraser, I don't exclude myself on grounds of belonging to the master sex and I have had to deal with it.
What have I missed?
"It is the daughter of the elderly gentleman that should be wiping his bottom."0 -
Your thesis was that a (not really that safe) Cardiff seat that is a shithole is actually a hotbed of Remain sentiment that has nothing else to worry about other than MPs shifting deckchairs on the Titanic. Labour has issues in Wales that have absolutely nothing to do with what’s going on in Westminster. Your second thesis is that a third place for Labour in a rural seat is warning sign, which is risible. I know you are trying desperately to string together a narrative but it just ain’t so.IanB2 said:
Your thesis being that Labour losing a 'safe' seat in Cardiff and falling to third place in Northamptonshire are unconnected with the party nationally falling apart before our eyes?brokenwheel said:
The previous result was a recent best. The point is coming third in a mostly rural ward is hardly unusual for Labour.IanB2 said:
Look at the previous result.brokenwheel said:
In a rural ward?IanB2 said:
Labour in third place is a warning sign if ever I saw one.OldKingCole said:In the other by-election last night..... apologies if already posted ........ In Oundle (Northamptonshire) the result was:
CON: 51.3% (-14.1)
LDEM: 35.1% (+24.6)
LAB: 11.1% (-12.9)
UKIP: 2.5% (+2.5)
Given the mess that the Tories are in the that County Council I'm a little surprised that the swing wasn't greater.
Also look at the other by-election yesterday, in Cardiff. Labour loss.
As I have explained the Cardiff ward is almost certainly a reflection of Welsh politics. It’s not a place that will care about hardcore remainers flouncing in Westminster.
It's a theory, I guess.
I don’t doubt Labour’s going to be screwed, but these aren’t close to being good examples.
0 -
The only way it could be done would be with a choice of: a) Remain in the EU on current terms, b) Leave the EU on the terms of Mrs M's deal, c) Neither of the above. With c) effectively giving the government a free hand.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.
But I don't think such an absurd proposition would ever be allowed anywhere near the voters.0 -
Before long, we'll have robots to wipe our bottoms when we get old.0
-
It's going be fun for the both of us seeing how this pans out, then, isn't it?brokenwheel said:
Your thesis was that a (not really that safe) Cardiff seat that is a shithole is actually a hotbed of Remain sentiment that has nothing else to worry about other than MPs shifting deckchairs on the Titanic. Labour has issues in Wales that have absolutely nothing to do with what’s going on in Westminster. Your second thesis is that a third place for Labour in a rural seat is warning sign, which is risible. I know you are trying desperately to string together a narrative but it just ain’t so.IanB2 said:
Your thesis being that Labour losing a 'safe' seat in Cardiff and falling to third place in Northamptonshire are unconnected with the party nationally falling apart before our eyes?brokenwheel said:
The previous result was a recent best. The point is coming third in a mostly rural ward is hardly unusual for Labour.IanB2 said:
Look at the previous result.brokenwheel said:
In a rural ward?IanB2 said:
Labour in third place is a warning sign if ever I saw one.OldKingCole said:In the other by-election last night..... apologies if already posted ........ In Oundle (Northamptonshire) the result was:
CON: 51.3% (-14.1)
LDEM: 35.1% (+24.6)
LAB: 11.1% (-12.9)
UKIP: 2.5% (+2.5)
Given the mess that the Tories are in the that County Council I'm a little surprised that the swing wasn't greater.
Also look at the other by-election yesterday, in Cardiff. Labour loss.
As I have explained the Cardiff ward is almost certainly a reflection of Welsh politics. It’s not a place that will care about hardcore remainers flouncing in Westminster.
It's a theory, I guess.
0 -
Deal:RemainIanB2 said:
The only way it could be done would be with a choice of: a) Remain in the EU on current terms, b) Leave the EU on the terms of Mrs M's deal, c) Neither of the above. With c) effectively giving the government a free hand.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.
But I don't think such an absurd proposition would ever be allowed anywhere near the voters.
