politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Listen to the PB / Polling Matters experts dissect polling on

kinabalu said:

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.

It was a great big fraud from the beginning. At this point the attempt to deliver something called Brexit is primarily a way of allowing those who spent years campaigning for it to save face.

Richard_Nabavi said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Floater said:

TOPPING said:

The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.

Both main parties agreed to honour the result

The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.

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.

More to the point, what is an outrage or not is irrelevant: what matters is what might get through parliament.

I saw you patiently yesterday afternoon trying to explain to people how to count, without success. I wasn't going to repeat that mistake today.

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Floater said:

TOPPING said:

The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.

Both main parties agreed to honour the result

The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.

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.

More to the point, what is an outrage or not is irrelevant: what matters is what might get through parliament.

Neither May nor Corbyn seem particularly keen on another referendum !

No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out.

The £ putting in a significant recovery the last few hours.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Sorry if this has been covered but I'd missed this .... Corbyn hides behind process rather than express a view and the trademark look away gives away his usual temper flash... I must admit I wasn't sure who the 'he' was in the tweet as might have been Jezza himself?

https://twitter.com/ProgressOnline/status/1098887911272005633

He seemed quite pleased about Galloway standing and winning against Labour in 2012;


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9175133/George-Galloway-wins-Bradford-West-by-election.html

(With apologies to the Lib Dem activist who I pinched this off...)

Two trot factions meeting in a hall
Two trot factions meeting in a hall
And if one trot faction should start an ugly brawl
There’ll be three trot factions meeting in a hall

IanB2 said:

Floater said:

TOPPING said:

Floater said:

TOPPING said:

IanB2 said:

TOPPING said:

Endillion said:

williamglenn said:

SquareRoot said:

williamglenn said:

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)

That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."

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..

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.

There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:
- 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.

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.

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.

But I don't think such an absurd proposition would ever be allowed anywhere near the voters.

Deal:Remain

That's the only possible choice.

No, it really isn't

It is the preferred choice of some who do not want to leave.

The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.

Both main parties agreed to honour the result

The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.

Yawn

Right back at ya

https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/1098534350801510400

Mr Nabavi,

"No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out."

So what would the question be? We're going in circles here? Remainers will only accept a question which ignores the result of the referendum we've already had. If you do that, why should anyone vote anyway?

No "Oh, we had our fingers crossed behind our backs when we promised to honour the first one" from MPs will cut any ice.

Fool me once, more fool you. Fool me twice, more fool me. There's an awful lot of resentment out there to damp down.

Afternoon all

I suppose Corbyn did have the choice of emulating Kinnock and leading the Party from the left back to the centre but that was never going to happen. To thine own self be true as the saying goes.

TIG Is a splinter group and so is the anti-Corbyn faction at this time but the reluctance of Corbyn to back a second vote (and we all know why) has left the party fragmented.

Strangely I am with Corbyn on a second vote. It's obfuscation as is a GE - we are down to the WDA with all its imperfections, a No Deal with all its confusions or a Revocation with all its recriminations.

kinabalu said:

Agreed. No Deal cannot be there (for Topping reasons) but it must be there if the Referendum is to have legitimacy. Thus no Ref.

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.

If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.

However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.

steve hawkes
‏Verified account @steve_hawkes
38m38 minutes ago

Growing rumours of another big Labour defection this weekend

*rubs hands*

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Floater said:

TOPPING said:

The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.

Both main parties agreed to honour the result

The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.

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.

More to the point, what is an outrage or not is irrelevant: what matters is what might get through parliament.

Neither May nor Corbyn seem particularly keen on another referendum !

No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out.

The risk the Tiggers have is that by "cleansing" the two main parties of the most extreme Remainers it opens up another option. An election starts to look viable as the die hard Remainers won't survive a General Election.

No, because the Tory party would split irrevocably if Theresa May tried to call an election on a platform of crashing out. it would also split, albeit with less damage in the long term, if she called it on a platform of excluding no deal. In any case, there's no time.

If she sought a Malthouse compromise style mandate that is possible. Nearly half the extreme MPs who rejected the Brady amendment have gone now from the party and would be replaced at an election.

The bigger problem is who would trust May at an election? But if she goes and a new leader seeks a mandate for a compromise then that is viable. Unlikely but viable.

Floater said:

Slackbladder said:

steve hawkes
‏Verified account @steve_hawkes
38m38 minutes ago

Growing rumours of another big Labour defection this weekend

*rubs hands*

time to stock up on the popcorn

Good luck with that.

CD13 said:

Mr Nabavi,

"No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out."

