> @Chris said: > Before I go, out of curiosity I'll just try again to see if anyone knows the justification for YouGov prompting for TBP in their European election polling and not in their Westminster polling - on their declared policy of not prompting until they're sure it makes no difference.
> @MarkHopkins said: > > II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead. > ---------------
This is the most dishonest gaslighting imaginable. We'd have had Cameron's deal, which entrenched a half-in, half-out compromise. We'd have had Farage attempting to repeat the SNP's feat of turning the energy of the referendum into electoral success. And we'd have had calls for a second referendum dominating the race to succeed David Cameron.
> @MarkHopkins said: > > II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead. >
That isn't true. Full speed ahead wasn't an option because we already had Cameron's Deal, and the idea that our opt-outs would have gone if we'd voted for Remain is ludicrous.
If it had been close I think there would have been lots of demands from the losers for them to be listened to and I think the question of doing something on immigration would have remained.
> @MarkHopkins said: > I. There are good compromises and bad compromises and sadly TMay's (un) withdrawal agreement fell in the latter category. > > II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead. > > III. We voted leave - if in the end that means WTO exit then that is what needs to happen. You might not like it, you might think it's bad, but that's just your opinion. Others differ. > > IV. Corbyn trying to compromise? LOL.
We were told at the referendum that leavers had no plan for no deal because they were going to get a good deal.
It's quite hard to translate that into acceptance of a no deal Brexit.
> @williamglenn said: > > @Chris said: > > > > That question was too hard, apparently. > ----- > > You clearly missed the responses.
No - I replied to them both.
One said "Ask YouGov", which didn't make sense, as I'd already read YouGov's article on prompting and there was no explanation there.
The other suggested YouGov viewed TBP as the successor of UKIP, but that didn't explain it because the article explained that YouGov _had_ decided to prompt for UKIP in Westminster polling.
So, actually, none of the people who were waxing so lyrical about this can actually give any justification for TBP being treated in one way in the European polls and a different way in the Westminster ones.
> I. There are good compromises and bad compromises and sadly TMay's (un) withdrawal agreement fell in the latter category.
>
> II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead.
>
> III. We voted leave - if in the end that means WTO exit then that is what needs to happen. You might not like it, you might think it's bad, but that's just your opinion. Others differ.
>
> IV. Corbyn trying to compromise? LOL.
There is no mandate for No Deal. Please stop pretending there is.
A WTO-exit plus side arrangements is still a deal. There is no such thing as No Deal. Please stop pretending there is.
In any event, TBP won the Euro elections and therefore represent Britain's interests to the EU. Had the election been on the same system as our GEs, then they would have won a landslide victory. So there is a very strong mandate for their position.
Personally I would have preferred a proper exit deal, but the establishment seem determined to block that and only give us BINO.
> I. There are good compromises and bad compromises and sadly TMay's (un) withdrawal agreement fell in the latter category.
>
> II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead.
>
> III. We voted leave - if in the end that means WTO exit then that is what needs to happen. You might not like it, you might think it's bad, but that's just your opinion. Others differ.
>
> IV. Corbyn trying to compromise? LOL.
We were told at the referendum that leavers had no plan for no deal because they were going to get a good deal.
It's quite hard to translate that into acceptance of a no deal Brexit.
The problem is that the Leavers weren't allowed to negotiate so we don't know what result they may have agreed.
More and more people have moved over to a simple WTO-exit as an alternative to the Remainers-deal that is unacceptable.
We're getting what we deserve. Yep, we've been led poorly, ill served by our leaders, but we put them there and have rewarded the elements which have been making our position riskier and riskier, more and more bitter and damaging.
> @Chris said: > > No - I replied to them both. > > One said "Ask YouGov", which didn't make sense, as I'd already read YouGov's article on prompting and there was no explanation there. > > The other suggested YouGov viewed TBP as the successor of UKIP, but that didn't explain it because the article explained that YouGov _had_ decided to prompt for UKIP in Westminster polling. > > So, actually, none of the people who were waxing so lyrical about this can actually give any justification for TBP being treated in one way in the European polls and a different way in the Westminster ones.
-----
I gave you two that you ignored. In European elections there's less reason for people not to follow through on a protest vote so the distortion effect doesn't apply to the same extent, and secondly because European election polling isn't done week in, week out.
What are your credentials on polling methodology, statistics or psychology?
As someone (perhaps Mr. Palmer, now I come to think of it) said previously, the dual rising of the Lib Dems and BP make it more difficult to try and shift away from more hardline positions because those exist on both sides.
> @kle4 said: > We're getting what we deserve. Yep, we've been led poorly, ill served by our leaders, but we put them there and have rewarded the elements which have been making our position riskier and riskier, more and more bitter and damaging.
Yes, there's something ridiculous about people getting angry at politicians when the only reason they're there is because the same people voted for them.
> @williamglenn said: > > @MarkHopkins said: > > > > II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead. > > > --------------- > > This is the most dishonest gaslighting imaginable. We'd have had Cameron's deal, which entrenched a half-in, half-out compromise. We'd have had Farage attempting to repeat the SNP's feat of turning the energy of the referendum into electoral success. And we'd have had calls for a second referendum dominating the race to succeed David Cameron. __________________
> @DavidL said: > "We can opt to stay in the EU after all. That got 34.9% of the vote (LibDem+Green+ChUK). " > > > > That's a very Anglocentric view of who the Remain parties are. > > Agreed. The SNP and PC votes should really be added to the hard remain side. OTOH a significant part of the Tory vote reflects a hard leave.
How can you tell, the Tory official policy is still TMay's, which isn't No Deal.
> We're getting what we deserve. Yep, we've been led poorly, ill served by our leaders, but we put them there and have rewarded the elements which have been making our position riskier and riskier, more and more bitter and damaging.
Yes, there's something ridiculous about people getting angry at politicians when the only reason they're there is because the same people voted for them.
Millions of people, almost drone like tend to go and vote - particularly for either Labour or Conservative at every General Election without the slightest thought for any of their policies I expect.
Very kind thanks - have had a surfeit of Romeo and Juliet recently. Saw it at Covent Garden earlier this month and am going to the live screening week after next!!!
> @williamglenn said: > > @Chris said: > > > > No - I replied to them both. > > > > One said "Ask YouGov", which didn't make sense, as I'd already read YouGov's article on prompting and there was no explanation there. > > > > The other suggested YouGov viewed TBP as the successor of UKIP, but that didn't explain it because the article explained that YouGov _had_ decided to prompt for UKIP in Westminster polling. > > > > So, actually, none of the people who were waxing so lyrical about this can actually give any justification for TBP being treated in one way in the European polls and a different way in the Westminster ones. > > ----- > > I gave you two that you ignored. In European elections there's less reason for people not to follow through on a protest vote so the distortion effect doesn't apply to the same extent, and secondly because European election polling isn't done week in, week out. > > What are your credentials on polling methodology, statistics or psychology?
Well, the second one still doesn't make much sense, but top marks for effort on the first, anyway. It was worrying me that people were finding it so hard to come up with some kind of post hoc justification.
As for credentials, I wouldn't push it, but as you ask I have a Ph.D. in applied mathematics. What have you got?
> @MarkHopkins said: > > @MarkHopkins said: > > > I. There are good compromises and bad compromises and sadly TMay's (un) withdrawal agreement fell in the latter category. > > > > > > II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead. > > > > > > III. We voted leave - if in the end that means WTO exit then that is what needs to happen. You might not like it, you might think it's bad, but that's just your opinion. Others differ. > > > > > > IV. Corbyn trying to compromise? LOL. > > > > We were told at the referendum that leavers had no plan for no deal because they were going to get a good deal. > > > > It's quite hard to translate that into acceptance of a no deal Brexit. > > > The problem is that the Leavers weren't allowed to negotiate so we don't know what result they may have agreed. > > More and more people have moved over to a simple WTO-exit as an alternative to the Remainers-deal that is unacceptable.
That does not alter the fact that the referendum did not mandate a no deal Brexit.
> @TOPPING said: > Anyone fancy Romeo & Juliet in Islington tonight? Two tickets going to be wasted otherwise > > https://www.backyardcinema.co.uk/past_event/romeojuliet/ > > Very kind thanks - have had a surfeit of Romeo and Juliet recently. Saw it at Covent Garden earlier this month and am going to the live screening week after next!!!
That does not alter the fact that the referendum did not mandate a no deal Brexit.
(We) remainers need to get over this. The referendum asked people whether they wanted to leave the EU. They did.
I would take a thousand @Richard_Tyndalls over Mark Francois but the message is the same - just get out, and if that means leave with no deal then so be it.
I think it would be extremely damaging economically and socially but I cannot argue with the contention that they want to leave any old how because that's what the UK voted for.
> @Pulpstar said: > > @kle4 said: > > > We're getting what we deserve. Yep, we've been led poorly, ill served by our leaders, but we put them there and have rewarded the elements which have been making our position riskier and riskier, more and more bitter and damaging. > > > > Yes, there's something ridiculous about people getting angry at politicians when the only reason they're there is because the same people voted for them. > > Millions of people, almost drone like tend to go and vote - particularly for either Labour or Conservative at every General Election without the slightest thought for any of their policies I expect.
I would not be surprised if there were studies that proved peoples' support for a policy dramatically changes depending on who they think is promoting it, though I cannot be bothered to go looking to see if that is so.
