Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov finds just 28% wanting a no deal against 43% wanting to

135

Comments

  • People who get their fourth and last choice ultimately will be angry and disillusioned for many years to come.

    This poll is a reminder that some version of a deal is the only way to unite the country. Hard Brexit is a huge problem for 46%, Hard Remain for 42%. A pragmatic, squishy deal is never going to be loved but anything else unleashes further and deeper hell.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    rcs1000 said:

    justin124 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    BREX: 22% (-1)
    CON: 22% (+2)
    LAB: 20% (-)
    LDEM: 19% (-2)
    GRN: 10% (+1)

    A Green-Lib Dem remain pact could do well here.

    How the hell FPTP would cope with that who know...
    I suspect a LD-Green pact would do a lot worse in reality than in projection. They're quite different parties with different traditions, policies and attitudes. Much of the Green share has come from Lab and in the absence of a Green candidate, might well go back there or abstain, rather than transfer to the LDs.

    Note also that YouGov routinely reports higher Green and lower Lab shares (by about 4%) than other pollsters.
    Spot on Mr H. It is very lazy thinking to lump Green and LD voters together merely because of similar Brexit policies.

    Watermellons are not yellow in the middle!
    Very true. Though tomatoes often start off green but end up red.
    In a GE the Greens will be much closer to 2% than 10%. LDs would probably be circa 12%.
    That might happen. (It happened in 2017.)

    But if you look over the results of the last 40 years, third parties usually rise in the polls over the course of an election campaign.

    And you're also relying on hardcore remainers (who seem finally to have tired of Corbyn's prevarication) voting Labour because...
    Third party support fell during the 2017 campaign. Pre-campaign surges by such parties tend to be reversed - at least partially - in a GE. A 12% outcome for the LDs looks reasonable given that some pollsters currently have them on 16%/17%.
  • rcs1000 said:
    Does he genuinely wonder why he isn't loved? Or does he just think, "Belgians aren't part of my base and don't get to vote in 2020. So **** them"?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883
    justin124 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    justin124 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    BREX: 22% (-1)
    CON: 22% (+2)
    LAB: 20% (-)
    LDEM: 19% (-2)
    GRN: 10% (+1)

    A Green-Lib Dem remain pact could do well here.

    How the hell FPTP would cope with that who know...
    I suspect a LD-Green pact would do a lot worse in reality than in projection. They're quite different parties with different traditions, policies and attitudes. Much of the Green share has come from Lab and in the absence of a Green candidate, might well go back there or abstain, rather than transfer to the LDs.

    Note also that YouGov routinely reports higher Green and lower Lab shares (by about 4%) than other pollsters.
    Spot on Mr H. It is very lazy thinking to lump Green and LD voters together merely because of similar Brexit policies.

    Watermellons are not yellow in the middle!
    Very true. Though tomatoes often start off green but end up red.
    In a GE the Greens will be much closer to 2% than 10%. LDs would probably be circa 12%.
    That might happen. (It happened in 2017.)

    But if you look over the results of the last 40 years, third parties usually rise in the polls over the course of an election campaign.

    And you're also relying on hardcore remainers (who seem finally to have tired of Corbyn's prevarication) voting Labour because...
    Third party support fell during the 2017 campaign. Pre-campaign surges by such parties tend to be reversed - at least partially - in a GE. A 12% outcome for the LDs looks reasonable given that some pollsters currently have them on 16%/17%.
    What makes you think 2017 will be repeated?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    Just to check I understand the header? Haven’t read the BTL yet

    57% want to leave the E.U., just more than half of who would prefer a deal vs no deal.

    Almost as many people (42% vs 43%) rank staying in the EU as their least preferred option

    And yet, from the way the header is written, this is presented as good news for Remain?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594
    rcs1000 said:
    Well, he's added a new dimension to history's view of Bismark and the unification of Germany.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    TOPPING said:

    justin124 said:

    Foxy said:

    justin124 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    BREX: 22% (-1)
    CON: 22% (+2)
    LAB: 20% (-)
    LDEM: 19% (-2)
    GRN: 10% (+1)

    A Green-Lib Dem remain pact could do well here.

    How the hell FPTP would cope with that who know...
    I suspect a LD-Green pact would do a lot worse in reality than in projection. They're quite different parties with different traditions, policies and attitudes. Much of the Green share has come from Lab and in the absence of a Green candidate, might well go back there or abstain, rather than transfer to the LDs.

    Note also that YouGov routinely reports higher Green and lower Lab shares (by about 4%) than other pollsters.
    Spot on Mr H. It is very lazy thinking to lump Green and LD voters together merely because of similar Brexit policies.

    Watermellons are not yellow in the middle!
    Very true. Though tomatoes often start off green but end up red.
    In a GE the Greens will be much closer to 2% than 10%. LDs would probably be circa 12%.
    In your dreams!

    The shine has worn off Corbynism, Labour will lose seats in any GE now. The only question is whether the Tories will lose even more.
    Well some people predicted third place for Labour at Peterborough - rather than the slightly increased majority. Most polls now have Labour at circa 26% - already well up on the EU elections. I would be surprised if they failed to poll 35% in a GE.
    Just as well we don't live in a world of constant surprises.
    Polls have had them on 40%/41% as recently as early April. No reason that cannot occur again.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477

    People who get their fourth and last choice ultimately will be angry and disillusioned for many years to come.

    This poll is a reminder that some version of a deal is the only way to unite the country. Hard Brexit is a huge problem for 46%, Hard Remain for 42%. A pragmatic, squishy deal is never going to be loved but anything else unleashes further and deeper hell.

    There's a very real chance due to the lie of the FPTP arithmetic that there is a remain majority in the country and at the next election essentially a leave majority is returned in some form or another (BXP + Con + DUP majority).
    Will remainers have parliamentary sovereignty as their utmost concern in that situation ?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,887

    FF43 said:



    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

    The one thing that Remain definitely didn't mean was the status quo. The EU is changing and there is nothing we can do about that either inside or outside. At least outside we don't have to get dragged along with it.
    The EU is not changing that fast. A more normal criticism is that the EU is resistant to charge. The EU has changed very significantly since the UK decided to join in the 1970s, and the second vote fifty years later was about a very different beast. Nevertheless the latest referendum was about the EU that exists now, not the 1970s version.
    It is not about the speed of change it is about the direction and our inability to influence that.
    There has been no major change in the EU in the last ten years, with the exception of the UK leaving. The really big change decisions were taken twenty years ago. The current direction, to the extent there is one, is a swing back in the balance of power from the Commission to the member states. There is always a tension between the two.

    This is a bogus distinction. Remain is definitely the status quo option, compared with Leave.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,413
    Foxy said:

    justin124 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    BREX: 22% (-1)
    CON: 22% (+2)
    LAB: 20% (-)
    LDEM: 19% (-2)
    GRN: 10% (+1)

    A Green-Lib Dem remain pact could do well here.

    How the hell FPTP would cope with that who know...
    I suspect a LD-Green pact would do a lot worse in reality than in projection. They're quite different parties with different traditions, policies and attitudes. Much of the Green share has come from Lab and in the absence of a Green candidate, might well go back there or abstain, rather than transfer to the LDs.

    Note also that YouGov routinely reports higher Green and lower Lab shares (by about 4%) than other pollsters.
    Spot on Mr H. It is very lazy thinking to lump Green and LD voters together merely because of similar Brexit policies.

    Watermellons are not yellow in the middle!
    Very true. Though tomatoes often start off green but end up red.
    In a GE the Greens will be much closer to 2% than 10%. LDs would probably be circa 12%.
    In your dreams!

    The shine has worn off Corbynism, Labour will lose seats in any GE now. The only question is whether the Tories will lose even more.
    Brexit would be a more salient issue at an election now than it was in 2017 - nobody was advocating no deal then IIRC. I think there would be a big push for remainers to vote tactically and this would benefit quite a lot of LDs, a handful of Greens and some Labour candidates also. Maybe even a few remainer Tories if any of them overcome the threat of deselection.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,539
    Pulpstar said:

    People who get their fourth and last choice ultimately will be angry and disillusioned for many years to come.

    This poll is a reminder that some version of a deal is the only way to unite the country. Hard Brexit is a huge problem for 46%, Hard Remain for 42%. A pragmatic, squishy deal is never going to be loved but anything else unleashes further and deeper hell.

    There's a very real chance due to the lie of the FPTP arithmetic that there is a remain majority in the country and at the next election essentially a leave majority is returned in some form or another (BXP + Con + DUP majority).
    Will remainers have parliamentary sovereignty as their utmost concern in that situation ?
    Or that BXP sinks the Tories without winning many seats themselves. The system is a lottery and needs replacing.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited June 2019

    justin124 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    justin124 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    BREX: 22% (-1)
    CON: 22% (+2)
    LAB: 20% (-)
    LDEM: 19% (-2)
    GRN: 10% (+1)

    A Green-Lib Dem remain pact could do well here.

    How the hell FPTP would cope with that who know...
    I suspect a LD-Green pact would do a lot worse in reality than in projection. They're quite different parties with different traditions, policies and attitudes. Much of the Green share has come from Lab and in the absence of a Green candidate, might well go back there or abstain, rather than transfer to the LDs.

    Note also that YouGov routinely reports higher Green and lower Lab shares (by about 4%) than other pollsters.
    Spot on Mr H. It is very lazy thinking to lump Green and LD voters together merely because of similar Brexit policies.

    Watermellons are not yellow in the middle!
    Very true. Though tomatoes often start off green but end up red.
    In a GE the Greens will be much closer to 2% than 10%. LDs would probably be circa 12%.
    That might happen. (It happened in 2017.)

    But if you look over the results of the last 40 years, third parties usually rise in the polls over the course of an election campaign.

    And you're also relying on hardcore remainers (who seem finally to have tired of Corbyn's prevarication) voting Labour because...
    Third party support fell during the 2017 campaign. Pre-campaign surges by such parties tend to be reversed - at least partially - in a GE. A 12% outcome for the LDs looks reasonable given that some pollsters currently have them on 16%/17%.
    What makes you think 2017 will be repeated?
    I am not predicting a repetition but strongly feel that the current poll ratings of the Bxt Pty, Greens and the LDs significantly exaggerate their likely levels of support in a GE. Labour and the Tories would both recover much - though not all - lost ground.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,982
    justin124 said:

    TOPPING said:

    justin124 said:

    Foxy said:

    justin124 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    BREX: 22% (-1)
    CON: 22% (+2)
    LAB: 20% (-)
    LDEM: 19% (-2)
    GRN: 10% (+1)

    A Green-Lib Dem remain pact could do well here.