That's the only possible choice.0 -
Yeah, I totally agree with all that. I just don't see how a referendum that leaves out an option that a large and vocal minority of people and MPs want, could possibly make our situation better.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.
My view is that a second referendum is therefore impossible (for this and other reasons).0 -
Oh, a trojan horse option for joining the Euro!IanB2 said:
The only way it could be done would be with a choice of: a) Remain in the EU on current terms, b) Leave the EU on the terms of Mrs M's deal, c) Neither of the above. With c) effectively giving the government a free hand.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.0 -
It will be interesting to see whether they lose council seats in May. There is a lot of potential upside for the Liberal Democrats as it would not be surprising to see the Tories, Labour and UKIP all lose a considerable number of seats.IanB2 said:
Thank you kindly.MarqueeMark said:
Hats off - you did.IanB2 said:
I did say yesterday that PC would give Labour a run for their money in Cardiff.
Both by-election results yesterday suggest that Labour is in for a torrid time at the polls, short term at least.
Unless sitting councillors defect it would be surprising if TIG were able to stand candidates in significant numbers, if at all.0 -
I agree. But we know that either Tyndall or Philip will be along shortly.TOPPING said:
Deal:RemainIanB2 said:
The only way it could be done would be with a choice of: a) Remain in the EU on current terms, b) Leave the EU on the terms of Mrs M's deal, c) Neither of the above. With c) effectively giving the government a free hand.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.
But I don't think such an absurd proposition would ever be allowed anywhere near the voters.
That's the only possible choice.0 -
Labour will be screwed by TIG, just not in places like these.IanB2 said:
It's going be fun for the both of us seeing how this pans out, then, isn't it?brokenwheel said:
Your thesis was that a (not really that safe) Cardiff seat that is a shithole is actually a hotbed of Remain sentiment that has nothing else to worry about other than MPs shifting deckchairs on the Titanic. Labour has issues in Wales that have absolutely nothing to do with what’s going on in Westminster. Your second thesis is that a third place for Labour in a rural seat is warning sign, which is risible. I know you are trying desperately to string together a narrative but it just ain’t so.IanB2 said:
Your thesis being that Labour losing a 'safe' seat in Cardiff and falling to third place in Northamptonshire are unconnected with the party nationally falling apart before our eyes?brokenwheel said:
The previous result was a recent best. The point is coming third in a mostly rural ward is hardly unusual for Labour.IanB2 said:
Look at the previous result.brokenwheel said:
In a rural ward?IanB2 said:
Labour in third place is a warning sign if ever I saw one.OldKingCole said:In the other by-election last night..... apologies if already posted ........ In Oundle (Northamptonshire) the result was:
CON: 51.3% (-14.1)
LDEM: 35.1% (+24.6)
LAB: 11.1% (-12.9)
UKIP: 2.5% (+2.5)
Given the mess that the Tories are in the that County Council I'm a little surprised that the swing wasn't greater.
Also look at the other by-election yesterday, in Cardiff. Labour loss.
As I have explained the Cardiff ward is almost certainly a reflection of Welsh politics. It’s not a place that will care about hardcore remainers flouncing in Westminster.
It's a theory, I guess.
0 -
"People who want no deal" fit into many subcategories. A very significant number of them think that we have to be 'prepared' for no deal in order to threaten the EU, but they don't actually want to try it in reality.Endillion said:
Yeah, I totally agree with all that. I just don't see how a referendum that leaves out an option that a large and vocal minority of people and MPs want, could possibly make our situation better.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.
My view is that a second referendum is therefore impossible (for this and other reasons).0 -
Mr Glenn,
"It can be kept off by waiting until the end of March before presenting a deal/Remain referendum as the alternative to the impending disaster."
Enterprising. So what you're suggesting is that after a win for Leave vs Remain, we go on to a second referendum where Remain competes against a deal where we stay until given permission by the EU to Leave. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but surely in Mrs May's deal, we continue to pay membership fees until for some unspecified date in the future which may never arise?
So to summarise … Leave beat Remain, and in the run off it's Remain vs Leave only with permission of the EU.