All about the right tribe winning. Not that people without any ideological conviction always looking for a compromise middle ground will always be the right move, but frankly a less than satisfying muddle would be preferable to this deadlocked limbo with the prospect of only total victory for one or the other side.
> @OblitusSumMe said: > > @MarkHopkins said: > > > > II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead. > > > > That isn't true. Full speed ahead wasn't an option because we already had Cameron's Deal, and the idea that our opt-outs would have gone if we'd voted for Remain is ludicrous. > > If it had been close I think there would have been lots of demands from the losers for them to be listened to and I think the question of doing something on immigration would have remained.
Rubbish. Cameron's deal wasnt worth the paper it was written on. It was everything carries on as was dressed up as a deal.
> @williamglenn said: > > @MarkHopkins said: > > > > II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead. > > > --------------- > > This is the most dishonest gaslighting imaginable. We'd have had Cameron's deal, which entrenched a half-in, half-out compromise. We'd have had Farage attempting to repeat the SNP's feat of turning the energy of the referendum into electoral success. And we'd have had calls for a second referendum dominating the race to succeed David Cameron.
> @kle4 said: > > @Pulpstar said: > > > @kle4 said: > > > > > We're getting what we deserve. Yep, we've been led poorly, ill served by our leaders, but we put them there and have rewarded the elements which have been making our position riskier and riskier, more and more bitter and damaging. > > > > > > > > Yes, there's something ridiculous about people getting angry at politicians when the only reason they're there is because the same people voted for them. > > > > Millions of people, almost drone like tend to go and vote - particularly for either Labour or Conservative at every General Election without the slightest thought for any of their policies I expect. > > I would not be surprised if there were studies that proved peoples' support for a policy dramatically changes depending on who they think is promoting it, though I cannot be bothered to go looking to see if that is so. > > All about the right tribe winning. Not that people without any ideological conviction always looking for a compromise middle ground will always be the right move, but frankly a less than satisfying muddle would be preferable to this deadlocked limbo with the prospect of only total victory for one or the other side.
As you say, the main motivation is often defeating the other side and denying them power. If your side wins you just hope they make a decent fist of it. Tory and Labour prop each other up, and it is fitting that they are going down together.
That is impressive. It is quite tricky to articulate like the inarticulate.
Look mate we voted Leave so we should just fucking LEAVE innit.
Fucking politicians they're all the same. Selling us up the river because they're shit scared of the Germans.
My grandad would be turning in his grave. He survived the blitz. So don't tell me about the Germans and the EU. You can stick that up yer remainery arse.
> @TOPPING said: > That does not alter the fact that the referendum did not mandate a no deal Brexit. > > (We) remainers need to get over this. The referendum asked people whether they wanted to leave the EU. They did. > > I would take a thousand @Richard_Tyndalls over Mark Francois but the message is the same - just get out, and if that means leave with no deal then so be it. > > I think it would be extremely damaging economically and socially but I cannot argue with the contention that they want to leave any old how because that's what the UK voted for.
I think it is reasonable to assume that a considerable number of voters gave weight to all the assurances that we wouldn’t leave “any old how” but would have a smooth transition to a painless deal.
> @TOPPING said: > That does not alter the fact that the referendum did not mandate a no deal Brexit. > > (We) remainers need to get over this. The referendum asked people whether they wanted to leave the EU. They did. > > I would take a thousand @Richard_Tyndalls over Mark Francois but the message is the same - just get out, and if that means leave with no deal then so be it. > > I think it would be extremely damaging economically and socially but I cannot argue with the contention that they want to leave any old how because that's what the UK voted for.
For once I don't agree with you Mr T. It was clearly presented as a dead cert deal. That was what people voted for. The Brexit Party just got 32% on a platform of No Surrender, No Deal.
There is no mandate. If it is what Leavers think people want then they ought to be campaigning for another ref. Otherwise they should accept May's version of Hard Brexit and then campaign to make it even more damaging if that is what they want.
> @kinabalu said: > That is impressive. It is quite tricky to articulate like the inarticulate. > > Look mate we voted Leave so we should just fucking LEAVE innit. > > Fucking politicians they're all the same. Selling us up the river because they're shit scared of the Germans. > > My grandad would be turning in his grave. He survived the blitz. So don't tell me about the Germans and the EU. You can stick that up yer remainery arse. > > See? It's easy once you get going. > ☺ So you want to see the British economy completely undermined. Already watching the pharmaceutical industry move out and our Motor Industry operating at asubstantially lower level. Brexit makes us all poorer
That does not alter the fact that the referendum did not mandate a no deal Brexit.
(We) remainers need to get over this. The referendum asked people whether they wanted to leave the EU. They did.
I would take a thousand @Richard_Tyndalls over Mark Francois but the message is the same - just get out, and if that means leave with no deal then so be it.
I think it would be extremely damaging economically and socially but I cannot argue with the contention that they want to leave any old how because that's what the UK voted for.
I thought we were a well educated, advanced democracy? What an incredibly juvenile way to deal with things. “Let’s just leave with no planning, just for the sake of it.”
> @MarkHopkins said: > That does not alter the fact that the referendum did not mandate a no deal Brexit. > > > That's a different meaning of the word mandate. > > No the referendum didn't force a WTO Brexit, but if that's the only way for it to happen then that's the route that needs to be taken.
That is a very different position to what people were promised in June 2016. Cannot take such a step without getting a confirmatory referendum.
> @MikeSmithson said: > > @kinabalu said: > > That is impressive. It is quite tricky to articulate like the inarticulate. > > > > Look mate we voted Leave so we should just fucking LEAVE innit. > > > > Fucking politicians they're all the same. Selling us up the river because they're shit scared of the Germans. > > > > My grandad would be turning in his grave. He survived the blitz. So don't tell me about the Germans and the EU. You can stick that up yer remainery arse. > > > > See? It's easy once you get going. > > ☺ > So you want to see the British economy completely undermined. Already watching the pharmaceutical industry move out and our Motor Industry operating at asubstantially lower level. Brexit makes us all poorer >
> > > We're getting what we deserve. Yep, we've been led poorly, ill served by our leaders, but we put them there and have rewarded the elements which have been making our position riskier and riskier, more and more bitter and damaging.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, there's something ridiculous about people getting angry at politicians when the only reason they're there is because the same people voted for them.
> >
> > Millions of people, almost drone like tend to go and vote - particularly for either Labour or Conservative at every General Election without the slightest thought for any of their policies I expect.
>
> I would not be surprised if there were studies that proved peoples' support for a policy dramatically changes depending on who they think is promoting it, though I cannot be bothered to go looking to see if that is so.
>
> All about the right tribe winning. Not that people without any ideological conviction always looking for a compromise middle ground will always be the right move, but frankly a less than satisfying muddle would be preferable to this deadlocked limbo with the prospect of only total victory for one or the other side.
As you say, the main motivation is often defeating the other side and denying them power. If your side wins you just hope they make a decent fist of it. Tory and Labour prop each other up, and it is fitting that they are going down together.
Fitting, perhaps, and yet I do not find it encouraging for our short and medium term prospects.
> @AndyJS said: > > @kle4 said: > > We're getting what we deserve. Yep, we've been led poorly, ill served by our leaders, but we put them there and have rewarded the elements which have been making our position riskier and riskier, more and more bitter and damaging. > > Yes, there's something ridiculous about people getting angry at politicians when the only reason they're there is because the same people voted for them.
Yes that's true, but in reality it is not quite so simple. Most people vote on party lines, candidates are secondary, and over the past few decades the candidates put forward by all parties have generally become younger, they are much more likely to have spent their whole career in politics and a much greater emphasis is placed on local connections to their constituency than used to be the case. MPs spend much of their time on media appearances (which few people see) or constituency work. It is hard to deny that this has led to a weaker cohort of MPs, a dearth of real life experience and the elevation of soundbite media skills over evidence-based policy formation. And the fortress-like security that now surrounds senior politicians cuts them off even more from the lives of their electors (in footage of political meetings from the 1960s or 1970s the lack of security is very obvious, even though this was the height of the IRA bombing campaign). All of these factors have fed the alienation of politicians from the public they represent.
I think it is reasonable to assume that a considerable number of voters gave weight to all the assurances that we wouldn’t leave “any old how” but would have a smooth transition to a painless deal.
It is reasonable to assume that but so what? It remains an assumption. We have one data point in this which is that the UK voted to leave and quite frankly if people voted to leave not realising that it could come to this then they only just deserve to be allowed to keep voting in elections.
> @MikeSmithson said: > > @kinabalu said: > > That is impressive. It is quite tricky to articulate like the inarticulate. > > > > Look mate we voted Leave so we should just fucking LEAVE innit. > > > > Fucking politicians they're all the same. Selling us up the river because they're shit scared of the Germans. > > > > My grandad would be turning in his grave. He survived the blitz. So don't tell me about the Germans and the EU. You can stick that up yer remainery arse. > > > > See? It's easy once you get going. > > ☺ > So you want to see the British economy completely undermined. Already watching the pharmaceutical industry move out and our Motor Industry operating at asubstantially lower level. Brexit makes us all poorer >
I think he was being ironic Mike. he was articulating in the style of the inarticulate!