    How the hell FPTP would cope with that who know...
    I suspect a LD-Green pact would do a lot worse in reality than in projection. They're quite different parties with different traditions, policies and attitudes. Much of the Green share has come from Lab and in the absence of a Green candidate, might well go back there or abstain, rather than transfer to the LDs.

    Note also that YouGov routinely reports higher Green and lower Lab shares (by about 4%) than other pollsters.
    Spot on Mr H. It is very lazy thinking to lump Green and LD voters together merely because of similar Brexit policies.

    Watermellons are not yellow in the middle!
    Very true. Though tomatoes often start off green but end up red.
    In a GE the Greens will be much closer to 2% than 10%. LDs would probably be circa 12%.
    In your dreams!

    The shine has worn off Corbynism, Labour will lose seats in any GE now. The only question is whether the Tories will lose even more.
    Well some people predicted third place for Labour at Peterborough - rather than the slightly increased majority. Most polls now have Labour at circa 26% - already well up on the EU elections. I would be surprised if they failed to poll 35% in a GE.
    Just as well we don't live in a world of constant surprises.
    Polls have had them on 40%/41% as recently as early April. No reason that cannot occur again.
    Ahhh. Polls.
  • justin124 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    justin124 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    BREX: 22% (-1)
    CON: 22% (+2)
    LAB: 20% (-)
    LDEM: 19% (-2)
    GRN: 10% (+1)

    A Green-Lib Dem remain pact could do well here.

    How the hell FPTP would cope with that who know...
    I suspect a LD-Green pact would do a lot worse in reality than in projection. They're quite different parties with different traditions, policies and attitudes. Much of the Green share has come from Lab and in the absence of a Green candidate, might well go back there or abstain, rather than transfer to the LDs.

    Note also that YouGov routinely reports higher Green and lower Lab shares (by about 4%) than other pollsters.
    Spot on Mr H. It is very lazy thinking to lump Green and LD voters together merely because of similar Brexit policies.

    Watermellons are not yellow in the middle!
    Very true. Though tomatoes often start off green but end up red.
    In a GE the Greens will be much closer to 2% than 10%. LDs would probably be circa 12%.
    That might happen. (It happened in 2017.)

    But if you look over the results of the last 40 years, third parties usually rise in the polls over the course of an election campaign.

    And you're also relying on hardcore remainers (who seem finally to have tired of Corbyn's prevarication) voting Labour because...
    Third party support fell during the 2017 campaign. Pre-campaign surges by such parties tend to be reversed - at least partially - in a GE. A 12% outcome for the LDs looks reasonable given that some pollsters currently have them on 16%/17%.
    It's true the Lib Dems fell back in the 2017 campaign - principally due to Corbyn having a good campaign, Tories starting to worry it didn't look like a shoo-in after all, and Farron public musing about the evangelical Christian position on homosexuality.

    But that's something of an outlier rather than a rule. In more General Elections historically (although it's very mixed), the additional publicity for smaller parties in a campaign tends to boost them over the campaign period.

    I think you're right only insofar that I'd not expect performance in a one-off election in special circumstances to be amazingly predictive. The Euro elections were good for the LDs and Greens, Brecon might well be good for the LDs. But I'd not read a huge amount into the numbers - more into the fact that it broadly indicates progress for the particular party.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477
    edited June 2019
    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    People who get their fourth and last choice ultimately will be angry and disillusioned for many years to come.

    This poll is a reminder that some version of a deal is the only way to unite the country. Hard Brexit is a huge problem for 46%, Hard Remain for 42%. A pragmatic, squishy deal is never going to be loved but anything else unleashes further and deeper hell.

    There's a very real chance due to the lie of the FPTP arithmetic that there is a remain majority in the country and at the next election essentially a leave majority is returned in some form or another (BXP + Con + DUP majority).
    Will remainers have parliamentary sovereignty as their utmost concern in that situation ?
    Or that BXP sinks the Tories without winning many seats themselves. The system is a lottery and needs replacing.
    It's hard to predict just what will happen ! But there's a big defence of the current parliamentary arithmetic by plenty.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,982
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:



    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

    The one thing that Remain definitely didn't mean was the status quo. The EU is changing and there is nothing we can do about that either inside or outside. At least outside we don't have to get dragged along with it.
    The EU is not changing that fast. A more normal criticism is that the EU is resistant to charge. The EU has changed very significantly since the UK decided to join in the 1970s, and the second vote fifty years later was about a very different beast. Nevertheless the latest referendum was about the EU that exists now, not the 1970s version.
    It is not about the speed of change it is about the direction and our inability to influence that.
    There has been no major change in the EU in the last ten years, with the exception of the UK leaving. The really big change decisions were taken twenty years ago. The current direction, to the extent there is one, is a swing back in the balance of power from the Commission to the member states. There is always a tension between the two.

    This is a bogus distinction. Remain is definitely the status quo option, compared with Leave.
    There will be another status quo in about 10-15 years time. The problem is, Richard et al will have fucked us over for this intervening period.
  • glwglw Posts: 7,775
    One last bloody stupid decision before she goes.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,358
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477
    Judging by the progress of the NZ-Pak match, Edgbaston doesn't look like being a much needed road come sunday.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    justin124 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    BREX: 22% (-1)
    CON: 22% (+2)
    LAB: 20% (-)
    LDEM: 19% (-2)
    GRN: 10% (+1)

    A Green-Lib Dem remain pact could do well here.

    How the hell FPTP would cope with that who know...
    I.
    Spot on Mr H. It is very lazy thinking to lump Green and LD voters together merely because of similar Brexit policies.

    Watermellons are not yellow in the middle!
    Very true. Though tomatoes often start off green but end up red.
    In a GE the Greens will be much closer to 2% than 10%. LDs would probably be circa 12%.
    That might happen. (It happened in 2017.)

    But if you look over the results of the last 40 years, third parties usually rise in the polls over the course of an election campaign.

    And you're also relying on hardcore remainers (who seem finally to have tired of Corbyn's prevarication) voting Labour because...
    Third party support fell during the 2017 campaign. Pre-campaign surges by such parties tend to be reversed - at least partially - in a GE. A 12% outcome for the LDs looks reasonable given that some pollsters currently have them on 16%/17%.
    It's true the Lib Dems fell back in the 2017 campaign - principally due to Corbyn having a good campaign, Tories starting to worry it didn't look like a shoo-in after all, and Farron public musing about the evangelical Christian position on homosexuality.

    But that's something of an outlier rather than a rule. In more General Elections historically (although it's very mixed), the additional publicity for smaller parties in a campaign tends to boost them over the campaign period.

    I think you're right only insofar that I'd not expect performance in a one-off election in special circumstances to be amazingly predictive. The Euro elections were good for the LDs and Greens, Brecon might well be good for the LDs. But I'd not read a huge amount into the numbers - more into the fact that it broadly indicates progress for the particular party.
    It is certainly not the rule for midterm poll surges for smaller parties to be fully realised at the subsequent GE. We saw that in 1987- 1983- Feb 1974 - and 1964.The only clear exception was the SNP success in 2015.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 35,923
    justin124 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    justin124 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    BREX: 22% (-1)
    CON: 22% (+2)
    LAB: 20% (-)
    LDEM: 19% (-2)
    GRN: 10% (+1)

    A Green-Lib Dem remain pact could do well here.

    How the hell FPTP would cope with that who know...
    I suspect a LD-Green pact would do a lot worse in reality than in projection. They're quite different parties with different traditions, policies and attitudes. Much of the Green share has come from Lab and in the absence of a Green candidate, might well go back there or abstain, rather than transfer to the LDs.

    Note also that YouGov routinely reports higher Green and lower Lab shares (by about 4%) than other pollsters.
    Spot on Mr H. It is very lazy thinking to lump Green and LD voters together merely because of similar Brexit policies.

    Watermellons are not yellow in the middle!
    Very true. Though tomatoes often start off green but end up red.
    In a GE the Greens will be much closer to 2% than 10%. LDs would probably be circa 12%.
    That might happen. (It happened in 2017.)

    But if you look over the results of the last 40 years, third parties usually rise in the polls over the course of an election campaign.

    And you're also relying on hardcore remainers (who seem finally to have tired of Corbyn's prevarication) voting Labour because...
    Third party support fell during the 2017 campaign. Pre-campaign surges by such parties tend to be reversed - at least partially - in a GE. A 12% outcome for the LDs looks reasonable given that some pollsters currently have them on 16%/17%.

    Labour is currently the third party, having lost 50% of its 2017 GE support.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,354
    If Pakistan win this game, we (England) are surely in big trouble.

    Pakistan finish with Afghanistan and Bangladesh - so win today and they're highly likely to get to 11 points - meaning we'll need two wins.

    (Assuming India get to 11 points which must be 99% certain).
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,358
    Scott_P said:
    Unfortunately Ruth keeps backing losers... ;)
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,372



    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

    The one thing that Remain definitely didn't mean was the status quo. The EU is changing and there is nothing we can do about that either inside or outside. At least outside we don't have to get dragged along with it.
    Well it did mean the Status Quo, at that time. What happened from that point onwards we could have decided.
    No we couldn't. We were losing influence and power in the EU continuously and at the same time the ability to leave was being more and more eroded.
    The whole reason why Remain is presented as a single choice while leave is a variety of choices is not about facts but about power. Remain has to disguise the fact that UK voters have had astonishingly little real power over its development, and Cameron's failed renegotiation didn't change the fact. Truthfully there are loads of possible Remain futures. It's just that no-one plans to involve ordinary voters in them. If this were not so the populist parties would be an irrelevance in Europe.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    justin124 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    BREX: 22% (-1)
    CON: 22% (+2)
    LAB: 20% (-)
    LDEM: 19% (-2)
    GRN: 10% (+1)

    A Green-Lib Dem remain pact could do well here.