So what would the question be? We're going in circles here? Remainers will only accept a question which ignores the result of the referendum we've already had. If you do that, why should anyone vote anyway?

No "Oh, we had our fingers crossed behind our backs when we promised to honour the first one" from MPs will cut any ice.

Fool me once, more fool you. Fool me twice, more fool me. There's an awful lot of resentment out there to damp down.

It's very simple. There are basically three options. The least damaging is to leave with the deal. The absolute worst, so bad that it is not even conceivable that any responsible government could contemplate it, is to crash out in chaos. The third, which as you say would provoke a lot of resentment, is a Deal-Remain referendum. The latter is certainly a very bad option, but if the best option can't get past parliament, it's the next best alternative which has a chance (perhaps) of getting through parliament.

Floater said:

IanB2 said:

Floater said:

TOPPING said:

Floater said:

TOPPING said:

IanB2 said:

TOPPING said:

Endillion said:

williamglenn said:

SquareRoot said:

williamglenn said:

SquareRoot said:

What a best terms possible.. There is)

That's a circular argument: "settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."

We have chaos not to.

How will it settle it..

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.

There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:
- 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.

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.

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.

But I don't think such an absurd proposition would ever be allowed anywhere near the voters.

Deal:Remain

That's the only possible choice.

No, it really isn't

It is the preferred choice of some who do not want to leave.

The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.

Both main parties agreed to honour the result

The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.

Yawn

Right back at ya

The remarkable thing is that voters saw through all the noise and worked out that voting Labour to deprive TMay of her majority was the best way of throwing a spanner into Brexit. And, whatever the politicians might have said, they were right.

williamglenn said:

Slackbladder said:

steve hawkes
‏Verified account @steve_hawkes
38m38 minutes ago

Growing rumours of another big Labour defection this weekend

*rubs hands*

Big name or big number?

Tom Watson is no longer a "big Labour defection" since he went on a diet and took up cycling.

IanB2 said:

Floater said:

IanB2 said:

Floater said:

TOPPING said:

Floater said:

TOPPING said:

IanB2 said:

TOPPING said:

Endillion said:

williamglenn said:

SquareRoot said:

williamglenn said:

SquareRoot said:

What a best terms possible.. There is)

That's a circular argument: "settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."

We have chaos not to.

How will it settle it..

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.

There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example:
- 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.

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.

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.

But I don't think such an absurd proposition would ever be allowed anywhere near the voters.

Deal:Remain

That's the only possible choice.

No, it really isn't

It is the preferred choice of some who do not want to leave.

The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.

Both main parties agreed to honour the result

The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.

Yawn

Right back at ya

The remarkable thing is that voters saw through all the noise and worked out that voting Labour to deprive TMay of her majority was the best way of throwing a spanner into Brexit. And, whatever the politicians might have said, they were right.

Did they really do that though, or were they more interested in domestic policies?

IanB2 said:

Floater said:

IanB2 said:

Floater said:

TOPPING said:

Floater said:

TOPPING said:

IanB2 said:

TOPPING said:

Endillion said:

williamglenn said:

SquareRoot said:

williamglenn said:

SquareRoot said:

What a best terms possible.. There is)

That's a circular argument: "settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."

We have chaos not to.

How will it settle it..

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.

Th
- 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.

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.

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.

But I don't think such an absurd proposition would ever be allowed anywhere near the voters.

Deal:Remain

That's the only possible choice.

No, it really isn't

It is the preferred choice of some who do not want to leave.

The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.

Both main parties agreed to honour the result

The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.

Yawn

Right back at ya

The remarkable thing is that voters saw through all the noise and worked out that voting Labour to deprive TMay of her majority was the best way of throwing a spanner into Brexit. And, whatever the politicians might have said, they were right.

oh - I thought it was because Jezza was great on campaign and not only was Tezza utterly shite they cane out with a utterly self destructive manifesto.

But hey ho - the result sure made things more complicated.

Floater said:

IanB2 said:

Floater said:

TOPPING said:

Floater said:

It is the preferred choice of some who do not want to leave.

The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.

Both main parties agreed to honour the result

The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.

Yawn

Right back at ya

True; yawning is indeed infectious.

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

It was a great big fraud from the beginning. At this point the attempt to deliver something called Brexit is primarily a way of allowing those who spent years campaigning for it to save face.

The 2016 referendum wasn't a fraud. It was simply a terrible idea.

Let's not double down by doing it again.

You are devaluing it right there. How dare you call something so precious to so many people "a terrible idea"!

Richard_Nabavi said:

CD13 said:

Mr Nabavi,

"No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out."

So what would the question be? We're going in circles here? Remainers will only accept a question which ignores the result of the referendum we've already had. If you do that, why should anyone vote anyway?