0 -
In 1981, the Liberals had a decent set of May election results, and there were a handful of SDP'ers who jumped the gun on the national party's formation and stood as SDP candidates, with mixed but some decent results, as I recall (I vaguely remember that one of those premature SDP'ers is still in Parliament). Maybe this year will see the same - the jump in LD vote share in Oundle is hopeful.OblitusSumMe said:
It will be interesting to see whether they lose council seats in May. There is a lot of potential upside for the Liberal Democrats as it would not be surprising to see the Tories, Labour and UKIP all lose a considerable number of seats.IanB2 said:
Thank you kindly.MarqueeMark said:
Hats off - you did.IanB2 said:
I did say yesterday that PC would give Labour a run for their money in Cardiff.
Both by-election results yesterday suggest that Labour is in for a torrid time at the polls, short term at least.
Unless sitting councillors defect it would be surprising if TIG were able to stand candidates in significant numbers, if at all.0 -
In principle I agree, the only snag is that we lose the good terms etc that we currently have. Unfortunately there a number of leavers who would be happy for the country to lose those benefits if it helps their agenda and makes it less attractive to rejoin. It would serve them right if Brexit turns out so badly that we end up rejoining with the Euro and everything else!OldKingCole said:
Sympathise. Leave as you say and get back in again when being a rule taker is demonstrably a Bad Idea.SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
0 -
It is impossible, but perhaps less impossible than any alternative. Of course the simple way out is for parliament to ratify the current deal, and maybe they eventually will, but if they don't, what alternative is there other than another referendum?Endillion said:Yeah, I totally agree with all that. I just don't see how a referendum that leaves out an option that a large and vocal minority of people and MPs want, could possibly make our situation better.
My view is that a second referendum is therefore impossible (for this and other reasons).0 -
Yes; in the specific case, it's his daughter who has the responsibility because we don't know if he has other children. In the general case, he explicitly uses the neutral term "children".williamglenn said:
In the first paragraph:Endillion said:
Can you point to where in the article where he says this, please? I've been through twice and can't find anything beyond an anecdote that happens to involve a woman. I can't see anything that indicates he believes it would be any different if she was male. In fact, he says "Children have a responsibility to look after their parents".FF43 said:
Unlike hypocrite Fraser, I don't exclude myself on grounds of belonging to the master sex and I have had to deal with it.
What have I missed?
"It is the daughter of the elderly gentleman that should be wiping his bottom."0 -
Yet TIG needs a councillor base quickly, to become credible. The appeals to councillors to join them, are going out already.OblitusSumMe said:
It will be interesting to see whether they lose council seats in May. There is a lot of potential upside for the Liberal Democrats as it would not be surprising to see the Tories, Labour and UKIP all lose a considerable number of seats.IanB2 said:
Thank you kindly.MarqueeMark said:
Hats off - you did.IanB2 said:
I did say yesterday that PC would give Labour a run for their money in Cardiff.
Both by-election results yesterday suggest that Labour is in for a torrid time at the polls, short term at least.
Unless sitting councillors defect it would be surprising if TIG were able to stand candidates in significant numbers, if at all.
The councillors in my old patch of LB Redbridge must be feeling this. Gapes has jumped to TIG already. Streeting - who until recently might have claimed leadership of the fight against Labour anti-semitism - is losing his allies as he sits inside Labour worried as a young man about where his best career prospects might lie. If TIG gains traction as a viable party, it is hard to see the council group holding together on one side or the other.0 -
It would be Socratic in its complexity to describe adequately a no deal. So for no other reason than pragmatism it would not be possible to offer it, and as William says, the moment you write something down which constitutes no deal, people will spring up to say they didn't mean that.Endillion said:
Yeah, I totally agree with all that. I just don't see how a referendum that leaves out an option that a large and vocal minority of people and MPs want, could possibly make our situation better.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.
My view is that a second referendum is therefore impossible (for this and other reasons).
So pragmatism rather than idealism rules it out.0 -
-
In the May Council elections, be interesting to see how many Independent candidates try to appear as if they are endorsed by/part of/alligned with the Tiggers.