    How the hell FPTP would cope with that who know...
    I suspect a LD-Green pact would do a lot worse in reality than in projection. They're quite different parties with different traditions, policies and attitudes. Much of the Green share has come from Lab and in the absence of a Green candidate, might well go back there or abstain, rather than transfer to the LDs.

    Note also that YouGov routinely reports higher Green and lower Lab shares (by about 4%) than other pollsters.
    Spot on Mr H. It is very lazy thinking to lump Green and LD voters together merely because of similar Brexit policies.

    Watermellons are not yellow in the middle!
    Very true. Though tomatoes often start off green but end up red.
    In a GE the Greens will be much closer to 2% than 10%. LDs would probably be circa 12%.
    That might happen. (It happened in 2017.)

    But if you look over the results of the last 40 years, third parties usually rise in the polls over the course of an election campaign.

    And you're also relying on hardcore remainers (who seem finally to have tired of Corbyn's prevarication) voting Labour because...
    Third party support fell during the 2017 campaign. Pre-campaign surges by such parties tend to be reversed - at least partially - in a GE. A 12% outcome for the LDs looks reasonable given that some pollsters currently have them on 16%/17%.

    Labour is currently the third party, having lost 50% of its 2017 GE support.
    According to both Survation and Opinium it is actually the first party on 26%.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,565
    Pulpstar said:

    People who get their fourth and last choice ultimately will be angry and disillusioned for many years to come.

    This poll is a reminder that some version of a deal is the only way to unite the country. Hard Brexit is a huge problem for 46%, Hard Remain for 42%. A pragmatic, squishy deal is never going to be loved but anything else unleashes further and deeper hell.

    There's a very real chance due to the lie of the FPTP arithmetic that there is a remain majority in the country and at the next election essentially a leave majority is returned in some form or another (BXP + Con + DUP majority).
    Will remainers have parliamentary sovereignty as their utmost concern in that situation ?
    Well according to the poll at the top of this page there certainly doesn't seem to be a Remain majority. Like Charles I do smile at the ability of OGH to spin this as good news for Remain when 57% have some form of Leave as their first choice.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,565
    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:



    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

    The one thing that Remain definitely didn't mean was the status quo. The EU is changing and there is nothing we can do about that either inside or outside. At least outside we don't have to get dragged along with it.
    The EU is not changing that fast. A more normal criticism is that the EU is resistant to charge. The EU has changed very significantly since the UK decided to join in the 1970s, and the second vote fifty years later was about a very different beast. Nevertheless the latest referendum was about the EU that exists now, not the 1970s version.
    It is not about the speed of change it is about the direction and our inability to influence that.
    There has been no major change in the EU in the last ten years, with the exception of the UK leaving. The really big change decisions were taken twenty years ago. The current direction, to the extent there is one, is a swing back in the balance of power from the Commission to the member states. There is always a tension between the two.

    This is a bogus distinction. Remain is definitely the status quo option, compared with Leave.
    There will be another status quo in about 10-15 years time. The problem is, Richard et al will have fucked us over for this intervening period.
    So fuck off to Europe then if that is your view. (replying in the same manner as you have posted)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,753
    algarkirk said:



    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

    The one thing that Remain definitely didn't mean was the status quo. The EU is changing and there is nothing we can do about that either inside or outside. At least outside we don't have to get dragged along with it.
    Well it did mean the Status Quo, at that time. What happened from that point onwards we could have decided.
    No we couldn't. We were losing influence and power in the EU continuously and at the same time the ability to leave was being more and more eroded.
    The whole reason why Remain is presented as a single choice while leave is a variety of choices is not about facts but about power. Remain has to disguise the fact that UK voters have had astonishingly little real power over its development, and Cameron's failed renegotiation didn't change the fact. Truthfully there are loads of possible Remain futures. It's just that no-one plans to involve ordinary voters in them. If this were not so the populist parties would be an irrelevance in Europe.
    However it’s a mistake to see nativist populism as inherently anti-integration. The likes of Salvini increasingly want to leverage the European institutions rather than weaken them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,036

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    The referendum offered one concrete option (remaining in the EU) versus a whole set of different concrete options disguised as one nebulous option ("leaving the EU"). The one concrete option did quite well considering, getting almost half the vote, and would easily beat any of the concrete Leave options in a head to head and would win a first past the post contest in which all options were available.
    An analogy would be to fight a general election on a question of Tory or Not Tory, and then after the Tory candidate gets 48% of the vote, decide that what people really voted for was the Socialist Workers Party.

    Remain is only a single concrete option once you accept that there are no choices for us to make within it. There are all sorts of possible 'Remain' visions diverging on issues like Euro, Schengen, freedom of movement, tax harmonisation, fiscal authority, political union, defence and I don't suppose any of them would get a majority. It is a totally artificial contest to see Remain as a single block.

    Parliament set out the terms and conditions of the question after lot of thought. Parliament's job is to make sense of what it started.

    If Remain had won by 52‰ do you think Cameron would have immediately signed us up to Shengen and the Euro? Unlikely ual slow and painful evolution as per the EU norm. To try to spin a narrow rejection of the status quo into a mandate for the most extreme alternative is absurd and an affront to democracy far greater than putting the available concrete options to the voters.
    Thank you. Very interesting, but bears no relation to what I said.

    Er, you said "remain" could have been interpreted to mean joining the euro or Shengen, among other things, rather than a well defined status quo of our existing relationship. I pointed out that that was unlikely, as nobody would have used a remain win as an excuse for changing our existing relationship. I think that answers the point you were making, apologies if I am being thick.
    Just as there are lots of alternatives things we could aim for by leaving, there are lots of different, and incompatible, things we could aim for by being in the EU. supporters of Remain may well have different and incompatible wishes about its development, just like leavers. That's about all.

    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.
    Rockin’ All Over the World.... Down Down.... or the Beginning of the End ?

    (And shouldn’t that be Whatever You Want ? )

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477
    edited June 2019
    MikeL said:

    If Pakistan win this game, we (England) are surely in big trouble.

    Pakistan finish with Afghanistan and Bangladesh - so win today and they're highly likely to get to 11 points - meaning we'll need two wins.

    (Assuming India get to 11 points which must be 99% certain).

    I don't think one can assume Pakistan will beat Bangladesh. England could certainly do with a NZ win though.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594
    GIN1138 said:
    They could chat about their mutual mucker, Steve Bannon.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,839

    People who get their fourth and last choice ultimately will be angry and disillusioned for many years to come.

    This poll is a reminder that some version of a deal is the only way to unite the country. Hard Brexit is a huge problem for 46%, Hard Remain for 42%. A pragmatic, squishy deal is never going to be loved but anything else unleashes further and deeper hell.

    I wonder whether the way towards a 'deal' that will more-or-less satisfy more-or-less most is to have a very squishy sort of 'Remain' that includes a mandatory referendum every time there's a change from the status quo of the EU. If it doesn't pass the UK's referendum, it doesn't apply to the UK.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,753
    T
    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    The referendum offered one concrete option (remaining in the EU) versus a whole set of different concrete options disguised as one nebulous option ("leaving the EU"). The one concrete option did quite well considering, getting almost half the vote, and would easily beat any of the concrete Leave options in a head to head and would win a first past the post contest in which all options were available.
    An analogy would be to fight a general election on a question of Tory or Not Tory, and then after the Tory candidate gets 48% of the vote, decide that what people really voted for was the Socialist Workers Party.

    Remain is only a single concrete option once you accept that there are no choices for us to make within it.

    Parliament set out the terms and conditions of the question after lot of thought. Parliament's job is to make sense of what it started.

    If Remain had won by 52‰ do you think Cameron would have immediately signed us up to Shengen and the Euro? Unlikely ual slow and painful evolution as per the EU norm. To try to spin a narrow rejection of the status quo into a mandate for the most extreme alternative is absurd and an affront to democracy far greater than putting the available concrete options to the voters.
    Thank you. Very interesting, but bears no relation to what I said.

    Er, you said "remain" could have been interpreted to mean joining the euro or Shengen, among other things, rather than a well defined status quo of our existing relationship. I pointed out that that was unlikely, as nobody would have used a remain win as an excuse for changing our existing relationship. I think that answers the point you were making, apologies if I am being thick.
    Just as there are lots of alternatives things we could aim for by leaving, there are lots of different, and incompatible, things we could aim for by being in the EU. supporters of Remain may well have different and incompatible wishes about its development, just like leavers. That's about all.

    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.
    Rockin’ All Over the World.... Down Down.... or the Beginning of the End ?

    (And shouldn’t that be Whatever You Want ? )

    Surely “You’re In The EU Army Now”?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    I would certainly not vote for Williamson.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,638

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:



    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

    The one thing that Remain definitely didn't mean was the status quo. The EU is changing and there is nothing we can do about that either inside or outside. At least outside we don't have to get dragged along with it.
    The EU is not changing that fast. A more normal criticism is that the EU is resistant to charge. The EU has changed very significantly since the UK decided to join in the 1970s, and the second vote fifty years later was about a very different beast. Nevertheless the latest referendum was about the EU that exists now, not the 1970s version.
    It is not about the speed of change it is about the direction and our inability to influence that.
    There has been no major change in the EU in the last ten years, with the exception of the UK leaving. The really big change decisions were taken twenty years ago. The current direction, to the extent there is one, is a swing back in the balance of power from the Commission to the member states. There is always a tension between the two.

    This is a bogus distinction. Remain is definitely the status quo option, compared with Leave.
    There will be another status quo in about 10-15 years time. The problem is, Richard et al will have fucked us over for this intervening period.
    So fuck off to Europe then if that is your view. (replying in the same manner as you have posted)
    A sad irony is that because of Brexit he won’t be able to, so your political choice means you’re stuck with him, and 16.8 million of your compatriots you openly despise. Unless you have other plans for us...
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,307
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    justin124 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    BREX: 22% (-1)
    CON: 22% (+2)
    LAB: 20% (-)
    LDEM: 19% (-2)
    GRN: 10% (+1)

    A Green-Lib Dem remain pact could do well here.

    How the hell FPTP would cope with that who know...
    I suspect a LD-Green pact would do a lot worse in reality than in projection. They're quite different parties with different traditions, policies and attitudes. Much of the Green share has come from Lab and in the absence of a Green candidate, might well go back there or abstain, rather than transfer to the LDs.