> @Morris_Dancer said: > Good afternoon, everyone. > > As someone (perhaps Mr. Palmer, now I come to think of it) said previously, the dual rising of the Lib Dems and BP make it more difficult to try and shift away from more hardline positions because those exist on both sides.
What we need is a mediator. Someone who is truly independent and so can be trusted by both sides to listen, to tell us fairly when we're being ridiculous and to help both sides walk back from their extreme positions and find a compromise.
If the monarchy exists to do anything except to be an empty symbol then surely now HMQ needs to bang heads together to force a resolution.
That does not alter the fact that the referendum did not mandate a no deal Brexit.
(We) remainers need to get over this. The referendum asked people whether they wanted to leave the EU. They did.
I would take a thousand @Richard_Tyndalls over Mark Francois but the message is the same - just get out, and if that means leave with no deal then so be it.
I think it would be extremely damaging economically and socially but I cannot argue with the contention that they want to leave any old how because that's what the UK voted for.
I thought we were a well educated, advanced democracy? What an incredibly juvenile way to deal with things. “Let’s just leave with no planning, just for the sake of it.”
As I said, I agree with you (and you @Nigel ) but the fact remains that part of the tragedy of having voted to leave is that this was exactly a central premise in the scenario analysis and either people performed that scenario analysis and came to that conclusion in which case they are morons, or they did not perform that scenario analysis in which case they are beyond moronic.
But they are the people and they voted so here we are.
> @MarkHopkins said: > > @MarkHopkins said: > > > I. There are good compromises and bad compromises and sadly TMay's (un) withdrawal agreement fell in the latter category. > > > > > > II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead. > > > > > > III. We voted leave - if in the end that means WTO exit then that is what needs to happen. You might not like it, you might think it's bad, but that's just your opinion. Others differ. > > > > > > IV. Corbyn trying to compromise? LOL. > > > > There is no mandate for No Deal. Please stop pretending there is. > > > A WTO-exit plus side arrangements is still a deal. There is no such thing as No Deal. Please stop pretending there is. > > In any event, TBP won the Euro elections and therefore represent Britain's interests to the EU. Had the election been on the same system as our GEs, then they would have won a landslide victory. So there is a very strong mandate for their position. > > Personally I would have preferred a proper exit deal, but the establishment seem determined to block that and only give us BINO.
With 31% of the vote and 40% of the MEPs? You have a funny idea of a mandate for something so drastic. Calling FPTnP to your aid is desperation indeed - aside from the fact that people would have voted differently under that flawed system, its weakness is that it delivers a lot of power with appallingly weak mandates.
> @kle4 said: > > @rottenborough said: > > It started with him and his mobile phone. Now seems he is followed by photographers and TV cameras. Rory on his way... > > > > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1134477740202254336 > > At this rate he might even make it to the top 5. > > Journalists must be very thankful though, he has at least provided talking points and a bit more originality compared to the rest.
He's in Stockbridge today? Leith would be more challenging. If the in-laws weren't visiting I'd have been tempted to try and catch him for a chat.
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that later on today. I think both lists are already heavily based on ConHome which is why I haven't done a separate list for them. > > > > The totals for the merged list are: > > > > Johnson 30 > > Hunt 30 > > Gove 28 > > Raab 23 > > Hancock 13 > > Harper 7 > > Malthouse 6 > > McVey 6 > > Leadsom 4 > > Cleverly 4 > > Stewart 3 > > Blimey, I didn't realise Roy Harper was an MP!
++++++++++
It's Kate Harper, former National Security Advisor
Gove is significantly preferable to the Charlatan, and has an air of competence that is better than most of the rest. I would still tear up my membership though if he was foisted on the country as PM
> That does not alter the fact that the referendum did not mandate a no deal Brexit.
>
>
> That's a different meaning of the word mandate.
>
> No the referendum didn't force a WTO Brexit, but if that's the only way for it to happen then that's the route that needs to be taken.
That is a very different position to what people were promised in June 2016. Cannot take such a step without getting a confirmatory referendum.
Putting aside what people were/not promised in 2016, since we have already decided to Leave, a further referendum (if needed) can only consider the options for leaving, i.e.:
[ ] Leave WTO-style
[ ] TMay BRINO-style
So would you be happy for that referendum to take place?
> @Chris said: > > Well, the second one still doesn't make much sense, but top marks for effort on the first, anyway. It was worrying me that people were finding it so hard to come up with some kind of post hoc justification. > ------
The second argument simply means that polling for the European elections is inherently less sophisticated. They don't have the same consistent baseline so just prompt for everyone.
> @rcs1000 said: > > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that later on today. I think both lists are already heavily based on ConHome which is why I haven't done a separate list for them. > > > > > > The totals for the merged list are: > > > > > > Johnson 30 > > > Hunt 30 > > > Gove 28 > > > Raab 23 > > > Hancock 13 > > > Harper 7 > > > Malthouse 6 > > > McVey 6 > > > Leadsom 4 > > > Cleverly 4 > > > Stewart 3 > > > > Blimey, I didn't realise Roy Harper was an MP! > > ++++++++++ > > It's Kate Harper, former National Security Advisor
Thanks. Even as a political geek I have never heard of her. As Led Zeppelin almost said "Hats off to Kate Harper"
> @MarkHopkins said: > > @MarkHopkins said: > > > That does not alter the fact that the referendum did not mandate a no deal Brexit. > > > > > > > > > That's a different meaning of the word mandate. > > > > > > No the referendum didn't force a WTO Brexit, but if that's the only way for it to happen then that's the route that needs to be taken. > > > > That is a very different position to what people were promised in June 2016. Cannot take such a step without getting a confirmatory referendum. > > > Putting aside what people were/not promised in 2016, since we have already decided to Leave, a further referendum (if needed) can only consider the options for leaving, i.e.: > > [ ] Leave WTO-style > > [ ] TMay BRINO-style > > So would you be happy for that referendum to take place?
You know that isn’t what parliament is going to agree. Why waste your time posting it here?
> @TOPPING said: > I think it is reasonable to assume that a considerable number of voters gave weight to all the assurances that we wouldn’t leave “any old how” but would have a smooth transition to a painless deal. > > It is reasonable to assume that but so what? It remains an assumption. We have one data point in this which is that the UK voted to leave and quite frankly if people voted to leave not realising that it could come to this then they only just deserve to be allowed to keep voting in elections.
So Corbyn comes to power on a commitment to renationalise utilities, with appropriate compensation to shareholders. A mandate is given by the election for that policy. But he then turns round and says since the Tories have left the treasury bare there's no money for compensation so we';re just going to nationalise them anyway and shareholders will get nothing. The voters gave us a mandate to nationalise come what may. I think most people would not accept that, but it is exactly the same principle as no dealers are asking us to accept.
> @Chris said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > @Chris said: > > > > > > No - I replied to them both. > > > > > > One said "Ask YouGov", which didn't make sense, as I'd already read YouGov's article on prompting and there was no explanation there. > > > > > > The other suggested YouGov viewed TBP as the successor of UKIP, but that didn't explain it because the article explained that YouGov _had_ decided to prompt for UKIP in Westminster polling. > > > > > > So, actually, none of the people who were waxing so lyrical about this can actually give any justification for TBP being treated in one way in the European polls and a different way in the Westminster ones. > > > > ----- > > > > I gave you two that you ignored. In European elections there's less reason for people not to follow through on a protest vote so the distortion effect doesn't apply to the same extent, and secondly because European election polling isn't done week in, week out. > > > > What are your credentials on polling methodology, statistics or psychology? > > Well, the second one still doesn't make much sense, but top marks for effort on the first, anyway. It was worrying me that people were finding it so hard to come up with some kind of post hoc justification. > > As for credentials, I wouldn't push it, but as you ask I have a Ph.D. in applied mathematics. What have you got?
I must say I don't think it should really be necessary for people to provide "credentials" when discussing polling methodology on a political betting site.
But I hope you realise that by Snodshall's Law, now you've asked for mine, unless you are able to trump them, you have officially Lost The Argument. ;-)
> @anothernick said: > > @AndyJS said: > > > @kle4 said: > > > We're getting what we deserve. Yep, we've been led poorly, ill served by our leaders, but we put them there and have rewarded the elements which have been making our position riskier and riskier, more and more bitter and damaging. > > > > Yes, there's something ridiculous about people getting angry at politicians when the only reason they're there is because the same people voted for them. > > Yes that's true, but in reality it is not quite so simple. Most people vote on party lines, candidates are secondary, and over the past few decades the candidates put forward by all parties have generally become younger, they are much more likely to have spent their whole career in politics and a much greater emphasis is placed on local connections to their constituency than used to be the case. MPs spend much of their time on media appearances (which few people see) or constituency work. It is hard to deny that this has led to a weaker cohort of MPs, a dearth of real life experience and the elevation of soundbite media skills over evidence-based policy formation. And the fortress-like security that now surrounds senior politicians cuts them off even more from the lives of their electors (in footage of political meetings from the 1960s or 1970s the lack of security is very obvious, even though this was the height of the IRA bombing campaign). All of these factors have fed the alienation of politicians from the public they represent.
I think we urgently need to bring in an open list system for elections where people can choose the candidate as well as the party.
Mr. Me, very difficult. The monarch is not political and is meant to foster unity. If mediation fails and one or both sides blame the monarch, that makes things even worse.