No "Oh, we had our fingers crossed behind our backs when we promised to honour the first one" from MPs will cut any ice.

Fool me once, more fool you. Fool me twice, more fool me. There's an awful lot of resentment out there to damp down.

It's very simple. There are basically three options. The least damaging is to leave with the deal. The absolute worst, so bad that it is not even conceivable that any responsible government could contemplate it, is to crash out in chaos. The third, which as you say would provoke a lot of resentment, is a Deal-Remain referendum. The latter is certainly a very bad option, but if the best option can't get past parliament, it's the next best alternative which has a chance (perhaps) of getting through parliament.

You do realise that both sides are putting in plans - including preparing and passing laws to facilitate trade in the event of a "no deal"?

RobD said:

Floater said:

Slackbladder said:

steve hawkes
‏Verified account @steve_hawkes
38m38 minutes ago

Growing rumours of another big Labour defection this weekend

*rubs hands*

time to stock up on the popcorn

Good luck with that.

oh no the shelves are empty.... oh wait

eek said:

If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.

However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.

I disagree with para 1. Parliament trashing the Deal and then asking the people, "It's terrible, are you sure you wouldn't rather Remain?" is highly disrespectful to the original referendum.

But I agree with para 2. No formulation in any case works.

Either way, detail or big picture, REF2 stinks.

Richard_Nabavi said:

CD13 said:

Mr Nabavi,

"No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out."

So what would the question be? We're going in circles here? Remainers will only accept a question which ignores the result of the referendum we've already had. If you do that, why should anyone vote anyway?

No "Oh, we had our fingers crossed behind our backs when we promised to honour the first one" from MPs will cut any ice.

Fool me once, more fool you. Fool me twice, more fool me. There's an awful lot of resentment out there to damp down.

It's very simple. There are basically three options. The least damaging is to leave with the deal. The absolute worst, so bad that it is not even conceivable that any responsible government could contemplate it, is to crash out in chaos. The third, which as you say would provoke a lot of resentment, is a Deal-Remain referendum. The latter is certainly a very bad option, but if the best option can't get past parliament, it's the next best alternative which has a chance (perhaps) of getting through parliament.

Hasn't the government spent a not inconsiderable sum of money preparing for no deal?

Although there are cabinet ministers not happy about it I think it's fair to say that government policy is to leave the EU, come what may, on March 29th, but hopefully to do so with a deal.

Slackbladder said:

steve hawkes
‏Verified account @steve_hawkes
38m38 minutes ago

Growing rumours of another big Labour defection this weekend

*rubs hands*

Is it Rachael Swindon?

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1098969209961435138

https://twitter.com/David_K_Clark/status/1098860271576207363

El_Capitano said:

williamglenn said:

Slackbladder said:

steve hawkes
‏Verified account @steve_hawkes
38m38 minutes ago

Growing rumours of another big Labour defection this weekend

*rubs hands*

Big name or big number?

Tom Watson is no longer a "big Labour defection" since he went on a diet and took up cycling.

To be fair i'm not a fan of Watson but he has made some serious efforts to get himself in a healthier shape.

The boy did good.

Richard_Nabavi said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Interesting wording to that Patrick Wintour tweet. It suggests that these are not proto-TIGgers but independent Labourites.

Their demands sound indistinguishable from those of the TIGgers, though.

Edit: Maybe they just don't want to be associated with the Tory defectors.

I suspect they're further Ian Austins, whose constituencies/backgrounds are more Dudley than Streatham/South Cambs. Oldish-school Labour moderates in working class areas who haven't got time for Corbyn's Palestinian mates or knitting your own falafel, but nor will they go to the wall for Remain.

I wonder if we're in for a game of Mike Reid's Runaround*... everyone chooses their own People's Front of Judea variant for the next couple of weeks, and then has a chance to change their answer when they've seen how popular each one is.

*Or maybe it's Love Island. Or speed-dating. Or dogs sniffing each other's arses.

oxfordsimon said:

Slackbladder said:

steve hawkes
‏Verified account @steve_hawkes
38m38 minutes ago

Growing rumours of another big Labour defection this weekend

*rubs hands*

Another? There hasn't been a big Labour defection as of yet.

Some unknown backbenchers of little or no repute plus some known malcontents.

There hasn't been a big defection yet.

A former leadership contender (favourite in the betting for a while) and a former shadow Chancellor are big defections.

Mr. Borough, DefCon 1. The higher the number the less the danger.

El_Capitano said:

Slackbladder said:

steve hawkes
‏Verified account @steve_hawkes
38m38 minutes ago

Growing rumours of another big Labour defection this weekend

*rubs hands*

Is it Rachael Swindon?