And whether the Tiggers go around denying it.0 -
So? They'll still have to fight it every step of the way, to keep up the pretence.williamglenn said:
"People who want no deal" fit into many subcategories. A very significant number of them think that we have to be 'prepared' for no deal in order to threaten the EU, but they don't actually want to try it in reality.Endillion said:
Yeah, I totally agree with all that. I just don't see how a referendum that leaves out an option that a large and vocal minority of people and MPs want, could possibly make our situation better.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.
My view is that a second referendum is therefore impossible (for this and other reasons).0 -
Yep. Too soon to tell given that anything may happen in the next few months, but a big Lib Dem Surge™ in the May locals is entirely plausible, likely even.OblitusSumMe said:
It will be interesting to see whether they lose council seats in May. There is a lot of potential upside for the Liberal Democrats as it would not be surprising to see the Tories, Labour and UKIP all lose a considerable number of seats.IanB2 said:
Thank you kindly.MarqueeMark said:
Hats off - you did.IanB2 said:
I did say yesterday that PC would give Labour a run for their money in Cardiff.
Both by-election results yesterday suggest that Labour is in for a torrid time at the polls, short term at least.
Unless sitting councillors defect it would be surprising if TIG were able to stand candidates in significant numbers, if at all.0 -
Interesting wording to that Patrick Wintour tweet. It suggests that these are not proto-TIGgers but independent Labourites.0
-
General Election.Richard_Nabavi said:It is impossible, but perhaps less impossible than any alternative. Of course the simple way out is for parliament to ratify the current deal, and maybe they eventually will, but if they don't, what alternative is there other than another referendum?
Might not sort it - but it might.0 -
That's why we take it to the brink and force the Brexiteers who care about their reputations into submission. There are already indications they're looking for a face-saving way to back revocation.Endillion said:
So? They'll still have to fight it every step of the way, to keep up the pretence.williamglenn said:"People who want no deal" fit into many subcategories. A very significant number of them think that we have to be 'prepared' for no deal in order to threaten the EU, but they don't actually want to try it in reality.
0 -
I would think no deal is more likely to be on any ballot paper than remain. Unless May is the secret remainer that a few think she is then the Tories have nothing to gain from remain.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.0 -
I don't see the difficulty. Parliament has already voted to Leave the EU without a deal (unless the WA is passed, or A50 is revoked).TOPPING said:
It would be Socratic in its complexity to describe adequately a no deal. So for no other reason than pragmatism it would not be possible to offer it, and as William says, the moment you write something down which constitutes no deal, people will spring up to say they didn't mean that.Endillion said:
Yeah, I totally agree with all that. I just don't see how a referendum that leaves out an option that a large and vocal minority of people and MPs want, could possibly make our situation better.TOPPING said:Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.
My view is that a second referendum is therefore impossible (for this and other reasons).
So pragmatism rather than idealism rules it out.0 -
Absolutely. It is the only thing that makes sense. In any negotiation you must be prepared to walk away.williamglenn said:
"People who want no deal" fit into many subcategories. A very significant number of them think that we have to be 'prepared' for no deal in order to threaten the EU, but they don't actually want to try it in reality.Endillion said:
Yeah, I totally agree with all that. I just don't see how a referendum that leaves out an option that a large and vocal minority of people and MPs want, could possibly make our situation better.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.
My view is that a second referendum is therefore impossible (for this and other reasons).0 -
Labour-aligned, but not accepting the Corbyn Whip?AlastairMeeks said:Interesting wording to that Patrick Wintour tweet. It suggests that these are not proto-TIGgers but independent Labourites.
0 -
There are three options.
The first, taking note of the referendum result, is No deal vs Mrs May's deal vs Remain.
The second, .favoured by Remainers which ignores the referendum result, is Mrs May's deal vis Remain.
The third, favoured by Leavers, which honours the referendum result and is the democratic one, is Mrs May's deal vs No deal.