> @IanB2 said: > > @MarkHopkins said: > > > @MarkHopkins said: > > > > > I. There are good compromises and bad compromises and sadly TMay's (un) withdrawal agreement fell in the latter category. > > > > > > > > > > II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead. > > > > > > > > > > III. We voted leave - if in the end that means WTO exit then that is what needs to happen. You might not like it, you might think it's bad, but that's just your opinion. Others differ. > > > > > > > > > > IV. Corbyn trying to compromise? LOL. > > > > > > > > There is no mandate for No Deal. Please stop pretending there is. > > > > > > A WTO-exit plus side arrangements is still a deal. There is no such thing as No Deal. Please stop pretending there is. > > > > In any event, TBP won the Euro elections and therefore represent Britain's interests to the EU. Had the election been on the same system as our GEs, then they would have won a landslide victory. So there is a very strong mandate for their position. > > > > Personally I would have preferred a proper exit deal, but the establishment seem determined to block that and only give us BINO. > > With 31% of the vote and 40% of the MEPs? You have a funny idea of a mandate for something so drastic. Calling FPTnP to your aid is desperation indeed - aside from the fact that people would have voted differently under that flawed system, its weakness is that it delivers a lot of power with appallingly weak mandates.
Oh dear, I only just came back to this. Apparently WTO is a deal! Well I suppose so after a fashion, in the same way as betting your life savings in casino is the same as financial investment! The stupidity of some Leavers and their fantasy world really does astonish me. We have moved from Brexit being easy, being great, to now a position where many of them accept it is going to be fucking unpleasant but somehow worth it, because it won't be as bad as the Blitz, and crashing out on default terms is a deal, apparently. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so completely dumb.
> @Chris said: > > I must say I don't think it should really be necessary for people to provide "credentials" when discussing polling methodology on a political betting site. > > But I hope you realise that by Snodshall's Law, now you've asked for mine, unless you are able to trump them, you have officially Lost The Argument. ;-) -------
I only asked because you've been approaching it in a particularly obtuse and anti-intellectual manner. I won't embarrass you by pulling rank.
For once I agree with Tony Blair. The problem with this issue is that there isn't an obvious compromise position. Practically, soft Brexit makes less sense than the other two options.
I think Nick's point about 'winning' was pertinent. Or perhaps more accurately - wanting to see the other side defeated.
I really don't see this. To me the compromise was that we continued to have a close working relationship with the EU, free trade, relatively free movement of labour, acceptance of the existing rights of our respective citizens, mutual recognition of equivalent regulation, joint enterprises on certain matters where we had common interest, an acceptance that such freedom would mean that the regulatory equivalence would continue going forward etc, etc.
All of this was possible through May's deal and a subsequent FTA. Theoretically, it still is. If we go down such a path it will be for future generations to decide whether we apply to rejoin, which we ought to be able to do relatively easily if we keep ourselves in step with EU regulation, or go more and more our own separate way.
This was the compromise and it has been rejected by extremists on both sides. It is unfortunate and our country will be the weaker and more divided for it.
Oh dear, I only just came back to this. Apparently WTO is a deal! Well I suppose so after a fashion, in the same way as betting your life savings in casino is the same as financial investment! The stupidity of some Leavers and their fantasy world really does astonish me. We have moved from Brexit being easy, being great, to now a position where many of them accept it is going to be fucking unpleasant but somehow worth it, because it won't be as bad as the Blitz, and crashing out on default terms is a deal, apparently. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so completely dumb.
* Ridiculous comparisons.
* Personal insults.
* Blame leavers for remainers screwing around with the negotiation.
Well you managed the trifecta of remainer response there!
So Corbyn comes to power on a commitment to renationalise utilities, with appropriate compensation to shareholders. A mandate is given by the election for that policy. But he then turns round and says since the Tories have left the treasury bare there's no money for compensation so we';re just going to nationalise them anyway and shareholders will get nothing. The voters gave us a mandate to nationalise come what may. I think most people would not accept that, but it is exactly the same principle as no dealers are asking us to accept.
Sort of. And we would have to lump it unless some parliamentary method could be used to change it.
In the situation you describe what do you think should happen?
> @williamglenn said: > > @Chris said: > > > > I must say I don't think it should really be necessary for people to provide "credentials" when discussing polling methodology on a political betting site. > > > > But I hope you realise that by Snodshall's Law, now you've asked for mine, unless you are able to trump them, you have officially Lost The Argument. ;-) > ------- > > I only asked because you've been approaching it in a particularly obtuse and anti-intellectual manner. I won't embarrass you by pulling rank.
> @IanB2 said: > That YouGov poll certainly seems to have put the wind up our PB Tories. Even the usually reasonable ones are spouting some desperate nonsense tonight.
Wait till they find out YouGov is going to reclassify the Conservatives among the "Others"!
> @logical_song said: > > @DavidL said: > > "We can opt to stay in the EU after all. That got 34.9% of the vote (LibDem+Green+ChUK). " > > > > > > > > That's a very Anglocentric view of who the Remain parties are. > > > > Agreed. The SNP and PC votes should really be added to the hard remain side. OTOH a significant part of the Tory vote reflects a hard leave. > > How can you tell, the Tory official policy is still TMay's, which isn't No Deal.
Polling. Not perfect but it seems clear that a large chunk of the Tory party are not happy with May's deal, not just in Parliament but in the country.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that later on today. I think both lists are already heavily based on ConHome which is why I haven't done a separate list for them. > > The totals for the merged list are: > > Johnson 30 > Hunt 30 > Gove 28 > Raab 23 > Javid 17 > Hancock 13 > Harper 7 > Malthouse 6 > McVey 6 > Leadsom 4 > Cleverly 4 > Stewart 3
Boris now joint top with MPs and miles ahead with MPs as the stars start to align for a Boris premiership
> @DavidL said: > > @logical_song said: > > > @DavidL said: > > > "We can opt to stay in the EU after all. That got 34.9% of the vote (LibDem+Green+ChUK). " > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a very Anglocentric view of who the Remain parties are. > > > > > > Agreed. The SNP and PC votes should really be added to the hard remain side. OTOH a significant part of the Tory vote reflects a hard leave. > > > > How can you tell, the Tory official policy is still TMay's, which isn't No Deal. > > Polling. Not perfect but it seems clear that a large chunk of the Tory party are not happy with May's deal, not just in Parliament but in the country.
Those will be the ones that just voted for Farage and his appointees.
> @IanB2 said: > That YouGov poll certainly seems to have put the wind up our PB Tories. Even the usually reasonable ones are spouting some desperate nonsense tonight.
Some will now be PB Brexit Party I would imagine given the latest polling e.g. GIN
> @MarkHopkins said: > You know that isn’t what parliament is going to agree. Why waste your time posting it here? > > > If parliament does not agree to that, then they are the ones in the wrong, and are only showing their undemocratic credentials some more. > > Anyway, it is still a reasonable question to ask on here.
The question leavers could usefully consider is that, if we remain, what is the least damaging and most acceptable way of getting there?
Because my guess is that this is the question in the minds of a growing number of our politicians.
On topic the key as ever remains Labour MPs from Leave seats.
On today's Yougov about 50 of them could lose their seats to the Brexit Party and even more saw the Brexit Party ahead in their local authority areas last week. If the Brexit Party gain Peterborough from Labour next week that could be enough to tip them towards the WA especially if Labour policy shifts to EUref2 or revoke.
With 286 MPs already having voted for the WA at MV3, 50 Labour MPs added on top of that makes 336 and a majority
I am not a Nick Palmer fan. However, his article is spot on. It illustrates my problem in reconciling my remain preference with the need to respect the result. It is all so very sad.
> @MikeSmithson said: > > @kinabalu said: > > That is impressive. It is quite tricky to articulate like the inarticulate. > > > > Look mate we voted Leave so we should just fucking LEAVE innit. > > > > Fucking politicians they're all the same. Selling us up the river because they're shit scared of the Germans. > > > > My grandad would be turning in his grave. He survived the blitz. So don't tell me about the Germans and the EU. You can stick that up yer remainery arse. > > > > See? It's easy once you get going. > > ☺ > So you want to see the British economy completely undermined. Already watching the pharmaceutical industry move out and our Motor Industry operating at asubstantially lower level. Brexit makes us all poorer >
Sorry, I was arsing about. Brexit is not my cup of tea at all. I wish it had never been invented.
> @HYUFD said: > On topic the key as ever remains Labour MPs from Leave seats. > > On today's Yougov about 50 of them could lose their seats to the Brexit Party and even more saw the Brexit Party ahead in their local authority areas last week. If the Brexit Party gain Peterborough from Labour next week that could be enough to tip them towards the WA especially if Labpur policy shifts to EUref2 or revoke. > > With 286 MPs already having voted for the WA at MV3, 50 Labour MPs added on top of that makes 336 and a majority
It's touching how you are the only person in the country still holding out for the Labour leavers.
> > "We can opt to stay in the EU after all. That got 34.9% of the vote (LibDem+Green+ChUK). "
> >
> >
> >
> > That's a very Anglocentric view of who the Remain parties are.
> >
> > Agreed. The SNP and PC votes should really be added to the hard remain side. OTOH a significant part of the Tory vote reflects a hard leave.
>
> How can you tell, the Tory official policy is still TMay's, which isn't No Deal.
Polling. Not perfect but it seems clear that a large chunk of the Tory party are not happy with May's deal, not just in Parliament but in the country.