Don't get my hopes up.

https://twitter.com/anguswalkertalk/status/1098892592685740033

AlastairMeeks said:

oxfordsimon said:

Slackbladder said:

steve hawkes
‏Verified account @steve_hawkes
38m38 minutes ago

Growing rumours of another big Labour defection this weekend

*rubs hands*

Another? There hasn't been a big Labour defection as of yet.

Some unknown backbenchers of little or no repute plus some known malcontents.

There hasn't been a big defection yet.

A former leadership contender (favourite in the betting for a while) and a former shadow Chancellor are big defections.

Chuka was not a contender - he bottled it because of what the press were going to reveal (and may well still do)

And Leslie was appointed by Harman as a stopgap until the new leadership team was elected

Neither of them are big figures.

https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/1098968778799529984

https://twitter.com/robfuller91/status/1098969162494423043

kinabalu said:

You cannot have NO DEAL as a positive choice on the ballot - since it is insufficiently describable other than 'disaster' - but you COULD have a simple Ratify the Deal, Yes or No.

Where 'Yes' means we leave with the Deal and 'No' is back to the impasse.

Drawback is that only the Yes resolves the matter. Also unlikely that parliament would approve this formulation.

So in practice a binary Deal vs Remain is the only likely format - for this 2nd referendum that is not in any event going to happen.

What about how I described it below. Perhaps better call it "No irreversible deal". Allow Parliament to sign new deals but only on condition they include an exit clause so if we don't like the deal we can elect people who will revoke it. Just as the EU itself had an exit clause.

rottenborough said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Slackbladder, Starmer and Cooper are the ones that probably matter most. Well, them and Watson, but Watson's in a uniquely tricky position.

Could Starmer really go, even if he really wanted to, just as Brexit comes to the cliff edge?

Watson would be a DefCon 5 event. And would make unions start to consider their positioning.

Defcon 5 is no worries.

eek said:

kinabalu said:

eek said:

If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.

However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.

I disagree with para 1. Parliament trashing the Deal and then asking the people, "It's terrible, are you sure you wouldn't rather Remain?" is highly disrespectful to the original referendum.

But I agree with para 2. No formulation in any case works.

Either way, detail or big picture, REF2 stinks.

Parliament trashing the deal is nothing to do with the deal itself. There is a Deal - the fact most MPs have trashed it doesn't stop it being an option in a referendum - it might however make it hard for your average MP to campaign for it.

***However perhaps your average MP should have thought things through a bit more*** as we are now 5 weeks away from March 29th and we still don't have a plan 325 MPs agree upon...

God, yeah. I still can't believe the numbers and vehemence with which the deal was trashed by all sides (especially of the Tories) as soon as it came out. Cautious expressions of doubt which gave them some wiggle room would have closed off none of their options to vote against, but would have allowed them to U-turn if the alternatives became even worse.

As it is, there are too many TV clips in existence of MPs saying "this is the worst thing since AIDS and I'd sooner cut out my own kidneys with a rusty spoon than vote for anything even slightly resembling this" (ish), which they know Andrew Neil and Adam Boulton will lampoon or harpoon them with if they now back a(ny) deal.

Japanese punctuality news: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47328512

Endillion said:

rottenborough said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Slackbladder, Starmer and Cooper are the ones that probably matter most. Well, them and Watson, but Watson's in a uniquely tricky position.

Could Starmer really go, even if he really wanted to, just as Brexit comes to the cliff edge?

Watson would be a DefCon 5 event. And would make unions start to consider their positioning.

Watson can't go. If he does, his replacement as Deputy Leader gets voted on, which means a Corbynite (and God help them, possibly Chris Williamson). He is uniquely situated in that his defection would actually cause severe irreparable harm to the Party. He must be acutely aware of that fact and the implied responsibility it places on him to stay, so my guess is he'll only leave if at least another hundred go first.

I haven't noticed those who've gone so far being *that* worried about causing maximum damage on the way out.

I'm not sure Watson's a foregone conclusion either way, but if he's decided time's up, he may see those points as mitigating rather than aggravating factors.

Harris_Tweed said:

eek said:

kinabalu said:

eek said:

If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.

However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.

I disagree with para 1. Parliament trashing the Deal and then asking the people, "It's terrible, are you sure you wouldn't rather Remain?" is highly disrespectful to the original referendum.

But I agree with para 2. No formulation in any case works.

Either way, detail or big picture, REF2 stinks.