There you are, pick one according to your bias.0 -
Apart from retaining their battered reputation as the party of economic competence.Brom said:
I would think no deal is more likely to be on any ballot paper than remain. Unless May is the secret remainer that a few think she is then the Tories have nothing to gain from remain.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.0 -
The trouble is if he did all of this would anyone believe him? Would any of those who have left actually rejoin? If not it doesn’t seem worth it to the Corbynites, I have a funny feeling they’ll prefer purity.AlastairMeeks said:0 -
Unilateral revocation, and No Deal. Both of which are also impossible.Richard_Nabavi said:
It is impossible, but perhaps less impossible than any alternative. Of course the simple way out is for parliament to ratify the current deal, and maybe they eventually will, but if they don't, what alternative is there other than another referendum?Endillion said:Yeah, I totally agree with all that. I just don't see how a referendum that leaves out an option that a large and vocal minority of people and MPs want, could possibly make our situation better.
My view is that a second referendum is therefore impossible (for this and other reasons).
Constitutional question: what happens if Theresa May just unilaterally signs the deal without approval from Parliament? Obviously she gets No Confidenced, but does the Deal stand?0 -
Some burn their bridges, others hope to return.MarqueeMark said:
Labour-aligned, but not accepting the Corbyn Whip?AlastairMeeks said:Interesting wording to that Patrick Wintour tweet. It suggests that these are not proto-TIGgers but independent Labourites.
What possible route there might be from here to Labour being regained by a moderate social democrat isn't clear to me.0 -
Does May's deal specify exactly what the arrangement is going to be for 'widgets, planes and chainsaws'?TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.
Because if it doesn't then that couldn't be on the ballot paper either using your logic.0 -
Their demands sound indistinguishable from those of the TIGgers, though.AlastairMeeks said:Interesting wording to that Patrick Wintour tweet. It suggests that these are not proto-TIGgers but independent Labourites.
Edit: Maybe they just don't want to be associated with the Tory defectors.0 -
It may buy him time. But it may be as simple as these MPs teeing up what they are going to do, knowing that he is not going to oblige and giving them the pretext for their action that they seek.brokenwheel said:
The trouble is if he did all of this would anyone believe him? Would any of those who have left actually rejoin? If not it doesn’t seem worth it to the Corbynites.AlastairMeeks said:0 -
Yes but if there is a deal to vote for then May won't get the blame for no deal. Whereas if we remain half of the country turn against her, including the vast majority of Tory voters. Complete no brainer. Interesting that the only people who hope remain will be on the ballot paper are the people who wouldn't dare vote Tory anyway...El_Capitano said:
Apart from retaining their battered reputation as the party of economic competence.Brom said:
I would think no deal is more likely to be on any ballot paper than remain. Unless May is the secret remainer that a few think she is then the Tories have nothing to gain from remain.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.0 -
No, and even if parliament votes for the deal in a meaningful vote, we could still end up leaving with no deal if they don't also pass the legislation (which the government hasn't even published yet).Endillion said:
Unilateral revocation, and No Deal. Both of which are also impossible.Richard_Nabavi said:
It is impossible, but perhaps less impossible than any alternative. Of course the simple way out is for parliament to ratify the current deal, and maybe they eventually will, but if they don't, what alternative is there other than another referendum?Endillion said:Yeah, I totally agree with all that. I just don't see how a referendum that leaves out an option that a large and vocal minority of people and MPs want, could possibly make our situation better.
My view is that a second referendum is therefore impossible (for this and other reasons).
Constitutional question: what happens if Theresa May just unilaterally signs the deal without approval from Parliament? Obviously she gets No Confidenced, but does the Deal stand?0 -
No deal could be defined as: reject the proposed deal and leave by *insert date here*. Parliament may ratify new deals that must include a 2 year exit clause.TOPPING said:
It would be Socratic in its complexity to describe adequately a no deal. So for no other reason than pragmatism it would not be possible to offer it, and as William says, the moment you write something down which constitutes no deal, people will spring up to say they didn't mean that.
So pragmatism rather than idealism rules it out.
Parliament loses the option to prevent Brexit via continuous extensions and the deal dies. Any new deals or side deals Parliament ratifies before Brexit day is then Parliaments prerogative and can be repealed by future Parliaments. We take back control.0 -
So is does McDonnell want to back a referendum as cover for when we leave or does he want Corbyn to block backing a referendum so he can take the blame when Jezza gets the push ?