    Note also that YouGov routinely reports higher Green and lower Lab shares (by about 4%) than other pollsters.
    Spot on Mr H. It is very lazy thinking to lump Green and LD voters together merely because of similar Brexit policies.

    Watermellons are not yellow in the middle!
    Very true. Though tomatoes often start off green but end up red.
    In a GE the Greens will be much closer to 2% than 10%. LDs would probably be circa 12%.
    That might happen. (It happened in 2017.)

    But if you look over the results of the last 40 years, third parties usually rise in the polls over the course of an election campaign.

    And you're also relying on hardcore remainers (who seem finally to have tired of Corbyn's prevarication) voting Labour because...
    Third party support fell during the 2017 campaign. Pre-campaign surges by such parties tend to be reversed - at least partially - in a GE. A 12% outcome for the LDs looks reasonable given that some pollsters currently have them on 16%/17%.

    Labour is currently the third party, having lost 50% of its 2017 GE support.
    According to both Survation and Opinium it is actually the first party on 26%.
    Only needs 1 point switch to Lib Dems to be fourth
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,460

    Pulpstar said:

    People who get their fourth and last choice ultimately will be angry and disillusioned for many years to come.

    This poll is a reminder that some version of a deal is the only way to unite the country. Hard Brexit is a huge problem for 46%, Hard Remain for 42%. A pragmatic, squishy deal is never going to be loved but anything else unleashes further and deeper hell.

    There's a very real chance due to the lie of the FPTP arithmetic that there is a remain majority in the country and at the next election essentially a leave majority is returned in some form or another (BXP + Con + DUP majority).
    Will remainers have parliamentary sovereignty as their utmost concern in that situation ?
    Well according to the poll at the top of this page there certainly doesn't seem to be a Remain majority. Like Charles I do smile at the ability of OGH to spin this as good news for Remain when 57% have some form of Leave as their first choice.
    57% have some form of Leave as their first choice, so we should leave.
    OK, if you think that, do you also think the following:
    59% think we should stay in the single market and customs union, so we should stay in the single market and customs union?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,565
    DougSeal said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:



    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

    The one thing that Remain definitely didn't mean was the status quo. The EU is changing and there is nothing we can do about that either inside or outside. At least outside we don't have to get dragged along with it.
    The EU is not changing that fast. A more normal criticism is that the EU is resistant to charge. The EU has changed very significantly since the UK decided to join in the 1970s, and the second vote fifty years later was about a very different beast. Nevertheless the latest referendum was about the EU that exists now, not the 1970s version.
    It is not about the speed of change it is about the direction and our inability to influence that.
    There has been no major change in the EU in the last ten years, with the exception of the UK leaving. The really big change decisions were taken twenty years ago. The current direction, to the extent there is one, is a swing back in the balance of power from the Commission to the member states. There is always a tension between the two.

    This is a bogus distinction. Remain is definitely the status quo option, compared with Leave.
    There will be another status quo in about 10-15 years time. The problem is, Richard et al will have fucked us over for this intervening period.
    So fuck off to Europe then if that is your view. (replying in the same manner as you have posted)
    A sad irony is that because of Brexit he won’t be able to, so your political choice means you’re stuck with him, and 16.8 million of your compatriots you openly despise. Unless you have other plans for us...
    I only despise those like you and Topping who are unwilling to accept the results of the referendum and seek to overturn it. You are thankfully a small minority which means it is much easier to despise you.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    justin124 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    BREX: 22% (-1)
    CON: 22% (+2)
    LAB: 20% (-)
    LDEM: 19% (-2)
    GRN: 10% (+1)

    A Green-Lib Dem remain pact could do well here.

    How the hell FPTP would cope with that who know...
    I suspect a LD-Green pact would do a lot worse in reality than in projection. They're quite different parties with different traditions, policies and attitudes. Much of the Green share has come from Lab and in the absence of a Green candidate, might well go back there or abstain, rather than transfer to the LDs.

    Note also that YouGov routinely reports higher Green and lower Lab shares (by about 4%) than other pollsters.
    Spot on Mr H. It is very lazy thinking to lump Green and LD voters together merely because of similar Brexit policies.

    Watermellons are not yellow in the middle!
    Very true. Though tomatoes often start off green but end up red.
    In a GE the Greens will be much closer to 2% than 10%. LDs would probably be circa 12%.
    That might happen. (It happened in 2017.)

    But if you look over the results of the last 40 years, third parties usually rise in the polls over the course of an election campaign.

    And you're also relying on hardcore remainers (who seem finally to have tired of Corbyn's prevarication) voting Labour because...
    Third party support fell during the 2017 campaign. Pre-campaign surges by such parties tend to be reversed - at least partially - in a GE. A 12% outcome for the LDs looks reasonable given that some pollsters currently have them on 16%/17%.

    Labour is currently the third party, having lost 50% of its 2017 GE support.
    According to both Survation and Opinium it is actually the first party on 26%.
    Only needs 1 point switch to Lib Dems to be fourth
    Comres and BMG both had Labour in first place on 27%.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,565

    Pulpstar said:

    People who get their fourth and last choice ultimately will be angry and disillusioned for many years to come.

    This poll is a reminder that some version of a deal is the only way to unite the country. Hard Brexit is a huge problem for 46%, Hard Remain for 42%. A pragmatic, squishy deal is never going to be loved but anything else unleashes further and deeper hell.

    There's a very real chance due to the lie of the FPTP arithmetic that there is a remain majority in the country and at the next election essentially a leave majority is returned in some form or another (BXP + Con + DUP majority).
    Will remainers have parliamentary sovereignty as their utmost concern in that situation ?
    Well according to the poll at the top of this page there certainly doesn't seem to be a Remain majority. Like Charles I do smile at the ability of OGH to spin this as good news for Remain when 57% have some form of Leave as their first choice.
    57% have some form of Leave as their first choice, so we should leave.
    OK, if you think that, do you also think the following:
    59% think we should stay in the single market and customs union, so we should stay in the single market and customs union?
    Yes.

    I may not like the Customs Union and it is a very, very stupid thing to do but I would absolutely accept it as it is still leaving and, at present, is the choice of the majority. I have always contended that the question in 2016 did not say what form of Leave we should have so as long as we do leave any and everything is up for debate and compromise.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834
    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:
    Is there anyone at all who can put in clear words what non-contradictory arrangement would satisfy Arlene Foster and friends? It seems clear to me that all their actions so far compel the view that in fact they want to Remain but someone else to decide it for them. The words don't have any helpful meanings at all.
    I think if that were the case she'd be making the point that we need to leave on the right terms and get a good deal. That would be what a remainer trying to be Brexity would say.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834

    Hilarious the number of alternative spins that can be put on those numbers. Only HYUFD (aka Comical Ali) thinks there is only one interpretation. Compromise is needed. I think Brexit is pointless, but I can live with us leaving if is done under a proper deal that preserves our economy and some vestige of our international reputation.

    Indeed. Remain is my preferred option, but I am in the 66% who would take Leave and ongoing CU and SM membership as a first or second option.

    I wouldn't mind leaving on those terms.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    justin124 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    BREX: 22% (-1)
    CON: 22% (+2)
    LAB: 20% (-)
    LDEM: 19% (-2)
    GRN: 10% (+1)

    A Green-Lib Dem remain pact could do well here.

    How the hell FPTP would cope with that who know...
    I suspect a LD-Green pact would do a lot worse in reality than in projection. They're quite different parties with different traditions, policies and attitudes. Much of the Green share has come from Lab and in the absence of a Green candidate, might well go back there or abstain, rather than transfer to the LDs.

    Note also that YouGov routinely reports higher Green and lower Lab shares (by about 4%) than other pollsters.
    Spot on Mr H. It is very lazy thinking to lump Green and LD voters together merely because of similar Brexit policies.

    Watermellons are not yellow in the middle!
    Very true. Though tomatoes often start off green but end up red.
    In a GE the Greens will be much closer to 2% than 10%. LDs would probably be circa 12%.
    That might happen. (It happened in 2017.)

    But if you look over the results of the last 40 years, third parties usually rise in the polls over the course of an election campaign.

    And you're also relying on hardcore remainers (who seem finally to have tired of Corbyn's prevarication) voting Labour because...
    Third party support fell during the 2017 campaign. Pre-campaign surges by such parties tend to be reversed - at least partially - in a GE. A 12% outcome for the LDs looks reasonable given that some pollsters currently have them on 16%/17%.

    Labour is currently the third party, having lost 50% of its 2017 GE support.
    According to both Survation and Opinium it is actually the first party on 26%.
    Only needs 1 point switch to Lib Dems to be fourth
    Comres and BMG both had Labour in first place on 27%.
    We shouldn't ignore Yougov, but it's very out of step with other pollsters at the moment. They get undue attention because they poll so frequently
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883

    Hilarious the number of alternative spins that can be put on those numbers. Only HYUFD (aka Comical Ali) thinks there is only one interpretation. Compromise is needed. I think Brexit is pointless, but I can live with us leaving if is done under a proper deal that preserves our economy and some vestige of our international reputation.

    Indeed. Remain is my preferred option, but I am in the 66% who would take Leave and ongoing CU and SM membership as a first or second option.

    I wouldn't mind leaving on those terms.
    Same.
  • Can any Labour Kremlinologist explain this:

    "The controversial Derby North MP was suspended in February over a "pattern of behaviour" going back months. But that was lifted on Wednesday by a three-person NEC panel on anti-semitism, despite a recommendation from party staff that he be referred to the next stage of Labour's disciplinary process."

    What kind of world do three people say, "There have been a lot of problems - whether real or perceived - with this issue. We're the trio tasked with addressing concerns on an anti-semitism panel. This is one of the highest profile cases. The recommendation is proceed to the next stage of the investigation. So let's not bother."

    And in what kind of world doesn't party leader and self-styled "lifelong anti-racist" explode with rage, insist it's overturned immediately, and have his heavier-built emissaries give these three halfwits a little visit.

    I just don't understand it. The only way to rationalise it is that the Labour leader is indeed anti-semitic, or at least has zero concern if his closest colleagues are.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    Presumably the new relationship is in fifty shades.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883

    Can any Labour Kremlinologist explain this:

    "The controversial Derby North MP was suspended in February over a "pattern of behaviour" going back months. But that was lifted on Wednesday by a three-person NEC panel on anti-semitism, despite a recommendation from party staff that he be referred to the next stage of Labour's disciplinary process."