The vast majority of the parliamentary party voted for it.
Not enough of them, unfortunately. The damage those imbeciles have done to the country, the party and the government is almost beyond measure. Oh for a leader brave enough to deselect the lot of them. Let them join TBP if they are so minded. They won't be missed and they will be gone after the immediate election that would follow.
> On topic the key as ever remains Labour MPs from Leave seats.
>
> On today's Yougov about 50 of them could lose their seats to the Brexit Party and even more saw the Brexit Party ahead in their local authority areas last week. If the Brexit Party gain Peterborough from Labour next week that could be enough to tip them towards the WA especially if Labpur policy shifts to EUref2 or revoke.
>
> With 286 MPs already having voted for the WA at MV3, 50 Labour MPs added on top of that makes 336 and a majority
It's touching how you are the only person in the country still holding out for the Labour leavers.
@HYUFD argument would hold more weight if the Tories hadn't just been absolubtely trollied in northern leave seats.
> @Pulpstar said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > On topic the key as ever remains Labour MPs from Leave seats. > > > > > > On today's Yougov about 50 of them could lose their seats to the Brexit Party and even more saw the Brexit Party ahead in their local authority areas last week. If the Brexit Party gain Peterborough from Labour next week that could be enough to tip them towards the WA especially if Labpur policy shifts to EUref2 or revoke. > > > > > > With 286 MPs already having voted for the WA at MV3, 50 Labour MPs added on top of that makes 336 and a majority > > > > It's touching how you are the only person in the country still holding out for the Labour leavers. > > @HYUFD argument would hold more weight if the Tories hadn't just been absolubtely trollied in northern leave seats.
The Brexit Party beat Labour in working class northern and midlands Labour heartlands and can penetrate them in a way the Tories could not if Brexit is not delivered
It's catch 22, I was initially attracted to a clean break, bare bones version of brexit. However, after seeing the utter opposition it was getting, thought twice and decided I could live with Labs customs deal or even May's deal. Was prepared to back Lab.
However, I ended up voting Brexit Party. Why? Because for those who want to overturn a democratic referendum will never stop, no compromise will ever be good enough. You can have revoke or revoke.
There's no denying the LDs gained a lot of momentum from the locals and in the EU campaign. This was based on a policy of no compromise. I therefore backed the opposite party closest to my views who also won't compromise.
The two (LD and BP) are feeding off other, like lab and con have for years, it's almost parasitic.
By the way I am aware it goes both ways and if more brexiters appeared happy to compromise the LDs might not have done so well.
Comments
> Before I go, out of curiosity I'll just try again to see if anyone knows the justification for YouGov prompting for TBP in their European election polling and not in their Westminster polling - on their declared policy of not prompting until they're sure it makes no difference.
That question was too hard, apparently.
>
> II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead.
>
---------------
This is the most dishonest gaslighting imaginable. We'd have had Cameron's deal, which entrenched a half-in, half-out compromise. We'd have had Farage attempting to repeat the SNP's feat of turning the energy of the referendum into electoral success. And we'd have had calls for a second referendum dominating the race to succeed David Cameron.
>
> That question was too hard, apparently.
-----
You clearly missed the responses.
>
> II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead.
>
That isn't true. Full speed ahead wasn't an option because we already had Cameron's Deal, and the idea that our opt-outs would have gone if we'd voted for Remain is ludicrous.
If it had been close I think there would have been lots of demands from the losers for them to be listened to and I think the question of doing something on immigration would have remained.
> I. There are good compromises and bad compromises and sadly TMay's (un) withdrawal agreement fell in the latter category.
>
> II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead.
>
> III. We voted leave - if in the end that means WTO exit then that is what needs to happen. You might not like it, you might think it's bad, but that's just your opinion. Others differ.
>
> IV. Corbyn trying to compromise? LOL.
We were told at the referendum that leavers had no plan for no deal because they were going to get a good deal.
It's quite hard to translate that into acceptance of a no deal Brexit.
> > @Chris said:
> >
> > That question was too hard, apparently.
> -----
>
> You clearly missed the responses.
No - I replied to them both.
One said "Ask YouGov", which didn't make sense, as I'd already read YouGov's article on prompting and there was no explanation there.
The other suggested YouGov viewed TBP as the successor of UKIP, but that didn't explain it because the article explained that YouGov _had_ decided to prompt for UKIP in Westminster polling.
So, actually, none of the people who were waxing so lyrical about this can actually give any justification for TBP being treated in one way in the European polls and a different way in the Westminster ones.
A WTO-exit plus side arrangements is still a deal. There is no such thing as No Deal. Please stop pretending there is.
In any event, TBP won the Euro elections and therefore represent Britain's interests to the EU. Had the election been on the same system as our GEs, then they would have won a landslide victory. So there is a very strong mandate for their position.
Personally I would have preferred a proper exit deal, but the establishment seem determined to block that and only give us BINO.
> Anyone fancy Romeo & Juliet in Islington tonight? Two tickets going to be wasted otherwise
>
> https://www.backyardcinema.co.uk/past_event/romeojuliet/
I would if I was in London tonight but I'm not.
The problem is that the Leavers weren't allowed to negotiate so we don't know what result they may have agreed.
More and more people have moved over to a simple WTO-exit as an alternative to the Remainers-deal that is unacceptable.
>
> No - I replied to them both.
>
> One said "Ask YouGov", which didn't make sense, as I'd already read YouGov's article on prompting and there was no explanation there.
>
> The other suggested YouGov viewed TBP as the successor of UKIP, but that didn't explain it because the article explained that YouGov _had_ decided to prompt for UKIP in Westminster polling.
>
> So, actually, none of the people who were waxing so lyrical about this can actually give any justification for TBP being treated in one way in the European polls and a different way in the Westminster ones.
-----
I gave you two that you ignored. In European elections there's less reason for people not to follow through on a protest vote so the distortion effect doesn't apply to the same extent, and secondly because European election polling isn't done week in, week out.
What are your credentials on polling methodology, statistics or psychology?
As someone (perhaps Mr. Palmer, now I come to think of it) said previously, the dual rising of the Lib Dems and BP make it more difficult to try and shift away from more hardline positions because those exist on both sides.
> We're getting what we deserve. Yep, we've been led poorly, ill served by our leaders, but we put them there and have rewarded the elements which have been making our position riskier and riskier, more and more bitter and damaging.
Yes, there's something ridiculous about people getting angry at politicians when the only reason they're there is because the same people voted for them.
"It's a racist, classist, disingenuous pile of nonsense orchestrated by narcissists for the purposes of driving us all mad."
https://twitter.com/TheMendozaWoman/status/1134434387154677761
> > @MarkHopkins said:
> >
> > II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead.
> >
> ---------------
>
> This is the most dishonest gaslighting imaginable. We'd have had Cameron's deal, which entrenched a half-in, half-out compromise. We'd have had Farage attempting to repeat the SNP's feat of turning the energy of the referendum into electoral success. And we'd have had calls for a second referendum dominating the race to succeed David Cameron.
__________________
Half in and half out was the referendum result.
>
> Half in and half out was the referendum result.
>
------
Then we should go with Cameron's deal.
> "We can opt to stay in the EU after all. That got 34.9% of the vote (LibDem+Green+ChUK). "
>
>
>
> That's a very Anglocentric view of who the Remain parties are.
>
> Agreed. The SNP and PC votes should really be added to the hard remain side. OTOH a significant part of the Tory vote reflects a hard leave.
How can you tell, the Tory official policy is still TMay's, which isn't No Deal.
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1134477740202254336
> > @Chris said:
> >
> > No - I replied to them both.
> >
> > One said "Ask YouGov", which didn't make sense, as I'd already read YouGov's article on prompting and there was no explanation there.
> >
> > The other suggested YouGov viewed TBP as the successor of UKIP, but that didn't explain it because the article explained that YouGov _had_ decided to prompt for UKIP in Westminster polling.
> >
> > So, actually, none of the people who were waxing so lyrical about this can actually give any justification for TBP being treated in one way in the European polls and a different way in the Westminster ones.
>
> -----
>
> I gave you two that you ignored. In European elections there's less reason for people not to follow through on a protest vote so the distortion effect doesn't apply to the same extent, and secondly because European election polling isn't done week in, week out.
>
> What are your credentials on polling methodology, statistics or psychology?
Well, the second one still doesn't make much sense, but top marks for effort on the first, anyway. It was worrying me that people were finding it so hard to come up with some kind of post hoc justification.
As for credentials, I wouldn't push it, but as you ask I have a Ph.D. in applied mathematics. What have you got?
> > @MarkHopkins said:
>
> > I. There are good compromises and bad compromises and sadly TMay's (un) withdrawal agreement fell in the latter category.
>
> >
>
> > II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead.
>
> >
>
> > III. We voted leave - if in the end that means WTO exit then that is what needs to happen. You might not like it, you might think it's bad, but that's just your opinion. Others differ.
>
> >
>
> > IV. Corbyn trying to compromise? LOL.
>
>
>
> We were told at the referendum that leavers had no plan for no deal because they were going to get a good deal.
>
>
>
> It's quite hard to translate that into acceptance of a no deal Brexit.
>
>
> The problem is that the Leavers weren't allowed to negotiate so we don't know what result they may have agreed.
