politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In spite of all the uncertainty a 2019 general election is sti

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1148491969045422081

tlg86 said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD is the new Plato.
Utterly bonkers on high rotate.

He called it right on Boris, though.

Just as Plato called it right on Trump.

IanB2 said:

Wishful thinking from Rudd; surely the Tories are too far gone:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/i-have-debated-boris-and-jeremy-can-win-this-rvp5hvnsr

Most have already voted. Even if Jeremy turned up and said he would abolish income tax and Boris turned up advocating eating the first born, Boris still has enough votes in the post....

malcolmg said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

StuartDickson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

IanB2 said:

Sarah James on R4, hopelessly trying to defend Labour’s new Brexit nuance.

Asked the question whether in a referendum Labour would be Leave or Remain, first there is a pause. Then an answer beginning with the words “It depends...”. Then a qualification that they would probably be Remain “at this stage”.

Asked how Labour could negotiate hard for a new deal and then campaign against it in a referendum, she was stumped.

It’s as though Labour wants to donate voters to the Lib Dems and the Greens.

And the Scottish National Party.

Although Brexit is not the primary determinant of voting behaviour, it is still important for many Scots voters. A lot of SLab empathisers are totally disgusted with their party. Abstention could be high within some voter groups.

The remnants of SLAB are unionists. They wouldn't back the SNP.
They would go Lib Dem, if the LDs have the good sense not to elect a London-based leader.

You would need to be brain dead to vote Lib Dem in Scotland

I can see the LDs getting a majority of the Unionist vote in Scotland at the next GE. Is that the same thing? ;-)

AlastairMeeks said:

Foxy said:

AlastairMeeks said:

IanB2 said:

Sarah James on R4, hopelessly trying to defend Labour’s new Brexit nuance.

Asked the question whether in a referendum Labour would be Leave or Remain, first there is a pause. Then an answer beginning with the words “It depends...”. Then a qualification that they would probably be Remain “at this stage”.

Asked how Labour could negotiate hard for a new deal and then campaign against it in a referendum, she was stumped.

It’s as though Labour wants to donate voters to the Lib Dems and the Greens.

Its too little, too late.

If Labour want to credibly run a different Brexit policy, they have to change leader first to someone like Watson or Phillips.

The most underreported group in British politics at present comprises those people who voted Labour in 2017 and who are now not supporting them. That makes up 15-20% of the population. But while there are plenty of Labour loyalists still making their views known and plenty of people who never liked Labour making their views known, public statements from members of this very sizeable group are really quite hard to come by.

They’ll be tactical voters by and large, and most will be casting their ballots to prevent Johnson winning.

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

I don't see what you gain, rhetorically, from using the term diehard Remainer. You could add easily and as meaninglessly take any other minority societal group. Dentists, EDLers, redheads, etc.

Remainers are a majority group.

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

I don't see what you gain, rhetorically, from using the term diehard Remainer. You could add easily and as meaninglessly take any other minority societal group. Dentists, EDLers, redheads, etc.

diehard dentists?

TGOHF said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/nickmacpherson2/status/1148337307717709832

Ex civil servant supports civil service shock.

Doesn’t dispute Trumps point that May and the Civil Service borked up Brexit I note...

Nick is right here

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

StuartDickson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Disgraceful. And only a few weeks after the D-Day memorials. Have we learnt nothing?

To listen to them you’d think they had been first on the beaches.

Quite a significant number weren’t even born at the time of WW2, I imagine.

CarlottaVance said:

U.K. Ambassador Kim Darroch was disinvited from a dinner that U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is hosting Monday with President Donald Trump and the emir of Qatar, according to a U.S. official.

https://time.com/5622419/trump-disinvites-uk-envoy-kim-darroch/

Really, why wouldn’t we do exactly the same thing to the US Ambassador here. Politely make it clear that if the Trump government is going to behave with such discourtesy then we will respond in kind. For every freezing out etc there will be an equivalent response here.