0 -
There is a difference between falling into chaos and having to describe the chaos in detail.Sean_F said:
I don't see the difficulty. Parliament has already voted to Leave the EU without a deal (unless the WA is passed, or A50 is revoked).TOPPING said:
It would be Socratic in its complexity to describe adequately a no deal. So for no other reason than pragmatism it would not be possible to offer it, and as William says, the moment you write something down which constitutes no deal, people will spring up to say they didn't mean that.Endillion said:
Yeah, I totally agree with all that. I just don't see how a referendum that leaves out an option that a large and vocal minority of people and MPs want, could possibly make our situation better.TOPPING said:Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.
My view is that a second referendum is therefore impossible (for this and other reasons).
So pragmatism rather than idealism rules it out.0 -
And saving the union. And saving the country from a slow slide into decline. And putting the ERG nutters back in their box. And having the whole matter go away, instead of preoccupying the media and our politics for the next 2, 5, 10 years. And rescuing what remains from our international credibility. And holding their party together (since the parasites won't ever leave). And leaving the Labour Party splintered on other issues while they avoid the same.El_Capitano said:
Apart from retaining their battered reputation as the party of economic competence.Brom said:
I would think no deal is more likely to be on any ballot paper than remain. Unless May is the secret remainer that a few think she is then the Tories have nothing to gain from remain.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was ms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.
Apart from the above, nothing.0 -
-
Normally when you walk away from a negotiation, you exit the room via the door, not via the window.Philip_Thompson said:Absolutely. It is the only thing that makes sense. In any negotiation you must be prepared to walk away.
0 -
Eh? I dare vote Tory, and if there is to be a referendum (which I hope there won't be), I most certainly hope it will be Remain vs Deal, because I don't want a referendum where one of the options is utter chaos and economic disaster, which could make the Tories unelectable for a generation. I'm pretty certain that at least 100 and probably many more Tory MPs would agree with me.Brom said:Yes but if there is a deal to vote for then May won't get the blame for no deal. Whereas if we remain half of the country turn against her, including the vast majority of Tory voters. Complete no brainer. Interesting that the only people who hope remain will be on the ballot paper are the people who wouldn't dare vote Tory anyway...
0 -
0
-
Many years ago there were quite a few MPs sitting as members of the ILP - others as members of the Co-Operative Party. Both were closely allied to Labour - and it raises the question as to whether some disaffected Labour MPs would find this a more attractive option than joining the TIG. If so, ironically it could seriously undermine the prospects of the latter.AlastairMeeks said:Interesting wording to that Patrick Wintour tweet. It suggests that these are not proto-TIGgers but independent Labourites.
0 -
If this was even 0.01% in the mind of the Cons we wouldn't be having all this palaver right now. The government lead by Theresa May won't entertain having no deal as an option.Philip_Thompson said:
No deal could be defined as: reject the proposed deal and leave by *insert date here*. Parliament may ratify new deals that must include a 2 year exit clause.TOPPING said:
It would be Socratic in its complexity to describe adequately a no deal. So for no other reason than pragmatism it would not be possible to offer it, and as William says, the moment you write something down which constitutes no deal, people will spring up to say they didn't mean that.
So pragmatism rather than idealism rules it out.
Parliament loses the option to prevent Brexit via continuous extensions and the deal dies. Any new deals or side deals Parliament ratifies before Brexit day is then Parliaments prerogative and can be repealed by future Parliaments. We take back control.0 -
No, it really isn'tTOPPING said:
Deal:RemainIanB2 said:
The only way it could be done would be with a choice of: a) Remain in the EU on current terms, b) Leave the EU on the terms of Mrs M's deal, c) Neither of the above. With c) effectively giving the government a free hand.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.
But I don't think such an absurd proposition would ever be allowed anywhere near the voters.
That's the only possible choice.