>
> More and more people have moved over to a simple WTO-exit as an alternative to the Remainers-deal that is unacceptable.
That does not alter the fact that the referendum did not mandate a no deal Brexit.
> Anyone fancy Romeo & Juliet in Islington tonight? Two tickets going to be wasted otherwise
>
> https://www.backyardcinema.co.uk/past_event/romeojuliet/
>
> Very kind thanks - have had a surfeit of Romeo and Juliet recently. Saw it at Covent Garden earlier this month and am going to the live screening week after next!!!
No spoilers please.
> It started with him and his mobile phone. Now seems he is followed by photographers and TV cameras. Rory on his way...
>
> https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1134477740202254336
At this rate he might even make it to the top 5.
Journalists must be very thankful though, he has at least provided talking points and a bit more originality compared to the rest.
> https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1134480467317723136
Gove is the remainer's leaver?
I would take a thousand @Richard_Tyndalls over Mark Francois but the message is the same - just get out, and if that means leave with no deal then so be it.
I think it would be extremely damaging economically and socially but I cannot argue with the contention that they want to leave any old how because that's what the UK voted for.
> > @kle4 said:
>
> > We're getting what we deserve. Yep, we've been led poorly, ill served by our leaders, but we put them there and have rewarded the elements which have been making our position riskier and riskier, more and more bitter and damaging.
>
>
>
> Yes, there's something ridiculous about people getting angry at politicians when the only reason they're there is because the same people voted for them.
>
> Millions of people, almost drone like tend to go and vote - particularly for either Labour or Conservative at every General Election without the slightest thought for any of their policies I expect.
I would not be surprised if there were studies that proved peoples' support for a policy dramatically changes depending on who they think is promoting it, though I cannot be bothered to go looking to see if that is so.
All about the right tribe winning. Not that people without any ideological conviction always looking for a compromise middle ground will always be the right move, but frankly a less than satisfying muddle would be preferable to this deadlocked limbo with the prospect of only total victory for one or the other side.
> > @MarkHopkins said:
> >
> > II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead.
> >
>
> That isn't true. Full speed ahead wasn't an option because we already had Cameron's Deal, and the idea that our opt-outs would have gone if we'd voted for Remain is ludicrous.
>
> If it had been close I think there would have been lots of demands from the losers for them to be listened to and I think the question of doing something on immigration would have remained.
Rubbish. Cameron's deal wasnt worth the paper it was written on. It was everything carries on as was dressed up as a deal.
> > @MarkHopkins said:
> >
> > II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead.
> >
> ---------------
>
> This is the most dishonest gaslighting imaginable. We'd have had Cameron's deal, which entrenched a half-in, half-out compromise. We'd have had Farage attempting to repeat the SNP's feat of turning the energy of the referendum into electoral success. And we'd have had calls for a second referendum dominating the race to succeed David Cameron.
Utterly wrong as always William.
That's a different meaning of the word mandate.
No the referendum didn't force a WTO Brexit, but if that's the only way for it to happen then that's the route that needs to be taken.
> > @Pulpstar said:
> > > @kle4 said:
> >
> > > We're getting what we deserve. Yep, we've been led poorly, ill served by our leaders, but we put them there and have rewarded the elements which have been making our position riskier and riskier, more and more bitter and damaging.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, there's something ridiculous about people getting angry at politicians when the only reason they're there is because the same people voted for them.
> >
> > Millions of people, almost drone like tend to go and vote - particularly for either Labour or Conservative at every General Election without the slightest thought for any of their policies I expect.
>
> I would not be surprised if there were studies that proved peoples' support for a policy dramatically changes depending on who they think is promoting it, though I cannot be bothered to go looking to see if that is so.
>
> All about the right tribe winning. Not that people without any ideological conviction always looking for a compromise middle ground will always be the right move, but frankly a less than satisfying muddle would be preferable to this deadlocked limbo with the prospect of only total victory for one or the other side.
As you say, the main motivation is often defeating the other side and denying them power. If your side wins you just hope they make a decent fist of it. Tory and Labour prop each other up, and it is fitting that they are going down together.
Fucking politicians they're all the same. Selling us up the river because they're shit scared of the Germans.
My grandad would be turning in his grave. He survived the blitz. So don't tell me about the Germans and the EU. You can stick that up yer remainery arse.
See? It's easy once you get going.
☺
> That does not alter the fact that the referendum did not mandate a no deal Brexit.
>
> (We) remainers need to get over this. The referendum asked people whether they wanted to leave the EU. They did.
>
> I would take a thousand @Richard_Tyndalls over Mark Francois but the message is the same - just get out, and if that means leave with no deal then so be it.
>
> I think it would be extremely damaging economically and socially but I cannot argue with the contention that they want to leave any old how because that's what the UK voted for.
I think it is reasonable to assume that a considerable number of voters gave weight to all the assurances that we wouldn’t leave “any old how” but would have a smooth transition to a painless deal.
> That does not alter the fact that the referendum did not mandate a no deal Brexit.
>
> (We) remainers need to get over this. The referendum asked people whether they wanted to leave the EU. They did.
>
> I would take a thousand @Richard_Tyndalls over Mark Francois but the message is the same - just get out, and if that means leave with no deal then so be it.
>
> I think it would be extremely damaging economically and socially but I cannot argue with the contention that they want to leave any old how because that's what the UK voted for.
For once I don't agree with you Mr T. It was clearly presented as a dead cert deal. That was what people voted for. The Brexit Party just got 32% on a platform of No Surrender, No Deal.
There is no mandate. If it is what Leavers think people want then they ought to be campaigning for another ref. Otherwise they should accept May's version of Hard Brexit and then campaign to make it even more damaging if that is what they want.
> That is impressive. It is quite tricky to articulate like the inarticulate.
>
> Look mate we voted Leave so we should just fucking LEAVE innit.
>
> Fucking politicians they're all the same. Selling us up the river because they're shit scared of the Germans.
>
> My grandad would be turning in his grave. He survived the blitz. So don't tell me about the Germans and the EU. You can stick that up yer remainery arse.
>
> See? It's easy once you get going.
> ☺
So you want to see the British economy completely undermined. Already watching the pharmaceutical industry move out and our Motor Industry operating at asubstantially lower level. Brexit makes us all poorer
> That does not alter the fact that the referendum did not mandate a no deal Brexit.
>
>
> That's a different meaning of the word mandate.
>
> No the referendum didn't force a WTO Brexit, but if that's the only way for it to happen then that's the route that needs to be taken.
That is a very different position to what people were promised in June 2016. Cannot take such a step without getting a confirmatory referendum.
> > @kinabalu said:
> > That is impressive. It is quite tricky to articulate like the inarticulate.
> >
> > Look mate we voted Leave so we should just fucking LEAVE innit.
> >
> > Fucking politicians they're all the same. Selling us up the river because they're shit scared of the Germans.
> >
> > My grandad would be turning in his grave. He survived the blitz. So don't tell me about the Germans and the EU. You can stick that up yer remainery arse.
> >
> > See? It's easy once you get going.
> > ☺
> So you want to see the British economy completely undermined. Already watching the pharmaceutical industry move out and our Motor Industry operating at asubstantially lower level. Brexit makes us all poorer
>
Surely kinabalu was being satirical?
> > @kle4 said:
> > We're getting what we deserve. Yep, we've been led poorly, ill served by our leaders, but we put them there and have rewarded the elements which have been making our position riskier and riskier, more and more bitter and damaging.
>
> Yes, there's something ridiculous about people getting angry at politicians when the only reason they're there is because the same people voted for them.
Yes that's true, but in reality it is not quite so simple. Most people vote on party lines, candidates are secondary, and over the past few decades the candidates put forward by all parties have generally become younger, they are much more likely to have spent their whole career in politics and a much greater emphasis is placed on local connections to their constituency than used to be the case. MPs spend much of their time on media appearances (which few people see) or constituency work. It is hard to deny that this has led to a weaker cohort of MPs, a dearth of real life experience and the elevation of soundbite media skills over evidence-based policy formation. And the fortress-like security that now surrounds senior politicians cuts them off even more from the lives of their electors (in footage of political meetings from the 1960s or 1970s the lack of security is very obvious, even though this was the height of the IRA bombing campaign). All of these factors have fed the alienation of politicians from the public they represent.
> > @kinabalu said:
> > That is impressive. It is quite tricky to articulate like the inarticulate.
> >
> > Look mate we voted Leave so we should just fucking LEAVE innit.
> >
> > Fucking politicians they're all the same. Selling us up the river because they're shit scared of the Germans.
> >
> > My grandad would be turning in his grave. He survived the blitz. So don't tell me about the Germans and the EU. You can stick that up yer remainery arse.
> >
> > See? It's easy once you get going.
> > ☺
> So you want to see the British economy completely undermined. Already watching the pharmaceutical industry move out and our Motor Industry operating at asubstantially lower level. Brexit makes us all poorer
>
I think he was being ironic Mike. he was articulating in the style of the inarticulate!
> Good afternoon, everyone.
>
> As someone (perhaps Mr. Palmer, now I come to think of it) said previously, the dual rising of the Lib Dems and BP make it more difficult to try and shift away from more hardline positions because those exist on both sides.
What we need is a mediator. Someone who is truly independent and so can be trusted by both sides to listen, to tell us fairly when we're being ridiculous and to help both sides walk back from their extreme positions and find a compromise.