Parliament trashing the deal is nothing to do with the deal itself. There is a Deal - the fact most MPs have trashed it doesn't stop it being an option in a referendum - it might however make it hard for your average MP to campaign for it.

***However perhaps your average MP should have thought things through a bit more*** as we are now 5 weeks away from March 29th and we still don't have a plan 325 MPs agree upon...

God, yeah. I still can't believe the numbers and vehemence with which the deal was trashed by all sides (especially of the Tories) as soon as it came out. Cautious expressions of doubt which gave them some wiggle room would have closed off none of their options to vote against, but would have allowed them to U-turn if the alternatives became even worse.

As it is, there are too many TV clips in existence of MPs saying "this is the worst thing since AIDS and I'd sooner cut out my own kidneys with a rusty spoon than vote for anything even slightly resembling this" (ish), which they know Andrew Neil and Adam Boulton will lampoon or harpoon them with if they now back a(ny) deal.

They might have to close their eyes and think of England

Ishmael_Z said:

ReggieCide said:

Ishmael_Z said:

kinabalu said:

eek said:

If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.

However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.

I disagree with para 1. Parliament trashing the Deal and then asking the people, "It's terrible, are you sure you wouldn't rather Remain?" is highly disrespectful to the original referendum.

But I agree with para 2. No formulation in any case works.

Either way, detail or big picture, REF2 stinks.

I can never see the word "respect" these days without a. mentally adding the word "innit" and b. thinking of G Galloway, but leaving that aside why would you respect an abstract thing like a referendum result, rather than the people behind it, and why would trusting them to be able to change their minds when the facts change not be respecting them?

what "facts" are these?

The fact that brexit has turned out to be the biggest national clusterfuck since at least Suez (unless you'd like to name another candidate?) which was not generally foreseen as a likely outcome at the time of the referendum. That fact.

To be fair, it was clear to anyone who looked into it that it was a likely Suez-in-the-making.

But certainly, I didn’t deny, before the referendum, that some variants of Brexit were fair and achievable.

Unlike 2016 we don’t have “some Brexit”, we have “a Brexit” on the table. Quite right we should have the opportunity to go for it, ask for another, or Remain.

Sean_F said:

Before long, we'll have robots to wipe our bottoms when we get old.

Is Liam trying to do a deal?

justin124 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

oxfordsimon said:

Slackbladder said:

steve hawkes
‏Verified account @steve_hawkes
38m38 minutes ago

Growing rumours of another big Labour defection this weekend

*rubs hands*

Another? There hasn't been a big Labour defection as of yet.

Some unknown backbenchers of little or no repute plus some known malcontents.

There hasn't been a big defection yet.

A former leadership contender (favourite in the betting for a while) and a former shadow Chancellor are big defections.

Leslie was only Acting Shadow Chancellor under Harriet Harman and was seriously lightweight and overpromoted. Hardly counts as a big name.

He's not even been on Strictly (has he?)

Endillion said:

rottenborough said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Slackbladder, Starmer and Cooper are the ones that probably matter most. Well, them and Watson, but Watson's in a uniquely tricky position.

Could Starmer really go, even if he really wanted to, just as Brexit comes to the cliff edge?

Watson would be a DefCon 5 event. And would make unions start to consider their positioning.

Watson can't go. If he does, his replacement as Deputy Leader gets voted on, which means a Corbynite (and God help them, possibly Chris Williamson). He is uniquely situated in that his defection would actually cause severe irreparable harm to the Party. He must be acutely aware of that fact and the implied responsibility it places on him to stay, so my guess is he'll only leave if at least another hundred go first.

Doesn’t that cut both ways? If he leaves, another hundred would be forced to follow.

ReggieCide said:

Ishmael_Z said:

ReggieCide said:

Ishmael_Z said:

kinabalu said:

eek said:

If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.

However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.

I disagree with para 1. Parliament trashing the Deal and then asking the people, "It's terrible, are you sure you wouldn't rather Remain?" is highly disrespectful to the original referendum.

But I agree with para 2. No formulation in any case works.

Either way, detail or big picture, REF2 stinks.

I can never see the word "respect" these days without a. mentally adding the word "innit" and b. thinking of G Galloway, but leaving that aside why would you respect an abstract thing like a referendum result, rather than the people behind it, and why would trusting them to be able to change their minds when the facts change not be respecting them?

what "facts" are these?

The fact that brexit has turned out to be the biggest national clusterfuck since at least Suez (unless you'd like to name another candidate?) which was not generally foreseen as a likely outcome at the time of the referendum. That fact.

Most MPs have almost always been incompetent. We knew that back then.

So it was never a bright idea to think they could successfully navigate such a dramatic change to our political and economic circumstances then, was it?