Our ambassador has done nothing wrong and yet, because of the behaviour of others, is likely going to have his career ruined. He ought to be promoted so as to make clear to the leaker and anyone else hoping to profit by their misbehaviour that they won’t prosper.

It’s a disgrace that people aren’t condemning Trump from the rooftops for his appalling intrusion into our internal affairs.

tlg86 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1148491969045422081

Didn't JFK hand-pick David Ormsby-Gore as our man in DC?

He knew JFK and was already an MP and Minister of State in the Foreign Office, so might have been a logical choice from a UK pov anyway. I doubt he was "hand picked by JFK."

Meanwhile, I wonder why the Mail is spinning "the Russians dun it" or "disgruntled Civil Servant" when "ambitious politician in the FCO' is at least, if not more, likely....

StuartDickson said:

Tissue_Price said:

On topic, it's worth noting the £6k looking to back the election this year at 2.32.

Noted.

And the ability to lay 2020 or later at 1.82 on the monthly market

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

StuartDickson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Disgraceful. And only a few weeks after the D-Day memorials. Have we learnt nothing?

To listen to them you’d think they had been first on the beaches.

Quite a significant number weren’t even born at the time of WW2, I imagine.

CarlottaVance said:

U.K. Ambassador Kim Darroch was disinvited from a dinner that U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is hosting Monday with President Donald Trump and the emir of Qatar, according to a U.S. official.

https://time.com/5622419/trump-disinvites-uk-envoy-kim-darroch/

Really, why wouldn’t we do exactly the same thing to the US Ambassador here. Politely make it clear that if the Trump government is going to behave with such discourtesy then we will respond in kind. For every freezing out etc there will be an equivalent response here.

Our ambassador has done nothing wrong and yet, because of the behaviour of others, is likely going to have his career ruined. He ought to be promoted so as to make clear to the leaker and anyone else hoping to profit by their misbehaviour that they won’t prosper.

What would count as promotion for the Ambassador to the USA?

Given that one of the main jobs of that ambassador is to gain influence for the UK with the world's most powerful nation's government, fairly or unfairly the incumbent is now damaged goods (unfairly, obviously). That would be the case even if the present president wasn't a thin-skinned egotist. He will need to be replaced. The president doesn't get to choose the replacement but he is within his rights (even if he is being an arse about it) if he doesn't want to deal with someone who doesn't respect him.

A proper leak inquiry should be conducted and the culprit should be strung up by their nether regions. Leaking such confidential briefings for partisan advantage is treacherous.

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

Willing to suspend democracy? Yes.
See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes.
See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.

The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.

Things always look extreme when you only cite the extreme positions. As always it depends on the phrasing of the question and how the respondent interprets it

- immigration: banning immigration is extreme. Thinking the current balance of cost and benefit is wrong is not
- Islam: militant Islam is. More philosophically if you look at the social polling among even moderate Muslims on homosexuality or the rights of women, I’d say their views could be seen as “a threat to the British way of life”
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”

Labour and the unions seem to be moving to a referendum and remain just at the time their London mps are under a real threat from the Lib Dems.

I do believe most labour members do want to remain in the EU but with labour plummeting in the polls there is a very real chance many labour mps want to neuter Corbyn's extreme policies and remaining in Europe would do that at a stroke.

As far as brexiteers are concerned time is not on their side nor is a Boris lead GE a cure all as most brexit supporting labour mps are standing down, thereby futher reducing brexit support in the HOC

I do think labour are shutting the gate after the horse has bolted as the Lib Dems are the trusted stop brexit brand and do not carry the anti west marxist baggage of Corbyn and his associates

Also Corbyn is facing the fallout from this weeks Panorama and goodness only knows what the equality and human rights commission will conclude.

Labour is not in a good place almost completely down to Corbyn and his associates. Had Corbyn been pro remain brexit would already have died

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

Willing to suspend democracy? Yes.
See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes.
See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.

The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.

Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.

Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism

"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed?
The ERG

That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?

Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.

It's not the f*cking truth.

The DUP were set against May's Deal.

Even with ALL Tories onboard - yes, I'm looking at you Dominic Grieve - it needed Labour votes to overcome the DUP. And how many of them were sticking their heads above the parapet to be the one marked down in the history books as having made Brexit happen?

The ERG were a noisy irrelevence - apart from giving spineless Labour MPs cover for reneging on promises made to their voters.

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

I don't see what you gain, rhetorically, from using the term diehard Remainer. You could add easily and as meaninglessly take any other minority societal group. Dentists, EDLers, redheads, etc.

HYUFD speaks fluent Telegraph, with a Mail accent.

The Telegraph has gone full Boris. I was reading the letters, editorial, and op-ed at the weekend, and it was genuinely disturbing, as it was wall to wall nonsense. The stuff written was every bit as nuts as the the rubbish you get from the most fervent members of the Corbyn cult or from Trump redhats.

CarlottaVance said:

tlg86 said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1148491969045422081

Didn't JFK hand-pick David Ormsby-Gore as our man in DC?

He knew JFK and was already an MP and Minister of State in the Foreign Office, so might have been a logical choice from a UK pov anyway. I doubt he was "hand picked by JFK."

Meanwhile, I wonder why the Mail is spinning "the Russians dun it" or "disgruntled Civil Servant" when "ambitious politician in the FCO' is at least, if not more, likely....

Maybe because MOS has sailed to close to the wind in publishing the documents anyway and to protect their source. Why can’t they be charged with treason?

glw said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

I don't see what you gain, rhetorically, from using the term diehard Remainer. You could add easily and as meaninglessly take any other minority societal group. Dentists, EDLers, redheads, etc.

HYUFD speaks fluent Telegraph, with a Mail accent.

The Telegraph has gone full Boris. I was reading the letters, editorial, and op-ed at the weekend, and it was genuinely disturbing, as it was wall to wall nonsense. The stuff written was every bit as nuts as the the rubbish you get from the most fervent members of the Corbyn cult or from Trump redhats.

Wont buy the Mail its a nasty paper, nor the Telegraph whilst run by the Barclay bros

Charles said:

- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”

It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.

The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.

CarlottaVance said:

For once, I agree with Polly:

I have watched Damian Green at sparsely attended Tory conference fringe meetings, together with Anna Soubry, nobly upholding the pro-European cause with great eloquence and passion. Soubry honourably broke with her party, but Green has gone grovelling to Johnson on television, oozing with unseemly sycophancy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/09/boris-johnson-tories-europeans-parliament?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Porn addict, groper, and now sell-out.
Pity Mrs Green.

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

Willing to suspend democracy? Yes.
See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes.
See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.

The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.

Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.

Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism

"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed?
The ERG

Most Leave MPs voted for the Withdrawal Agreement, most Remain MPs opposed it, certainly on the opposition benches

AlastairMeeks said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

StuartDickson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Disgraceful. And only a few weeks after the D-Day memorials. Have we learnt nothing?

To listen to them you’d think they had been first on the beaches.

Quite a significant number weren’t even born at the time of WW2, I imagine.

CarlottaVance said:

U.K. Ambassador Kim Darroch was disinvited from a dinner that U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is hosting Monday with President Donald Trump and the emir of Qatar, according to a U.S. official.

https://time.com/5622419/trump-disinvites-uk-envoy-kim-darroch/

Really, why wouldn’t we do exactly the same thing to the US Ambassador here. Politely make it clear that if the Trump government is going to behave with such discourtesy then we will respond in kind. For every freezing out etc there will be an equivalent response here.

Our ambassador has done nothing wrong and yet, because of the behaviour of others, is likely going to have his career ruined. He ought to be promoted so as to make clear to the leaker and anyone else hoping to profit by their misbehaviour that they won’t prosper.

What would count as promotion for the Ambassador to the USA?