If the monarchy exists to do anything except to be an empty symbol then surely now HMQ needs to bang heads together to force a resolution.
> > @CarlottaVance said:
> > https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1134480467317723136
>
> Gove is the remainer's leaver?
I think so
Indeed I said as much, Not sure if I was the first but I am claiming copyright anyway!
But they are the people and they voted so here we are.
> > @CarlottaVance said:
> > https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1134480467317723136
>
> Gove is the remainer's leaver?
The vegan's gammon.
> > @MarkHopkins said:
>
> > I. There are good compromises and bad compromises and sadly TMay's (un) withdrawal agreement fell in the latter category.
>
> >
>
> > II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead.
>
> >
>
> > III. We voted leave - if in the end that means WTO exit then that is what needs to happen. You might not like it, you might think it's bad, but that's just your opinion. Others differ.
>
> >
>
> > IV. Corbyn trying to compromise? LOL.
>
>
>
> There is no mandate for No Deal. Please stop pretending there is.
>
>
> A WTO-exit plus side arrangements is still a deal. There is no such thing as No Deal. Please stop pretending there is.
>
> In any event, TBP won the Euro elections and therefore represent Britain's interests to the EU. Had the election been on the same system as our GEs, then they would have won a landslide victory. So there is a very strong mandate for their position.
>
> Personally I would have preferred a proper exit deal, but the establishment seem determined to block that and only give us BINO.
With 31% of the vote and 40% of the MEPs? You have a funny idea of a mandate for something so drastic. Calling FPTnP to your aid is desperation indeed - aside from the fact that people would have voted differently under that flawed system, its weakness is that it delivers a lot of power with appallingly weak mandates.
> > @rottenborough said:
> > It started with him and his mobile phone. Now seems he is followed by photographers and TV cameras. Rory on his way...
> >
> > https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1134477740202254336
>
> At this rate he might even make it to the top 5.
>
> Journalists must be very thankful though, he has at least provided talking points and a bit more originality compared to the rest.
He's in Stockbridge today? Leith would be more challenging. If the in-laws weren't visiting I'd have been tempted to try and catch him for a chat.
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that later on today. I think both lists are already heavily based on ConHome which is why I haven't done a separate list for them.
> >
> > The totals for the merged list are:
> >
> > Johnson 30
> > Hunt 30
> > Gove 28
> > Raab 23
> > Hancock 13
> > Harper 7
> > Malthouse 6
> > McVey 6
> > Leadsom 4
> > Cleverly 4
> > Stewart 3
>
> Blimey, I didn't realise Roy Harper was an MP!
++++++++++
It's Kate Harper, former National Security Advisor
> > @kle4 said:
> > > @CarlottaVance said:
> > > https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1134480467317723136
> >
> > Gove is the remainer's leaver?
>
> I think so
>
> Indeed I said as much, Not sure if I was the first but I am claiming copyright anyway!
Gove is significantly preferable to the Charlatan, and has an air of competence that is better than most of the rest. I would still tear up my membership though if he was foisted on the country as PM
> https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1134483917002674178
Brad Pitt owns the film rights.
Putting aside what people were/not promised in 2016, since we have already decided to Leave, a further referendum (if needed) can only consider the options for leaving, i.e.:
[ ] Leave WTO-style
[ ] TMay BRINO-style
So would you be happy for that referendum to take place?
>
> Well, the second one still doesn't make much sense, but top marks for effort on the first, anyway. It was worrying me that people were finding it so hard to come up with some kind of post hoc justification.
>
------
The second argument simply means that polling for the European elections is inherently less sophisticated. They don't have the same consistent baseline so just prompt for everyone.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/c6muz9lchd/TheTimes_190521_EPVI_w.pdf
> > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that later on today. I think both lists are already heavily based on ConHome which is why I haven't done a separate list for them.
> > >
> > > The totals for the merged list are:
> > >
> > > Johnson 30
> > > Hunt 30
> > > Gove 28
> > > Raab 23
> > > Hancock 13
> > > Harper 7
> > > Malthouse 6
> > > McVey 6
> > > Leadsom 4
> > > Cleverly 4
> > > Stewart 3
> >
> > Blimey, I didn't realise Roy Harper was an MP!
>
> ++++++++++
>
> It's Kate Harper, former National Security Advisor
Thanks. Even as a political geek I have never heard of her. As Led Zeppelin almost said "Hats off to Kate Harper"
> > @MarkHopkins said:
>
> > That does not alter the fact that the referendum did not mandate a no deal Brexit.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > That's a different meaning of the word mandate.
>
> >
>
> > No the referendum didn't force a WTO Brexit, but if that's the only way for it to happen then that's the route that needs to be taken.
>
>
>
> That is a very different position to what people were promised in June 2016. Cannot take such a step without getting a confirmatory referendum.
>
>
> Putting aside what people were/not promised in 2016, since we have already decided to Leave, a further referendum (if needed) can only consider the options for leaving, i.e.:
>
> [ ] Leave WTO-style
>
> [ ] TMay BRINO-style
>
> So would you be happy for that referendum to take place?
You know that isn’t what parliament is going to agree. Why waste your time posting it here?
> I think it is reasonable to assume that a considerable number of voters gave weight to all the assurances that we wouldn’t leave “any old how” but would have a smooth transition to a painless deal.
>
> It is reasonable to assume that but so what? It remains an assumption. We have one data point in this which is that the UK voted to leave and quite frankly if people voted to leave not realising that it could come to this then they only just deserve to be allowed to keep voting in elections.
So Corbyn comes to power on a commitment to renationalise utilities, with appropriate compensation to shareholders. A mandate is given by the election for that policy. But he then turns round and says since the Tories have left the treasury bare there's no money for compensation so we';re just going to nationalise them anyway and shareholders will get nothing. The voters gave us a mandate to nationalise come what may. I think most people would not accept that, but it is exactly the same principle as no dealers are asking us to accept.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @Chris said:
> > >
> > > No - I replied to them both.
> > >
> > > One said "Ask YouGov", which didn't make sense, as I'd already read YouGov's article on prompting and there was no explanation there.
> > >
> > > The other suggested YouGov viewed TBP as the successor of UKIP, but that didn't explain it because the article explained that YouGov _had_ decided to prompt for UKIP in Westminster polling.
> > >
> > > So, actually, none of the people who were waxing so lyrical about this can actually give any justification for TBP being treated in one way in the European polls and a different way in the Westminster ones.
> >
> > -----
> >
> > I gave you two that you ignored. In European elections there's less reason for people not to follow through on a protest vote so the distortion effect doesn't apply to the same extent, and secondly because European election polling isn't done week in, week out.
> >
> > What are your credentials on polling methodology, statistics or psychology?
>
> Well, the second one still doesn't make much sense, but top marks for effort on the first, anyway. It was worrying me that people were finding it so hard to come up with some kind of post hoc justification.
>
> As for credentials, I wouldn't push it, but as you ask I have a Ph.D. in applied mathematics. What have you got?
I must say I don't think it should really be necessary for people to provide "credentials" when discussing polling methodology on a political betting site.
But I hope you realise that by Snodshall's Law, now you've asked for mine, unless you are able to trump them, you have officially Lost The Argument. ;-)
> > @AndyJS said:
> > > @kle4 said:
> > > We're getting what we deserve. Yep, we've been led poorly, ill served by our leaders, but we put them there and have rewarded the elements which have been making our position riskier and riskier, more and more bitter and damaging.
> >
> > Yes, there's something ridiculous about people getting angry at politicians when the only reason they're there is because the same people voted for them.
>
> Yes that's true, but in reality it is not quite so simple. Most people vote on party lines, candidates are secondary, and over the past few decades the candidates put forward by all parties have generally become younger, they are much more likely to have spent their whole career in politics and a much greater emphasis is placed on local connections to their constituency than used to be the case. MPs spend much of their time on media appearances (which few people see) or constituency work. It is hard to deny that this has led to a weaker cohort of MPs, a dearth of real life experience and the elevation of soundbite media skills over evidence-based policy formation. And the fortress-like security that now surrounds senior politicians cuts them off even more from the lives of their electors (in footage of political meetings from the 1960s or 1970s the lack of security is very obvious, even though this was the height of the IRA bombing campaign). All of these factors have fed the alienation of politicians from the public they represent.
I think we urgently need to bring in an open list system for elections where people can choose the candidate as well as the party.
> > @MarkHopkins said:
> > > @MarkHopkins said:
> >
> > > I. There are good compromises and bad compromises and sadly TMay's (un) withdrawal agreement fell in the latter category.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > II. If the result had been 52:48 in Remain's favour we would not have had these calls for compromise from the winners, there would not have been soft-remain / ok-let's-hold-back-some-more. No, it would have been full speed ahead.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > III. We voted leave - if in the end that means WTO exit then that is what needs to happen. You might not like it, you might think it's bad, but that's just your opinion. Others differ.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > IV. Corbyn trying to compromise? LOL.
> >
> >
> >
> > There is no mandate for No Deal. Please stop pretending there is.
> >
> >
> > A WTO-exit plus side arrangements is still a deal. There is no such thing as No Deal. Please stop pretending there is.
> >
> > In any event, TBP won the Euro elections and therefore represent Britain's interests to the EU. Had the election been on the same system as our GEs, then they would have won a landslide victory. So there is a very strong mandate for their position.