    What kind of world do three people say, "There have been a lot of problems - whether real or perceived - with this issue. We're the trio tasked with addressing concerns on an anti-semitism panel. This is one of the highest profile cases. The recommendation is proceed to the next stage of the investigation. So let's not bother."

    And in what kind of world doesn't party leader and self-styled "lifelong anti-racist" explode with rage, insist it's overturned immediately, and have his heavier-built emissaries give these three halfwits a little visit.

    I just don't understand it. The only way to rationalise it is that the Labour leader is indeed anti-semitic, or at least has zero concern if his closest colleagues are.

    It’s just mainstream media smears mate.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,460

    Pulpstar said:

    People who get their fourth and last choice ultimately will be angry and disillusioned for many years to come.

    This poll is a reminder that some version of a deal is the only way to unite the country. Hard Brexit is a huge problem for 46%, Hard Remain for 42%. A pragmatic, squishy deal is never going to be loved but anything else unleashes further and deeper hell.

    There's a very real chance due to the lie of the FPTP arithmetic that there is a remain majority in the country and at the next election essentially a leave majority is returned in some form or another (BXP + Con + DUP majority).
    Will remainers have parliamentary sovereignty as their utmost concern in that situation ?
    Well according to the poll at the top of this page there certainly doesn't seem to be a Remain majority. Like Charles I do smile at the ability of OGH to spin this as good news for Remain when 57% have some form of Leave as their first choice.
    57% have some form of Leave as their first choice, so we should leave.
    OK, if you think that, do you also think the following:
    59% think we should stay in the single market and customs union, so we should stay in the single market and customs union?
    Yes.

    I may not like the Customs Union and it is a very, very stupid thing to do but I would absolutely accept it as it is still leaving and, at present, is the choice of the majority. I have always contended that the question in 2016 did not say what form of Leave we should have so as long as we do leave any and everything is up for debate and compromise.
    That has always been the obvious compromise solution, and I for one have always been willing to accept that. But the failure to compromise has always been on the part of Leavers, including converts like May. A SM+CU Brexit would have won in the Hoc by the same margin her wretched deal lost by the first time around.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883

    Pulpstar said:

    People who get their fourth and last choice ultimately will be angry and disillusioned for many years to come.

    This poll is a reminder that some version of a deal is the only way to unite the country. Hard Brexit is a huge problem for 46%, Hard Remain for 42%. A pragmatic, squishy deal is never going to be loved but anything else unleashes further and deeper hell.

    There's a very real chance due to the lie of the FPTP arithmetic that there is a remain majority in the country and at the next election essentially a leave majority is returned in some form or another (BXP + Con + DUP majority).
    Will remainers have parliamentary sovereignty as their utmost concern in that situation ?
    Well according to the poll at the top of this page there certainly doesn't seem to be a Remain majority. Like Charles I do smile at the ability of OGH to spin this as good news for Remain when 57% have some form of Leave as their first choice.
    57% have some form of Leave as their first choice, so we should leave.
    OK, if you think that, do you also think the following:
    59% think we should stay in the single market and customs union, so we should stay in the single market and customs union?
    Yes.

    I may not like the Customs Union and it is a very, very stupid thing to do but I would absolutely accept it as it is still leaving and, at present, is the choice of the majority. I have always contended that the question in 2016 did not say what form of Leave we should have so as long as we do leave any and everything is up for debate and compromise.
    That has always been the obvious compromise solution, and I for one have always been willing to accept that. But the failure to compromise has always been on the part of Leavers, including converts like May. A SM+CU Brexit would have won in the Hoc by the same margin her wretched deal lost by the first time around.
    Yes. And we could have slowly and conservatively diverged over the years if that is what was desired.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,620
    But we aren't off. A tweet is too easy to do. She should be going on strike until he is expelled from the party. Or resigning from the party.

    Or anything other than just empty words
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    28% is a very shallow pool for both the Brexit party and the Conservative party to be fishing in.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834



    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

    The one thing that Remain definitely didn't mean was the status quo. The EU is changing and there is nothing we can do about that either inside or outside. At least outside we don't have to get dragged along with it.
    Well it did mean the Status Quo, at that time. What happened from that point onwards we could have decided.
    No we couldn't. We were losing influence and power in the EU continuously and at the same time the ability to leave was being more and more eroded.
    People seem to forget this. The amount of wailing a gnashing of teeth from remainers there has been about the possibility of Parliament being put on ice is laughable considering they have been more than willing to see its powers quietly and permanently eroded. The porn laws are the most recent example. I don't support the law, but the fact it isn't going ahead because we failed to inform the European Commission about it... Why?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594

    Can any Labour Kremlinologist explain this:

    "The controversial Derby North MP was suspended in February over a "pattern of behaviour" going back months. But that was lifted on Wednesday by a three-person NEC panel on anti-semitism, despite a recommendation from party staff that he be referred to the next stage of Labour's disciplinary process."

    What kind of world do three people say, "There have been a lot of problems - whether real or perceived - with this issue. We're the trio tasked with addressing concerns on an anti-semitism panel. This is one of the highest profile cases. The recommendation is proceed to the next stage of the investigation. So let's not bother."

    And in what kind of world doesn't party leader and self-styled "lifelong anti-racist" explode with rage, insist it's overturned immediately, and have his heavier-built emissaries give these three halfwits a little visit.

    I just don't understand it. The only way to rationalise it is that the Labour leader is indeed anti-semitic, or at least has zero concern if his closest colleagues are.

    I think you may have answered the question.
  • Can any Labour Kremlinologist explain this:

    "The controversial Derby North MP was suspended in February over a "pattern of behaviour" going back months. But that was lifted on Wednesday by a three-person NEC panel on anti-semitism, despite a recommendation from party staff that he be referred to the next stage of Labour's disciplinary process."

    What kind of world do three people say, "There have been a lot of problems - whether real or perceived - with this issue. We're the trio tasked with addressing concerns on an anti-semitism panel. This is one of the highest profile cases. The recommendation is proceed to the next stage of the investigation. So let's not bother."

    And in what kind of world doesn't party leader and self-styled "lifelong anti-racist" explode with rage, insist it's overturned immediately, and have his heavier-built emissaries give these three halfwits a little visit.

    I just don't understand it. The only way to rationalise it is that the Labour leader is indeed anti-semitic, or at least has zero concern if his closest colleagues are.

    It’s just mainstream media smears mate.
    Ah, fair point. Those MSM bastards - no sooner have they finished traducing stable family man and deep political philosopher Boris Johnson, than they move on to trying to say Jeremy Corbyn is anything other than a lifelong anti-racist and lover of the whole of humankind.

    Next thing we know, they'll be saying Vince Cable is too old to be considered for selection for Gareth Southgate's England squad, and that Nicola Sturgeon isn't Welsh.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594

    But we aren't off. A tweet is too easy to do. She should be going on strike until he is expelled from the party. Or resigning from the party.

    Or anything other than just empty words
    Yes. That's what I was implying to be honest. Or trying to.

    We will have an hour or so of angry tweets and asides to journalists and then back to trying to get the Tories out and our Jezza into No. 10.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,017
    Foxy said:


    In your dreams!

    The shine has worn off Corbynism, Labour will lose seats in any GE now. The only question is whether the Tories will lose even more.

    Who do you believe Labour will lose the seats to?

    They have hardly anything left to lose in Scotland.

    I think the LibDems will really struggle to take Remain seats when the Labour Mp is ultra-Remain. I think the BXP will struggle to tale Labour Leave seats, I could maybe see the Tories taking some, but not many.

    Newport and Posh were held safely in by-elections.

    I really doubt if, even in the worst case, Corby will lose more than 20 seats. The Labour vote is hard to grind down.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834

    Pulpstar said:

    People who get their fourth and last choice ultimately will be angry and disillusioned for many years to come.

    This poll is a reminder that some version of a deal is the only way to unite the country. Hard Brexit is a huge problem for 46%, Hard Remain for 42%. A pragmatic, squishy deal is never going to be loved but anything else unleashes further and deeper hell.

    There's a very real chance due to the lie of the FPTP arithmetic that there is a remain majority in the country and at the next election essentially a leave majority is returned in some form or another (BXP + Con + DUP majority).
    Will remainers have parliamentary sovereignty as their utmost concern in that situation ?
    Well according to the poll at the top of this page there certainly doesn't seem to be a Remain majority. Like Charles I do smile at the ability of OGH to spin this as good news for Remain when 57% have some form of Leave as their first choice.
    57% have some form of Leave as their first choice, so we should leave.
    OK, if you think that, do you also think the following:
    59% think we should stay in the single market and customs union, so we should stay in the single market and customs union?
    Yes.

    I may not like the Customs Union and it is a very, very stupid thing to do but I would absolutely accept it as it is still leaving and, at present, is the choice of the majority. I have always contended that the question in 2016 did not say what form of Leave we should have so as long as we do leave any and everything is up for debate and compromise.
    That has always been the obvious compromise solution, and I for one have always been willing to accept that. But the failure to compromise has always been on the part of Leavers, including converts like May. A SM+CU Brexit would have won in the Hoc by the same margin her wretched deal lost by the first time around.
    Yes. And we could have slowly and conservatively diverged over the years if that is what was desired.
    I'd put it in slightly different terms, but broadly I agree.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,982

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:



    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

    The one thing that Remain definitely didn't mean was the status quo. The EU is changing and there is nothing we can do about that either inside or outside. At least outside we don't have to get dragged along with it.
    The EU is not changing that fast. A more normal criticism is that the EU is resistant to charge. The EU has changed very significantly since the UK decided to join in the 1970s, and the second vote fifty years later was about a very different beast. Nevertheless the latest referendum was about the EU that exists now, not the 1970s version.
    It is not about the speed of change it is about the direction and our inability to influence that.
    There has been no major change in the EU in the last ten years, with the exception of the UK leaving. The really big change decisions were taken twenty years ago. The current direction, to the extent there is one, is a swing back in the balance of power from the Commission to the member states. There is always a tension between the two.