Given that one of the main jobs of that ambassador is to gain influence for the UK with the world's most powerful nation's government, fairly or unfairly the incumbent is now damaged goods (unfairly, obviously). That would be the case even if the present president wasn't a thin-skinned egotist. He will need to be replaced. The president doesn't get to choose the replacement but he is within his rights (even if he is being an arse about it) if he doesn't want to deal with someone who doesn't respect him.

A proper leak inquiry should be conducted and the culprit should be strung up by their nether regions. Leaking such confidential briefings for partisan advantage is treacherous.

Ambassador to China ?

Agreed about the enquiry.
There is absolutely no defensible motive for the leak. I fear the whole thing will be buried once Johnson is in No.10.

MarqueeMark said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

Willing to suspend democracy? Yes.
See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes.
See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.

The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.

Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.

Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism

"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed?
The ERG

That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?

Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.

It's not the f*cking truth.

The DUP were set against May's Deal.

Even with ALL Tories onboard - yes, I'm looking at you Dominic Grieve - it needed Labour votes to overcome the DUP. And how many of them were sticking their heads above the parapet to be the one marked down in the history books as having made Brexit happen?

The ERG were a noisy irrelevence - apart from giving spineless Labour MPs cover for reneging on promises made to their voters.

The government failed to pas the WA it was nobody else’s fault that the majority on which they claim to govern failed to deliver. It is not the responsibility of MPs in other party’s to provide support to overcome the governing party’s rebel’s.

MarqueeMark said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

Willing to suspend democracy? Yes.
See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes.
See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.

The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.

Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.

Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism

"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed?
The ERG

That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?

Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.

It's not the f*cking truth.

The DUP were set against May's Deal.

Even with ALL Tories onboard - yes, I'm looking at you Dominic Grieve - it needed Labour votes to overcome the DUP. And how many of them were sticking their heads above the parapet to be the one marked down in the history books as having made Brexit happen?

The ERG were a noisy irrelevence - apart from giving spineless Labour MPs cover for reneging on promises made to their voters.

Nope.

Brexit required Brexiters to get in behind it.
The ERG were the pivotal actor to stop it happening. They provided cover for Labour Leavers *and* the DUP, in a way those two other groups could not have.

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”

It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.

The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.

Always worth reminding ourselves that in 2017 voters gave a majority of their votes to parties that rejected (and reject) a No Deal Brexit.

Yet a majority of votes to parties that backed Brexit, the Tories, UKIP and Corbyn Labour

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

Willing to suspend democracy? Yes.
See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes.
See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.

The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.

Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.

Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism

"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed?
The ERG

That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?

Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.

Do the maths, no it wouldn't. Not without others voting differently too.

Writing from a Portuguese resort, Andy Wigmore promises to purge the civil service.

https://twitter.com/andywigmore/status/1148498063067160577?s=21

AlastairMeeks said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

StuartDickson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Quite a significant

/

Really, why wouldn’t we do exactly the same thing to the US Ambassador here. Politely make it clear that if the Trump government is going to behave with such discourtesy then we will respond in kind. For every freezing out etc there will be an equivalent response here.

Our ambassador has done nothing wrong and yet, because of the behaviour of others, is likely going to have his career ruined. He ought to be promoted so as to make clear to the leaker and anyone else hoping to profit by their misbehaviour that they won’t prosper.

What would count as promotion for the Ambassador to the USA?

Given that one of the main jobs of that ambassador is to gain influence for the UK with the world's most powerful nation's government, fairly or unfairly the incumbent is now damaged goods (unfairly, obviously). That would be the case even if the present president wasn't a thin-skinned egotist. He will need to be replaced. The president doesn't get to choose the replacement but he is within his rights (even if he is being an arse about it) if he doesn't want to deal with someone who doesn't respect him.

A proper leak inquiry should be conducted and the culprit should be strung up by their nether regions. Leaking such confidential briefings for partisan advantage is treacherous.