> >
> > Personally I would have preferred a proper exit deal, but the establishment seem determined to block that and only give us BINO.
>
> With 31% of the vote and 40% of the MEPs? You have a funny idea of a mandate for something so drastic. Calling FPTnP to your aid is desperation indeed - aside from the fact that people would have voted differently under that flawed system, its weakness is that it delivers a lot of power with appallingly weak mandates.
Oh dear, I only just came back to this. Apparently WTO is a deal! Well I suppose so after a fashion, in the same way as betting your life savings in casino is the same as financial investment! The stupidity of some Leavers and their fantasy world really does astonish me. We have moved from Brexit being easy, being great, to now a position where many of them accept it is going to be fucking unpleasant but somehow worth it, because it won't be as bad as the Blitz, and crashing out on default terms is a deal, apparently. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so completely dumb.
If parliament does not agree to that, then they are the ones in the wrong, and are only showing their undemocratic credentials some more.
Anyway, it is still a reasonable question to ask on here.
>
> I must say I don't think it should really be necessary for people to provide "credentials" when discussing polling methodology on a political betting site.
>
> But I hope you realise that by Snodshall's Law, now you've asked for mine, unless you are able to trump them, you have officially Lost The Argument. ;-)
-------
I only asked because you've been approaching it in a particularly obtuse and anti-intellectual manner. I won't embarrass you by pulling rank.
All of this was possible through May's deal and a subsequent FTA. Theoretically, it still is. If we go down such a path it will be for future generations to decide whether we apply to rejoin, which we ought to be able to do relatively easily if we keep ourselves in step with EU regulation, or go more and more our own separate way.
This was the compromise and it has been rejected by extremists on both sides. It is unfortunate and our country will be the weaker and more divided for it.
* Ridiculous comparisons.
* Personal insults.
* Blame leavers for remainers screwing around with the negotiation.
Well you managed the trifecta of remainer response there!
https://twitter.com/YoungLabourUK/status/1134416178334568455
So Corbyn comes to power on a commitment to renationalise utilities, with appropriate compensation to shareholders. A mandate is given by the election for that policy. But he then turns round and says since the Tories have left the treasury bare there's no money for compensation so we';re just going to nationalise them anyway and shareholders will get nothing. The voters gave us a mandate to nationalise come what may. I think most people would not accept that, but it is exactly the same principle as no dealers are asking us to accept.
Sort of. And we would have to lump it unless some parliamentary method could be used to change it.
In the situation you describe what do you think should happen?
> > @Chris said:
> >
> > I must say I don't think it should really be necessary for people to provide "credentials" when discussing polling methodology on a political betting site.
> >
> > But I hope you realise that by Snodshall's Law, now you've asked for mine, unless you are able to trump them, you have officially Lost The Argument. ;-)
> -------
>
> I only asked because you've been approaching it in a particularly obtuse and anti-intellectual manner. I won't embarrass you by pulling rank.
Well, I did warn you ...
> That YouGov poll certainly seems to have put the wind up our PB Tories. Even the usually reasonable ones are spouting some desperate nonsense tonight.
Wait till they find out YouGov is going to reclassify the Conservatives among the "Others"!
> > @DavidL said:
> > "We can opt to stay in the EU after all. That got 34.9% of the vote (LibDem+Green+ChUK). "
> >
> >
> >
> > That's a very Anglocentric view of who the Remain parties are.
> >
> > Agreed. The SNP and PC votes should really be added to the hard remain side. OTOH a significant part of the Tory vote reflects a hard leave.
>
> How can you tell, the Tory official policy is still TMay's, which isn't No Deal.
Polling. Not perfect but it seems clear that a large chunk of the Tory party are not happy with May's deal, not just in Parliament but in the country.
> Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that later on today. I think both lists are already heavily based on ConHome which is why I haven't done a separate list for them.
>
> The totals for the merged list are:
>
> Johnson 30
> Hunt 30
> Gove 28
> Raab 23
> Javid 17
> Hancock 13
> Harper 7
> Malthouse 6
> McVey 6
> Leadsom 4
> Cleverly 4
> Stewart 3
Boris now joint top with MPs and miles ahead with MPs as the stars start to align for a Boris premiership
> > @logical_song said:
> > > @DavidL said:
> > > "We can opt to stay in the EU after all. That got 34.9% of the vote (LibDem+Green+ChUK). "
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That's a very Anglocentric view of who the Remain parties are.
> > >
> > > Agreed. The SNP and PC votes should really be added to the hard remain side. OTOH a significant part of the Tory vote reflects a hard leave.
> >
> > How can you tell, the Tory official policy is still TMay's, which isn't No Deal.
>
> Polling. Not perfect but it seems clear that a large chunk of the Tory party are not happy with May's deal, not just in Parliament but in the country.
Those will be the ones that just voted for Farage and his appointees.
> That YouGov poll certainly seems to have put the wind up our PB Tories. Even the usually reasonable ones are spouting some desperate nonsense tonight.
Some will now be PB Brexit Party I would imagine given the latest polling e.g. GIN
>
> Well, I did warn you ...
What did you warn me?
> You know that isn’t what parliament is going to agree. Why waste your time posting it here?
>
>
> If parliament does not agree to that, then they are the ones in the wrong, and are only showing their undemocratic credentials some more.
>
> Anyway, it is still a reasonable question to ask on here.
The question leavers could usefully consider is that, if we remain, what is the least damaging and most acceptable way of getting there?
Because my guess is that this is the question in the minds of a growing number of our politicians.
Begs the obvious question of the opposite.
Caroline Flint?
On today's Yougov about 50 of them could lose their seats to the Brexit Party and even more saw the Brexit Party ahead in their local authority areas last week. If the Brexit Party gain Peterborough from Labour next week that could be enough to tip them towards the WA especially if Labour policy shifts to EUref2 or revoke.
With 286 MPs already having voted for the WA at MV3, 50 Labour MPs added on top of that makes 336 and a majority
> > @kinabalu said:
> > That is impressive. It is quite tricky to articulate like the inarticulate.
> >
> > Look mate we voted Leave so we should just fucking LEAVE innit.
> >
> > Fucking politicians they're all the same. Selling us up the river because they're shit scared of the Germans.
> >
> > My grandad would be turning in his grave. He survived the blitz. So don't tell me about the Germans and the EU. You can stick that up yer remainery arse.
> >
> > See? It's easy once you get going.
> > ☺
> So you want to see the British economy completely undermined. Already watching the pharmaceutical industry move out and our Motor Industry operating at asubstantially lower level. Brexit makes us all poorer
>
Sorry, I was arsing about. Brexit is not my cup of tea at all. I wish it had never been invented.
> On topic the key as ever remains Labour MPs from Leave seats.
>
> On today's Yougov about 50 of them could lose their seats to the Brexit Party and even more saw the Brexit Party ahead in their local authority areas last week. If the Brexit Party gain Peterborough from Labour next week that could be enough to tip them towards the WA especially if Labpur policy shifts to EUref2 or revoke.
>
> With 286 MPs already having voted for the WA at MV3, 50 Labour MPs added on top of that makes 336 and a majority
It's touching how you are the only person in the country still holding out for the Labour leavers.
> > @Chris said:
> >
> > Well, I did warn you ...
>
> What did you warn me?
Oh dear. If you don't pay better attention I'll have to conclude you're an obtuse anti-intellectual. :-(
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1134483917002674178
>
> Brad Pitt owns the film rights.
Just wait till the "Goofy Rory" soft toy range hits the shops next week.
> Gove IS the Remainer's Leaver. That's very good.
>
> Begs the obvious question of the opposite.
>
> Caroline Flint?
Stephen Kinnock.
> > @rottenborough said:
> > > @Scott_P said:
> > > https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1134483917002674178
> >
> > Brad Pitt owns the film rights.
>
> Just wait till the "Goofy Rory" soft toy range hits the shops next week.
My dog looks forward to getting one. Does it squeak?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/31/john-kasich-2020-elections-1348649
> > @HYUFD said:
>
> > On topic the key as ever remains Labour MPs from Leave seats.
>
> >
>
> > On today's Yougov about 50 of them could lose their seats to the Brexit Party and even more saw the Brexit Party ahead in their local authority areas last week. If the Brexit Party gain Peterborough from Labour next week that could be enough to tip them towards the WA especially if Labpur policy shifts to EUref2 or revoke.
>
> >
>
> > With 286 MPs already having voted for the WA at MV3, 50 Labour MPs added on top of that makes 336 and a majority
>
>
>
> It's touching how you are the only person in the country still holding out for the Labour leavers.
>
> @HYUFD argument would hold more weight if the Tories hadn't just been absolubtely trollied in northern leave seats.
The Brexit Party beat Labour in working class northern and midlands Labour heartlands and can penetrate them in a way the Tories could not if Brexit is not delivered
However, I ended up voting Brexit Party. Why? Because for those who want to overturn a democratic referendum will never stop, no compromise will ever be good enough. You can have revoke or revoke.
There's no denying the LDs gained a lot of momentum from the locals and in the EU campaign. This was based on a policy of no compromise. I therefore backed the opposite party closest to my views who also won't compromise.
The two (LD and BP) are feeding off other, like lab and con have for years, it's almost parasitic.
By the way I am aware it goes both ways and if more brexiters appeared happy to compromise the LDs might not have done so well.