It is the preferred choice of some who do not want to leave.0 -
Kinder politics = the politics of the playground.Floater said:0 -
The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.Floater said:
No, it really isn'tTOPPING said:
Deal:RemainIanB2 said:
The only way it could be done would be with a choice of: a) Remain in the EU on current terms, b) Leave the EU on the terms of Mrs M's deal, c) Neither of the above. With c) effectively giving the government a free hand.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.
But I don't think such an absurd proposition would ever be allowed anywhere near the voters.
That's the only possible choice.
It is the preferred choice of some who do not want to leave.0 -
And even if Jeremy did - would his army of pig-shit thick keyboard warriors be able to keep their fingers from typing bile?brokenwheel said:
The trouble is if he did all of this would anyone believe him? Would any of those who have left actually rejoin? If not it doesn’t seem worth it to the Corbynites, I have a funny feeling they’ll prefer purity.AlastairMeeks said:0 -
Both main parties agreed to honour the resultTOPPING said:
The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.Floater said:
No, it really isn'tTOPPING said:
Deal:RemainIanB2 said:
The only way it could be done would be with a choice of: a) Remain in the EU on current terms, b) Leave the EU on the terms of Mrs M's deal, c) Neither of the above. With c) effectively giving the government a free hand.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgetwould literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there a without a lengthy judicial process.
But I don't think such an absurd proposition would ever be allowed anywhere near the voters.
That's the only possible choice.
It is the preferred choice of some who do not want to leave.
The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.0 -
I completely agree with that. May is incompetent.TOPPING said:
If this was even 0.01% in the mind of the Cons we wouldn't be having all this palaver right now. The government lead by Theresa May won't entertain having no deal as an option.Philip_Thompson said:
No deal could be defined as: reject the proposed deal and leave by *insert date here*. Parliament may ratify new deals that must include a 2 year exit clause.TOPPING said:
It would be Socratic in its complexity to describe adequately a no deal. So for no other reason than pragmatism it would not be possible to offer it, and as William says, the moment you write something down which constitutes no deal, people will spring up to say they didn't mean that.
So pragmatism rather than idealism rules it out.
Parliament loses the option to prevent Brexit via continuous extensions and the deal dies. Any new deals or side deals Parliament ratifies before Brexit day is then Parliaments prerogative and can be repealed by future Parliaments. We take back control.
But you said no deal can't be defined. I think my definition works just fine.0 -
The DWP select committee has an unusual composition now:
https://twitter.com/PPJamesPhillips/status/10989580991703777280 -
My assumption is that, given the very Blairite/Cameroon/Centrist politics espoused by TIG, they will eventually absorb the Liberal Democrats. Given the tarnished Liberal Democrat brand you could envisage a reverse takeover being to the Liberal Democrats' advantage, even if the TIG rebellion doesn't snowball. Consequently councillors won by the Liberal Democrats this May are to TIG's benefit.IanB2 said:
Yet TIG needs a councillor base quickly, to become credible. The appeals to councillors to join them, are going out already.OblitusSumMe said:
It will be interesting to see whether they lose council seats in May. There is a lot of potential upside for the Liberal Democrats as it would not be surprising to see the Tories, Labour and UKIP all lose a considerable number of seats.IanB2 said:
Thank you kindly.MarqueeMark said:
Hats off - you did.IanB2 said:
I did say yesterday that PC would give Labour a run for their money in Cardiff.
Both by-election results yesterday suggest that Labour is in for a torrid time at the polls, short term at least.
Unless sitting councillors defect it would be surprising if TIG were able to stand candidates in significant numbers, if at all.
The councillors in my old patch of LB Redbridge must be feeling this. Gapes has jumped to TIG already. Streeting - who until recently might have claimed leadership of the fight against Labour anti-semitism - is losing his allies as he sits inside Labour worried as a young man about where his best career prospects might lie. If TIG gains traction as a viable party, it is hard to see the council group holding together on one side or the other.
Of course, if the MP defections gather pace and bring large numbers of councillors (and presumably other activists and members if a member structure is created) with them then that would change the situation.0 -
Agreed. No Deal cannot be there (for Topping reasons) but it must be there if the Referendum is to have legitimacy. Thus no Ref.Endillion said:Yeah, I totally agree with all that. I just don't see how a referendum that leaves out an option that a large and vocal minority of people and MPs want, could possibly make our situation better.