Here ends the entry from Mr Meeks, and I screwed the blockquotes....



The problem is the culture that has developed where respect isn't shown to the position of the President of USA. It has become de rigueur to be rude and insulting about Trump. I understand why, but in offending and insulting him we are offending the USA. The leaker may have just thought this is another bash Trump moment or opportunity and not thought of the potential consequences for the Ambassador to USA.

I really don't think it serves anyone well to fall to the depths of ritual insult and diminution of Trump and his personality. It reflects no better on those making the insults than the target they have in the cross hairs.

There are better ways of making the points than the rather childish competition to see who can insult him the most. If we grew up as a nation that would be a great advancement and rid us of this rather annoying and counter productive willy waving virtue signalling stupidity.

We know Trump is, to be polite, flawed, unpopular and lacking a lot of the qualities that we think a President should have. That doesn't excuse our bad behaviour.

nichomar said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

StuartDickson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Disgraceful. And only a few weeks after the D-Day memorials. Have we learnt nothing?

To listen to them you’d think they had been first on the beaches.

Quite a significant number weren’t even born at the time of WW2, I imagine.

CarlottaVance said:

U.K. Ambassador Kim Darroch was disinvited from a dinner that U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is hosting Monday with President Donald Trump and the emir of Qatar, according to a U.S. official.

https://time.com/5622419/trump-disinvites-uk-envoy-kim-darroch/

Really, why wouldn’t we do exactly the same thing to the US Ambassador here. Politely make it clear that if the Trump government is going to behave with such discourtesy then we will respond in kind. For every freezing out etc there will be an equivalent response here.

Our ambassador has done nothing wrong and yet, because of the behaviour of others, is likely going to have his career ruined. He ought to be promoted so as to make clear to the leaker and anyone else hoping to profit by their misbehaviour that they won’t prosper.

It’s a disgrace that people aren’t condemning Trump from the rooftops for his appalling intrusion into our internal affairs.

It's a grey area. The ambassador to America is quite literally an external not an internal affair to begin with. All ambassadors are external to the UK. If the USA chooses to make Darroch persona non grata then that is their right and is an internal American affair. America is the host country and they have every right to make anyone they want persona non grata

Trump is being utterly pathetic here but that is his right. And Americans should judge him for being thin skinned and a pathetic weasel. But let's imagine the shoe was on the other foot and on something more serious.

Let's imagine leaks showed the Russian Ambassador to the UK was involved in the Skripal affair. We would have every right to make the Russian Ambassador persona non grata and even to expel them.

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

Willing to suspend democracy? Yes.
See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes.
See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.

The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.

Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.

Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism

"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed?
The ERG

That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?

Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.

Do the maths, no it wouldn't. Not without others voting differently too.

As I said below, if you think you can take a count in one political scenario and drop it into another, you don't understand politics.

And you don't understand maths.

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”

It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.

The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.

Always worth reminding ourselves that in 2017 voters gave a majority of their votes to parties that rejected (and reject) a No Deal Brexit.

Yet a majority of votes to parties that backed Brexit, the Tories, UKIP and Corbyn Labour

That has nothing to do with closing down Parliament to enforce a No Deal.

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

Willing to suspend democracy? Yes.
See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes.
See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.

The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.

Things always look extreme when you only cite the extreme positions. As always it depends on the phrasing of the question and how the respondent interprets it

- immigration: banning immigration is extreme. Thinking the current balance of cost and benefit is wrong is not
- Islam: militant Islam is. More philosophically if you look at the social polling among even moderate Muslims on homosexuality or the rights of women, I’d say their views could be seen as “a threat to the British way of life”
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”

Anyone who advocates suspending parliament is beneath contempt.

It’s not a route I would advocate but it’s not the same as “suspending democracy”.

But we do have an issue where Parliament seems determined to frustrate any possible outcome

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

MarqueeMark said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

Willing to suspend democracy? Yes.
See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes.
See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.

The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.

Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.

Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism

"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed?
The ERG

That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?

Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.

It's not the f*cking truth.

The DUP were set against May's Deal.

Even with ALL Tories onboard - yes, I'm looking at you Dominic Grieve - it needed Labour votes to overcome the DUP. And how many of them were sticking their heads above the parapet to be the one marked down in the history books as having made Brexit happen?

The ERG were a noisy irrelevence - apart from giving spineless Labour MPs cover for reneging on promises made to their voters.

Nope.

Brexit required Brexiters to get in behind it.
The ERG were the pivotal actor to stop it happening. They provided cover for Labour Leavers *and* the DUP, in a way those two other groups could not have.

The DUP needed no cover. If anything they gave cover to the ERG.

So the absurd suggestion then is that Labour opposed it because of the ERG.

And yet, the word from Northern Irish observers is that the DUP *did* want cover.

You are wrong on this, presumably because you are a failer and blamer.

Charles said:

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

Willing to suspend democracy? Yes.
See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes.
See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.

The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.

Things always look extreme when you only cite the extreme positions. As always it depends on the phrasing of the question and how the respondent interprets it

- immigration: banning immigration is extreme. Thinking the current balance of cost and benefit is wrong is not
- Islam: militant Islam is. More philosophically if you look at the social polling among even moderate Muslims on homosexuality or the rights of women, I’d say their views could be seen as “a threat to the British way of life”
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”

Anyone who advocates suspending parliament is beneath contempt.

It’s not a route I would advocate but it’s not the same as “suspending democracy”.

But we do have an issue where Parliament seems determined to frustrate any possible outcome

In what way is it different?

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”

It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.

The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.

Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.

I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.

Gardenwalker said:

Writing from a Portuguese resort, Andy Wigmore promises to purge the civil service.

https://twitter.com/andywigmore/status/1148498063067160577?s=21

No, actually it was Thatcher who said various demeaning things about Civil Servants and why would anyone bright go there. Or public service generally. Up until then a top, or top-ish graduate from Oxbridge would seriously consider that sort of job.
Now, it's the City or journalism. Or possibly, being a SpaD aiming for a safe seat in Parliament.

Charles said:

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

Willing to suspend democracy? Yes.
See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes.
See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.

The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.

Things always look extreme when you only cite the extreme positions. As always it depends on the phrasing of the question and how the respondent interprets it

- immigration: banning immigration is extreme. Thinking the current balance of cost and benefit is wrong is not
- Islam: militant Islam is. More philosophically if you look at the social polling among even moderate Muslims on homosexuality or the rights of women, I’d say their views could be seen as “a threat to the British way of life”
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”

Anyone who advocates suspending parliament is beneath contempt.

It’s not a route I would advocate but it’s not the same as “suspending democracy”.

But we do have an issue where Parliament seems determined to frustrate any possible outcome

It would be a coup, nothing less. Parliament is sovereign and suspending parliament to enact a major change from the status quo would be a coup.

logical_song said:

MarqueeMark said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

Willing to suspend democracy? Yes.
See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes.
See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.

The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.

Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.

Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism

"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed?
The ERG

That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?

Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.

It's not the f*cking truth.

The DUP were set against May's Deal.

Even with ALL Tories onboard - yes, I'm looking at you Dominic Grieve - it needed Labour votes to overcome the DUP. And how many of them were sticking their heads above the parapet to be the one marked down in the history books as having made Brexit happen?

The ERG were a noisy irrelevence - apart from giving spineless Labour MPs cover for reneging on promises made to their voters.

Because there were any number of groupings that voted against the Withdrawal Agreement it IS difficult to point to one group and say "its's their fault" that it failed.
However the ERG is the largest * group and must therefore take the largest part of the blame. Blaming Tory Remainers when the ERG is more at fault is just wrong.

* The group boasted a membership of around 70 MPs.
https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/erg-brexit-group-members-jacob-rees-mogg-explained/

Labour are the largest group. They number over 200 MPs.

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”

It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.