    This is a bogus distinction. Remain is definitely the status quo option, compared with Leave.
    There will be another status quo in about 10-15 years time. The problem is, Richard et al will have fucked us over for this intervening period.
    So fuck off to Europe then if that is your view. (replying in the same manner as you have posted)
    Twat (ibid). I'm not going anywhere. I am British and have enjoyed to date our complete and total sovereignty as a proud nation. I also understood that in today's modern world, proud, sovereign nations come together for the common good for any number of reasons, of which our membership of the EU was one example.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    I just don't understand it. The only way to rationalise it is that the Labour leader is indeed anti-semitic, or at least has zero concern if his closest colleagues are.

    There is another possibility I'll throw out there. Corbyn divides the world into 'them' and 'us.' If you are not one of them, you're one of us. Therefore terrorists, murderers and union bosses who have shall we say, interesting personal and professional relationships are OK because they're us. If they do something even more than usually dodgy, you sweep it under the carpet. Anyone else is them, and so it doesn't matter if they are absolute saints or they are fanatically opposed to racism. They're just not important. That might also explain his ambivalence on the EU, because they are not us.

    If I'm right, and I'm sure many people will tell me I'm wrong although the evidence provided will be at best scanty, itwould mean Corbyn is very stupid. But anyone who has bothered to look even cursorily at his record knows that already.

    It would also explain why Macdonnell, who with all his many and egregious faults is certainly anything but stupid, seems to get why sort of thing is really bad and Corbyn doesn't.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:



    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

    The one thing that Remain definitely didn't mean was the status quo. The EU is changing and there is nothing we can do about that either inside or outside. At least outside we don't have to get dragged along with it.
    The EU is not changing that fast. A more normal criticism is that the EU is resistant to charge. The EU has changed very significantly since the UK decided to join in the 1970s, and the second vote fifty years later was about a very different beast. Nevertheless the latest referendum was about the EU that exists now, not the 1970s version.
    It is not about the speed of change it is about the direction and our inability to influence that.
    There has been no major change in the EU in the last ten years, with the exception of the UK leaving. The really big change decisions were taken twenty years ago. The current direction, to the extent there is one, is a swing back in the balance of power from the Commission to the member states. There is always a tension between the two.

    This is a bogus distinction. Remain is definitely the status quo option, compared with Leave.
    There will be another status quo in about 10-15 years time. The problem is, Richard et al will have fucked us over for this intervening period.
    So fuck off to Europe then if that is your view. (replying in the same manner as you have posted)
    Twat (ibid). I'm not going anywhere. I am British and have enjoyed to date our complete and total sovereignty as a proud nation. I also understood that in today's modern world, proud, sovereign nations come together for the common good for any number of reasons, of which our membership of the EU was one example.
    So why aren't you wanting to come together with nations we have far more in common with like Canada, Australia or NZ? Why just our small and inconsequential continent?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    But we aren't off. A tweet is too easy to do. She should be going on strike until he is expelled from the party. Or resigning from the party.

    Or anything other than just empty words
    Yes. That's what I was implying to be honest. Or trying to.

    We will have an hour or so of angry tweets and asides to journalists and then back to trying to get the Tories out and our Jezza into No. 10.
    We're going to get a whole host of Labour MPs sending thoughts and prayers, like Republican congressmen after a school shooting. Don't hold your breath for any meaningful action.
  • SaltireSaltire Posts: 525
    There is now going to be a by-election in Holyrood for the Shetland constituency.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48772908

    It would normally be a straightfoward hold for the Lib Dems considering the majority the last time but who knows if the SNP can put a better challenge like they did in the GE of 2015 in the Orkney and Shetland seat. Also looking at the list result compared to the constituency one it looks like Tavish Scott had a fairly large personal vote so it might be a reasonably close result in precentage terms (In number of votes it not going to be too many in it since there is likely to less than 10 000 people voting.)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shetland_(Scottish_Parliament_constituency)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594

    But we aren't off. A tweet is too easy to do. She should be going on strike until he is expelled from the party. Or resigning from the party.

    Or anything other than just empty words
    Yes. That's what I was implying to be honest. Or trying to.

    We will have an hour or so of angry tweets and asides to journalists and then back to trying to get the Tories out and our Jezza into No. 10.
    We're going to get a whole host of Labour MPs sending thoughts and prayers, like Republican congressmen after a school shooting. Don't hold your breath for any meaningful action.
    You gotta laugh. The 3 person NEC panel that dealt with this was specifically set up to deal with antisemitism.

    Well, they are certainly dealing with it.

    See this 2018 story of the plans:

    https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/leaked-document-from-labour-nec-reveals-partys-plans-to-tackle-anti-semitism/
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    Pulpstar said:

    People who get their fourth and last choice ultimately will be angry and disillusioned for many years to come.

    This poll is a reminder that some version of a deal is the only way to unite the country. Hard Brexit is a huge problem for 46%, Hard Remain for 42%. A pragmatic, squishy deal is never going to be loved but anything else unleashes further and deeper hell.

    There's a very real chance due to the lie of the FPTP arithmetic that there is a remain majority in the country and at the next election essentially a leave majority is returned in some form or another (BXP + Con + DUP majority).
    Will remainers have parliamentary sovereignty as their utmost concern in that situation ?
    Well according to the poll at the top of this page there certainly doesn't seem to be a Remain majority. Like Charles I do smile at the ability of OGH to spin this as good news for Remain when 57% have some form of Leave as their first choice.
    57% have some form of Leave as their first choice, so we should leave.
    OK, if you think that, do you also think the following:
    59% think we should stay in the single market and customs union, so we should stay in the single market and customs union?
    Yes.

    I may not like the Customs Union and it is a very, very stupid thing to do but I would absolutely accept it as it is still leaving and, at present, is the choice of the majority. I have always contended that the question in 2016 did not say what form of Leave we should have so as long as we do leave any and everything is up for debate and compromise.
    That has always been the obvious compromise solution, and I for one have always been willing to accept that. But the failure to compromise has always been on the part of Leavers, including converts like May. A SM+CU Brexit would have won in the Hoc by the same margin her wretched deal lost by the first time around.
    No it wouldn't since Labour etc oppose the deal because it is Tory not because of the contents of the deal. They would have opposed anything.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,638

    DougSeal said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:



    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

    The one thing that Remain definitely didn't mean was the status quo. The EU is changing and there is nothing we can do about that either inside or outside. At least outside we don't have to get dragged along with it.
    The EU is not changing that fast. A more normal criticism is that the EU is resistant to charge. The EU has changed very significantly since the UK decided to join in the 1970s, and the second vote fifty years later was about a very different beast. Nevertheless the latest referendum was about the EU that exists now, not the 1970s version.
    It is not about the speed of change it is about the direction and our inability to influence that.
    There has been no major change in the EU in the last ten years, with the exception of the UK leaving. The really big change decisions were taken twenty years ago. The current direction, to the extent there is one, is a swing back in the balance of power from the Commission to the member states. There is always a tension between the two.

    This is a bogus distinction. Remain is definitely the status quo option, compared with Leave.
    There will be another status quo in about 10-15 years time. The problem is, Richard et al will have fucked us over for this intervening period.
    So fuck off to Europe then if that is your view. (replying in the same manner as you have posted)
    A sad irony is that because of Brexit he won’t be able to, so your political choice means you’re stuck with him, and 16.8 million of your compatriots you openly despise. Unless you have other plans for us...
    I only despise those like you and Topping who are unwilling to accept the results of the referendum and seek to overturn it. You are thankfully a small minority which means it is much easier to despise you.
    I’m not seeking to overturn the result - I’d prefer an EEA Brexit over all other options but they have been rejected by your side, and even if I were it would be with a supervening democratic event. Like a second referendum - which is not the position of a “small minority” by any means.

    When Lincolnshire’s Gauleiter Tyndall is stomping my face in with his jackboot in the service of the Faragist paradise he spent so long seeking to achieve, I shall take solace in knowing the fetching leather is worn by Britain’s wittiest man, the new Wilde.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,413

    Pulpstar said:

    People who get their fourth and last choice ultimately will be angry and disillusioned for many years to come.

    This poll is a reminder that some version of a deal is the only way to unite the country. Hard Brexit is a huge problem for 46%, Hard Remain for 42%. A pragmatic, squishy deal is never going to be loved but anything else unleashes further and deeper hell.

    There's a very real chance due to the lie of the FPTP arithmetic that there is a remain majority in the country and at the next election essentially a leave majority is returned in some form or another (BXP + Con + DUP majority).
    Will remainers have parliamentary sovereignty as their utmost concern in that situation ?
    Well according to the poll at the top of this page there certainly doesn't seem to be a Remain majority. Like Charles I do smile at the ability of OGH to spin this as good news for Remain when 57% have some form of Leave as their first choice.
    57% have some form of Leave as their first choice, so we should leave.
    OK, if you think that, do you also think the following:
    59% think we should stay in the single market and customs union, so we should stay in the single market and customs union?
    Yes.

    I may not like the Customs Union and it is a very, very stupid thing to do but I would absolutely accept it as it is still leaving and, at present, is the choice of the majority. I have always contended that the question in 2016 did not say what form of Leave we should have so as long as we do leave any and everything is up for debate and compromise.
    That has always been the obvious compromise solution, and I for one have always been willing to accept that. But the failure to compromise has always been on the part of Leavers, including converts like May. A SM+CU Brexit would have won in the Hoc by the same margin her wretched deal lost by the first time around.
    I'm not sure about that. I think Labour and die-hard remainers would find reasons to vote against any deal. Labour sees the chaos as way to power and die hard remainers see it as a route to another referendum and/or revoke.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834

    But we aren't off. A tweet is too easy to do. She should be going on strike until he is expelled from the party. Or resigning from the party.

    Or anything other than just empty words
    Yes. That's what I was implying to be honest. Or trying to.

    We will have an hour or so of angry tweets and asides to journalists and then back to trying to get the Tories out and our Jezza into No. 10.
    We're going to get a whole host of Labour MPs sending thoughts and prayers, like Republican congressmen after a school shooting. Don't hold your breath for any meaningful action.
    Well we're certainly not going to get anyone joining the TIG, because they buggered that option by getting a load of Tories to join. If it was a Labour breakaway it would be an enduring threat.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594
    edited June 2019
    ydoethur said:

    I just don't understand it. The only way to rationalise it is that the Labour leader is indeed anti-semitic, or at least has zero concern if his closest colleagues are.