My view is that a second referendum is therefore impossible (for this and other reasons).
And I can make many more technical arguments in that vein as to why REF2 is a terrible idea.
But the main reason (for me) is nothing to do with all of that detail. It is because REF1 was such a seismic event in our national life. It galvanized the country. Everyone got involved, it was just so important and massive and incredibly big. Most of all it was authentic.
When something like this takes place it is essential that it is not subsequently devalued.
For example, when the result came in I was shattered. I then had to find a way to live with it and I have. It was a landmark experience as I'm sure it was for others on both sides.
To junk it and do a re-run would be to invalidate that experience. It would be like being with a dear friend at the end, grieving for him, going to the funeral, afterwards slowly coming to terms with it and finally valuing the sad event and the coping process as an essential part of one's own life, and then a year or so later you find out that the old bastard had faked it and he's alive and living it up on the Costa del Sol.
Flash of delight, sure, and maybe a chuckle or two but the deep and lasting effect is that you've been cheated. The thing that seemed so profound turned out to be a nothing - worse than this it turned out to be a great big fraud.
That would be what REF2 would do. It cannot and must not happen.0 -
How can it be the preferred choice of people who prefer a different choice?Floater said:
No, it really isn'tTOPPING said:
Deal:RemainIanB2 said:
The only way it could be done would be with a choice of: a) Remain in the EU on current terms, b) Leave the EU on the terms of Mrs M's deal, c) Neither of the above. With c) effectively giving the government a free hand.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgets, or planes, or chainsaws. Nothing. No Deal couldn't possibly be on a ballot paper not because of the transparent self-harm it would involve but because it would literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there are a substantial number of people in the country who would want to vote for it, and it's difficult to see how it could be kept off without a lengthy judicial process.
But I don't think such an absurd proposition would ever be allowed anywhere near the voters.
That's the only possible choice.
It is the preferred choice of some who do not want to leave.0 -
It would be a democratic outrage to exclude an option that is currently far more popular than either of the Leave options and quite possibly more popular than both put together.Floater said:
Both main parties agreed to honour the resultTOPPING said:
The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.
The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.0 -
YawnFloater said:
Both main parties agreed to honour the resultTOPPING said:
The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.Floater said:
No, it really isn'tTOPPING said:
Deal:RemainIanB2 said:
The only way it could be done would be with a choice of: a) Remain in the EU on current terms, b) Leave the EU on the terms of Mrs M's deal, c) Neither of the above. With c) effectively giving the government a free hand.TOPPING said:
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgetwould literally be indescribable.Endillion said:
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:williamglenn said:
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.SquareRoot said:williamglenn said:
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."SquareRoot said:What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
- Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60%
- Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast
- Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there a without a lengthy judicial process.
But I don't think such an absurd proposition would ever be allowed anywhere near the voters.
That's the only possible choice.
It is the preferred choice of some who do not want to leave.
The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.0 -
What we're just demonstrated is why a referendum re-run is impossible. We can't agree on what the question would be. Just think of all the outrage if someone imposed it using their own criteria. It would solve nothing.0
-
More to the point, what is an outrage or not is irrelevant: what matters is what might get through parliament.AlastairMeeks said:
It would be a democratic outrage to exclude an option that is currently far more popular than either of the Leave options and quite possibly more popular than both put together.Floater said:
Both main parties agreed to honour the resultTOPPING said:
The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.
The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.0 -
YMMV, I guess. Thinking of the Tory activists I know locally - a couple of district/county councillors, a couple of wealthy business friends of Cameron, a couple of nice old dears - they are all strongly pro-Remain. We're a Remain area, so that's not too surprising, but I don't think your "only people" is universally true.Brom said:Yes but if there is a deal to vote for then May won't get the blame for no deal. Whereas if we remain half of the country turn against her, including the vast majority of Tory voters. Complete no brainer. Interesting that the only people who hope remain will be on the ballot paper are the people who wouldn't dare vote Tory anyway...
0
This discussion has been closed.