The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.

Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.

I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.

I must have missed the Brexit paper on “consociationalism”.

Charles going in to bat for the democracy-suspenders is a pretty sordid sight.

Democracy suspenders? Which election is being suspended?

Gardenwalker said:

Writing from a Portuguese resort, Andy Wigmore promises to purge the civil service.

https://twitter.com/andywigmore/status/1148498063067160577?s=21

Just looked at his twitter posts, what an obnoxious individual.

Charles said:

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

Willing to suspend democracy? Yes.
See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes.
See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.

The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.

Things always look extreme when you only cite the extreme positions. As always it depends on the phrasing of the question and how the respondent interprets it

- immigration: banning immigration is extreme. Thinking the current balance of cost and benefit is wrong is not
- Islam: militant Islam is. More philosophically if you look at the social polling among even moderate Muslims on homosexuality or the rights of women, I’d say their views could be seen as “a threat to the British way of life”
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”

Anyone who advocates suspending parliament is beneath contempt.

It’s not a route I would advocate but it’s not the same as “suspending democracy”.

But we do have an issue where Parliament seems determined to frustrate any possible outcome

The problem has always been that the referendum mandated leaving the EU but did not provide firm guidance on how that should happen.
People voted for different forms of Brexit, and we know from the polling that some people who voted for Brexit and wanted a particular form of Brexit would rather Remain than leave with the wrong form of Brexit. So the argument "people voted Leave so we must leave like this" doesn't hold.
Moreover, neither Theresa May nor most Brexiteers have at any time, except perhaps half-heartedly when it was too late, tried to forge a national consensus on the issue.
As a result, nobody in parliament is under any moral, legal or political obligation to sign up to a form of Brexit that they view as worse than remaining. This is true of the DUP, the ERG and the Labour Party. It must be frustrating for Leavers, but it is largely their own fault. Sorry (not sorry).

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”

It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.

The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.

Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.

I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.

I must have missed the Brexit paper on “consociationalism”.

Charles going in to bat for the democracy-suspenders is a pretty sordid sight.

Democracy suspenders? Which election is being suspended?

Don’t give Charles more ideas.

Doesn't democracy need braces, rather than suspenders?

Animal_pb said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”

It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.

The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.

Gosh. Strong words.

On the other hand, the HoC is also the body that repeatedly failed to vote for almost any solution to the problem (except, from memory, the Malthouse proposal?). So is it suspending democracy, or just removing a block to *any* kind of resolution?

[for reference, no, I'm not a fan of proroguing. But the HoC has not exactly put themselves in a Caesar's wife position, here].

EURef2

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1148339539586551810?s=21

Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.

Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'

Willing to suspend democracy? Yes.
See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes.
See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.

The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.

Things always look extreme when you only cite the extreme positions. As always it depends on the phrasing of the question and how the respondent interprets it

- immigration: banning immigration is extreme. Thinking the current balance of cost and benefit is wrong is not
- Islam: militant Islam is. More philosophically if you look at the social polling among even moderate Muslims on homosexuality or the rights of women, I’d say their views could be seen as “a threat to the British way of life”
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”

Anyone who advocates suspending parliament is beneath contempt.

It’s not a route I would advocate but it’s not the same as “suspending democracy”.

But we do have an issue where Parliament seems determined to frustrate any possible outcome

In what way is it different?

Parliamentary democracy isn’t the only form of democracy. What we have is a conflict between two forms. It’s why I’m just as opposed to a second referendum with a Remain option - that’s also [ignoring] democracy (at least one form thereof)

OldKingCole said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”

It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.

The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.

Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.

I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.

I must have missed the Brexit paper on “consociationalism”.

Charles going in to bat for the democracy-suspenders is a pretty sordid sight.

Democracy suspenders? Which election is being suspended?

Don’t give Charles more ideas.

Doesn't democracy need braces, rather than suspenders?

More like tights. High denier, opaque, probably body shaping. We don't really want to see what's underneath.