    There is another possibility I'll throw out there. Corbyn divides the world into 'them' and 'us.' If you are not one of them, you're one of us. Therefore terrorists, murderers and union bosses who have shall we say, interesting personal and professional relationships are OK because they're us. If they do something even more than usually dodgy, you sweep it under the carpet. Anyone else is them, and so it doesn't matter if they are absolute saints or they are fanatically opposed to racism. They're just not important. That might also explain his ambivalence on the EU, because they are not us.

    If I'm right, and I'm sure many people will tell me I'm wrong although the evidence provided will be at best scanty, itwould mean Corbyn is very stupid. But anyone who has bothered to look even cursorily at his record knows that already.

    It would also explain why Macdonnell, who with all his many and egregious faults is certainly anything but stupid, seems to get why sort of thing is really bad and Corbyn doesn't.
    I believe this was the basic operating mode of Stalin. With a regular change of who was 'them' to keep every one on their toes.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,343
    Off topic: I have joined the modern age - after being let down by a normal taxi company yesterday I used Lyft for the first time today. I'm now converted.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,122

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:



    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

    The one thing that Remain definitely didn't mean was the status quo. The EU is changing and there is nothing we can do about that either inside or outside. At least outside we don't have to get dragged along with it.
    The EU is not changing that fast. A more normal criticism is that the EU is resistant to charge. The EU has changed very significantly since the UK decided to join in the 1970s, and the second vote fifty years later was about a very different beast. Nevertheless the latest referendum was about the EU that exists now, not the 1970s version.
    It is not about the speed of change it is about the direction and our inability to influence that.
    There has been no major change in the EU in the last ten years, with the exception of the UK leaving. The really big change decisions were taken twenty years ago. The current direction, to the extent there is one, is a swing back in the balance of power from the Commission to the member states. There is always a tension between the two.

    This is a bogus distinction. Remain is definitely the status quo option, compared with Leave.
    There will be another status quo in about 10-15 years time. The problem is, Richard et al will have fucked us over for this intervening period.
    So fuck off to Europe then if that is your view. (replying in the same manner as you have posted)
    Twat (ibid). I'm not going anywhere. I am British and have enjoyed to date our complete and total sovereignty as a proud nation. I also understood that in today's modern world, proud, sovereign nations come together for the common good for any number of reasons, of which our membership of the EU was one example.
    So why aren't you wanting to come together with nations we have far more in common with like Canada, Australia or NZ? Why just our small and inconsequential continent?
    If Europe is a small and inconsequential continent, then Australia is a small and even more inconsequetial contenent, and New Zealand is not even a continent.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,424

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:



    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

    The one thing that Remain definitely didn't mean was the status quo. The EU is changing and there is nothing we can do about that either inside or outside. At least outside we don't have to get dragged along with it.
    The EU is not changing that fast. A more normal criticism is that the EU is resistant to charge. The EU has changed very significantly since the UK decided to join in the 1970s, and the second vote fifty years later was about a very different beast. Nevertheless the latest referendum was about the EU that exists now, not the 1970s version.
    It is not about the speed of change it is about the direction and our inability to influence that.
    There has been no major change in the EU in the last ten years, with the exception of the UK leaving. The really big change decisions were taken twenty years ago. The current direction, to the extent there is one, is a swing back in the balance of power from the Commission to the member states. There is always a tension between the two.

    This is a bogus distinction. Remain is definitely the status quo option, compared with Leave.
    There will be another status quo in about 10-15 years time. The problem is, Richard et al will have fucked us over for this intervening period.
    So fuck off to Europe then if that is your view. (replying in the same manner as you have posted)
    Twat (ibid). I'm not going anywhere. I am British and have enjoyed to date our complete and total sovereignty as a proud nation. I also understood that in today's modern world, proud, sovereign nations come together for the common good for any number of reasons, of which our membership of the EU was one example.
    So why aren't you wanting to come together with nations we have far more in common with like Canada, Australia or NZ? Why just our small and inconsequential continent?
    Do you mean those nice countries that are all economically weaker than us, or do you prefer the fact that they are generally white?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594

    Can any Labour Kremlinologist explain this:

    "The controversial Derby North MP was suspended in February over a "pattern of behaviour" going back months. But that was lifted on Wednesday by a three-person NEC panel on anti-semitism, despite a recommendation from party staff that he be referred to the next stage of Labour's disciplinary process."

    What kind of world do three people say, "There have been a lot of problems - whether real or perceived - with this issue. We're the trio tasked with addressing concerns on an anti-semitism panel. This is one of the highest profile cases. The recommendation is proceed to the next stage of the investigation. So let's not bother."

    And in what kind of world doesn't party leader and self-styled "lifelong anti-racist" explode with rage, insist it's overturned immediately, and have his heavier-built emissaries give these three halfwits a little visit.

    I just don't understand it. The only way to rationalise it is that the Labour leader is indeed anti-semitic, or at least has zero concern if his closest colleagues are.

    It’s just mainstream media smears mate.
    Ah, fair point. Those MSM bastards - no sooner have they finished traducing stable family man and deep political philosopher Boris Johnson, than they move on to trying to say Jeremy Corbyn is anything other than a lifelong anti-racist and lover of the whole of humankind.

    Next thing we know, they'll be saying Vince Cable is too old to be considered for selection for Gareth Southgate's England squad, and that Nicola Sturgeon isn't Welsh.
    Nicola Sturgeon isn't Welsh? Now, it all makes sense.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592

    Foxy said:


    In your dreams!

    The shine has worn off Corbynism, Labour will lose seats in any GE now. The only question is whether the Tories will lose even more.

    Who do you believe Labour will lose the seats to?

    They have hardly anything left to lose in Scotland.

    I think the LibDems will really struggle to take Remain seats when the Labour Mp is ultra-Remain. I think the BXP will struggle to tale Labour Leave seats, I could maybe see the Tories taking some, but not many.

    Newport and Posh were held safely in by-elections.

    I really doubt if, even in the worst case, Corby will lose more than 20 seats. The Labour vote is hard to grind down.
    Everyone really. SLAB could lose all of their seven seats. Lib Dems should make good gains in the South and Sout East, from both Lab and Tories, some in the SW too, though this Flavible map is a little over egging the LDs

    https://twitter.com/flaviblePolitic/status/1143783091992977410?s=19

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    ydoethur said:

    I just don't understand it. The only way to rationalise it is that the Labour leader is indeed anti-semitic, or at least has zero concern if his closest colleagues are.

    There is another possibility I'll throw out there. Corbyn divides the world into 'them' and 'us.' If you are not one of them, you're one of us. Therefore terrorists, murderers and union bosses who have shall we say, interesting personal and professional relationships are OK because they're us. If they do something even more than usually dodgy, you sweep it under the carpet. Anyone else is them, and so it doesn't matter if they are absolute saints or they are fanatically opposed to racism. They're just not important. That might also explain his ambivalence on the EU, because they are not us.

    If I'm right, and I'm sure many people will tell me I'm wrong although the evidence provided will be at best scanty, itwould mean Corbyn is very stupid. But anyone who has bothered to look even cursorily at his record knows that already.

    It would also explain why Macdonnell, who with all his many and egregious faults is certainly anything but stupid, seems to get why sort of thing is really bad and Corbyn doesn't.
    I believe this was the basic operating mode of Stalin. With a regular change of who was 'them' to keep every one on their toes.
    There is no evidence Corbyn plans to assassinate the 'them.'

    And Stalin seems to have considered the world not so much as Us and Them as Me and Them.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,176
    edited June 2019

    I'm not sure about that. I think Labour and die-hard remainers would find reasons to vote against any deal. Labour sees the chaos as way to power and die hard remainers see it as a route to another referendum and/or revoke.

    Yes, absolutely. There was not a snowflake's chance in hell of Labour supporting any kind of deal at all. They just want as much chaos as possible, as long as they can blame it on the Tories. Indeed, they wouldn't even vote for the Withdrawal Agreement in isolation - the agreement that would be essential for what they pretend was their preferred option. It's complete fantasy to think there might have been some kind of cross-party agreement on the form of Brexit.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    Can any Labour Kremlinologist explain this:

    "The controversial Derby North MP was suspended in February over a "pattern of behaviour" going back months. But that was lifted on Wednesday by a three-person NEC panel on anti-semitism, despite a recommendation from party staff that he be referred to the next stage of Labour's disciplinary process."

    What kind of world do three people say, "There have been a lot of problems - whether real or perceived - with this issue. We're the trio tasked with addressing concerns on an anti-semitism panel. This is one of the highest profile cases. The recommendation is proceed to the next stage of the investigation. So let's not bother."

    And in what kind of world doesn't party leader and self-styled "lifelong anti-racist" explode with rage, insist it's overturned immediately, and have his heavier-built emissaries give these three halfwits a little visit.

    I just don't understand it. The only way to rationalise it is that the Labour leader is indeed anti-semitic, or at least has zero concern if his closest colleagues are.

    It’s just mainstream media smears mate.
    Ah, fair point. Those MSM bastards - no sooner have they finished traducing stable family man and deep political philosopher Boris Johnson, than they move on to trying to say Jeremy Corbyn is anything other than a lifelong anti-racist and lover of the whole of humankind.

    Next thing we know, they'll be saying Vince Cable is too old to be considered for selection for Gareth Southgate's England squad, and that Nicola Sturgeon isn't Welsh.
    Nicola Sturgeon isn't Welsh? Now, it all makes sense.
    Really? Sounds fishy to me.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,424



    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

    The one thing that Remain definitely didn't mean was the status quo. The EU is changing and there is nothing we can do about that either inside or outside. At least outside we don't have to get dragged along with it.
    Well it did mean the Status Quo, at that time. What happened from that point onwards we could have decided.
    No we couldn't. We were losing influence and power in the EU continuously and at the same time the ability to leave was being more and more eroded.
    People seem to forget this. The amount of wailing a gnashing of teeth from remainers there has been about the possibility of Parliament being put on ice is laughable considering they have been more than willing to see its powers quietly and permanently eroded. The porn laws are the most recent example. I don't support the law, but the fact it isn't going ahead because we failed to inform the European Commission about it... Why?
    Maybe because MPs enjoy bashing one out when they are not bashing each other? Saves them having to put porn on their expenses account.

    By the way, ridiculous comparison. Keep it up. The trivial nature of Leave supporters arguments make the whole thing more bearable.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Scott_P said:
    Call me Dr Suspicious, but I get the feeling they are not entirely thrilled by this decision for some reason.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,343
    justin124 said:

    I would certainly not vote for Williamson.
    That's the bloody irony - a party member in his constituency who declared that they voted against him would be expelled.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,638

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:



    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

    The one thing that Remain definitely didn't mean was the status quo. The EU is changing and there is nothing we can do about that either inside or outside. At least outside we don't have to get dragged along with it.
    The EU is not changing that fast. A more normal criticism is that the EU is resistant to charge. The EU has changed very significantly since the UK decided to join in the 1970s, and the second vote fifty years later was about a very different beast. Nevertheless the latest referendum was about the EU that exists now, not the 1970s version.
    It is not about the speed of change it is about the direction and our inability to influence that.
    There has been no major change in the EU in the last ten years, with the exception of the UK leaving. The really big change decisions were taken twenty years ago. The current direction, to the extent there is one, is a swing back in the balance of power from the Commission to the member states. There is always a tension between the two.

    This is a bogus distinction. Remain is definitely the status quo option, compared with Leave.
    There will be another status quo in about 10-15 years time. The problem is, Richard et al will have fucked us over for this intervening period.
    So fuck off to Europe then if that is your view. (replying in the same manner as you have posted)
    Twat (ibid). I'm not going anywhere. I am British and have enjoyed to date our complete and total sovereignty as a proud nation. I also understood that in today's modern world, proud, sovereign nations come together for the common good for any number of reasons, of which our membership of the EU was one example.
    So why aren't you wanting to come together with nations we have far more in common with like Canada, Australia or NZ? Why just our small and inconsequential continent?
    The EU, in terms of population, is five or six times bigger than those countries combined. We have been part of the European family since the beginning of human habitation of these islands. Our connection with those countries is ephemera and as easily broken as it was achieved. We are part of Europe - they are our family - we have increasingly little connection with those quite small countries.

    The EU has 3 G7 members even without us. Canada is the only one in the three countries you name.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,982

    DougSeal said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:



    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

    The one thing that Remain definitely didn't mean was the status quo. The EU is changing and there is nothing we can do about that either inside or outside. At least outside we don't have to get dragged along with it.
    The EU is not changing that fast. A more normal criticism is that the EU is resistant to charge. The EU has changed very significantly since the UK decided to join in the 1970s, and the second vote fifty years later was about a very different beast. Nevertheless the latest referendum was about the EU that exists now, not the 1970s version.
    It is not about the speed of change it is about the direction and our inability to influence that.
    There has been no major change in the EU in the last ten years, with the exception of the UK leaving. The really big change decisions were taken twenty years ago. The current direction, to the extent there is one, is a swing back in the balance of power from the Commission to the member states. There is always a tension between the two.

    This is a bogus distinction. Remain is definitely the status quo option, compared with Leave.
    There will be another status quo in about 10-15 years time. The problem is, Richard et al will have fucked us over for this intervening period.
    So fuck off to Europe then if that is your view. (replying in the same manner as you have posted)
    A sad irony is that because of Brexit he won’t be able to, so your political choice means you’re stuck with him, and 16.8 million of your compatriots you openly despise. Unless you have other plans for us...
    I only despise those like you and Topping who are unwilling to accept the results of the referendum and seek to overturn it. You are thankfully a small minority which means it is much easier to despise you.
    Hey twatface. I don't seek to overturn the referendum result. I think it is a mistake but you will find 86.467% of my posts have been bemoaning the fact that, given the fruitcakes, loonies, closet racists, and Little Englanders voted to leave, the WA didn't pass.

    I appreciate that you are usually too frothing and loading up your pen with green ink to be able to see the screen clearly but on a discussion board it aids things greatly if you actually read what other people write.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    ydoethur said:

    Can any Labour Kremlinologist explain this:

    "The controversial Derby North MP was suspended in February over a "pattern of behaviour" going back months. But that was lifted on Wednesday by a three-person NEC panel on anti-semitism, despite a recommendation from party staff that he be referred to the next stage of Labour's disciplinary process."

    What kind of world do three people say, "There have been a lot of problems - whether real or perceived - with this issue. We're the trio tasked with addressing concerns on an anti-semitism panel. This is one of the highest profile cases. The recommendation is proceed to the next stage of the investigation. So let's not bother."

    And in what kind of world doesn't party leader and self-styled "lifelong anti-racist" explode with rage, insist it's overturned immediately, and have his heavier-built emissaries give these three halfwits a little visit.

    I just don't understand it. The only way to rationalise it is that the Labour leader is indeed anti-semitic, or at least has zero concern if his closest colleagues are.

    It’s just mainstream media smears mate.
    Ah, fair point. Those MSM bastards - no sooner have they finished traducing stable family man and deep political philosopher Boris Johnson, than they move on to trying to say Jeremy Corbyn is anything other than a lifelong anti-racist and lover of the whole of humankind.

    Next thing we know, they'll be saying Vince Cable is too old to be considered for selection for Gareth Southgate's England squad, and that Nicola Sturgeon isn't Welsh.
    Nicola Sturgeon isn't Welsh? Now, it all makes sense.
    Really? Sounds fishy to me.
    The news has leeked out.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,372

    28% is a very shallow pool for both the Brexit party and the Conservative party to be fishing in.

    But larger than the pool of those who understand and agree with labour's policy on Europe - which for obvious reasons is approx 0%.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,638
    TOPPING said:

    DougSeal said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:



    No, Remain meant the Status Quo. Leave meant whatever you wanted it to mean.

    The one thing that Remain definitely didn't mean was the status quo. The EU is changing and there is nothing we can do about that either inside or outside. At least outside we don't have to get dragged along with it.
    The EU is not changing that fast. A more normal criticism is that the EU is resistant to charge. The EU has changed very significantly since the UK decided to join in the 1970s, and the second vote fifty years later was about a very different beast. Nevertheless the latest referendum was about the EU that exists now, not the 1970s version.
    It is not about the speed of change it is about the direction and our inability to influence that.
    There has been no major change in the EU in the last ten years, with the exception of the UK leaving. The really big change decisions were taken twenty years ago. The current direction, to the extent there is one, is a swing back in the balance of power from the Commission to the member states. There is always a tension between the two.

    This is a bogus distinction. Remain is definitely the status quo option, compared with Leave.
    There will be another status quo in about 10-15 years time. The problem is, Richard et al will have fucked us over for this intervening period.
    So fuck off to Europe then if that is your view. (replying in the same manner as you have posted)
    A sad irony is that because of Brexit he won’t be able to, so your political choice means you’re stuck with him, and 16.8 million of your compatriots you openly despise. Unless you have other plans for us...
    I only despise those like you and Topping who are unwilling to accept the results of the referendum and seek to overturn it. You are thankfully a small minority which means it is much easier to despise you.
    Hey twatface. I don't seek to overturn the referendum result. I think it is a mistake but you will find 86.467% of my posts have been bemoaning the fact that, given the fruitcakes, loonies, closet racists, and Little Englanders voted to leave, the WA didn't pass.

    I appreciate that you are usually too frothing and loading up your pen with green ink to be able to see the screen clearly but on a discussion board it aids things greatly if you actually read what other people write.
    Glad to see I’m not the only one...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Can any Labour Kremlinologist explain this:

    "The controversial Derby North MP was suspended in February over a "pattern of behaviour" going back months. But that was lifted on Wednesday by a three-person NEC panel on anti-semitism, despite a recommendation from party staff that he be referred to the next stage of Labour's disciplinary process."

    What kind of world do three people say, "There have been a lot of problems - whether real or perceived - with this issue. We're the trio tasked with addressing concerns on an anti-semitism panel. This is one of the highest profile cases. The recommendation is proceed to the next stage of the investigation. So let's not bother."

    And in what kind of world doesn't party leader and self-styled "lifelong anti-racist" explode with rage, insist it's overturned immediately, and have his heavier-built emissaries give these three halfwits a little visit.

    I just don't understand it. The only way to rationalise it is that the Labour leader is indeed anti-semitic, or at least has zero concern if his closest colleagues are.

    It’s just mainstream media smears mate.
    Ah, fair point. Those MSM bastards - no sooner have they finished traducing stable family man and deep political philosopher Boris Johnson, than they move on to trying to say Jeremy Corbyn is anything other than a lifelong anti-racist and lover of the whole of humankind.

    Next thing we know, they'll be saying Vince Cable is too old to be considered for selection for Gareth Southgate's England squad, and that Nicola Sturgeon isn't Welsh.
    Nicola Sturgeon isn't Welsh? Now, it all makes sense.
    Really? Sounds fishy to me.
    The news has leeked out.
    Somebody will be feeling sheepish.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,017
    Foxy said:


    Everyone really. SLAB could lose all of their seven seats. Lib Dems should make good gains in the South and Sout East, from both Lab and Tories, some in the SW too, though this Flavible map is a little over egging the LDs

    https://twitter.com/flaviblePolitic/status/1143783091992977410?s=19

    Doubt it.

    I think the LibDems will do well get ~ 35 seats (gains mainly from the Tories).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    algarkirk said:

    28% is a very shallow pool for both the Brexit party and the Conservative party to be fishing in.

    But larger than the pool of those who understand and agree with labour's policy on Europe - which for obvious reasons is approx 0%.
    Labour has a policy on Europe? I thought they took the Hacker solution.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,565
    DougSeal said:



    I’m not seeking to overturn the result - I’d prefer an EEA Brexit over all other options but they have been rejected by your side, and even if I were it would be with a supervening democratic event. Like a second referendum - which is not the position of a “small minority” by any means.

    When Lincolnshire’s Gauleiter Tyndall is stomping my face in with his jackboot in the service of the Faragist paradise he spent so long seeking to achieve, I shall take solace in knowing the fetching leather is worn by Britain’s wittiest man, the new Wilde.

    I had thought you were just another sad whining loser. Now I see you are actually mentally ill. You have my sympathies. Or at least those who have to take care of you do.
This discussion has been closed.