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

AlastairMeeks said:

Endillion said:

I don't think parliament should be prorogued to force through No Deal. But I also don't see why Dominic Grieve"s version of suspending democracy via devious behind the scenes legalistic mucking about, is any better than Johnson/Baker/Cash/whoever doing so by riding a coach and horses through it.

Getting binding decisions of Parliament passed by majority is not "devious behind the scenes legalistic mucking about", nor is it a "version of suspending democracy". You just don't like the policy outcome.

I disagreed with Grieve's attempts to shut down No Deal by preventing any money being spent. That was just dumb. But I can't disagree with him on this move. Proroguing Parliament for political ends seems fundamentally wrong to me so I cannot see any circumstances where it would be right. What Grieve is doing today is necessary to prevent a greater travesty.

AlastairMeeks said:

Endillion said:

I don't think parliament should be prorogued to force through No Deal. But I also don't see why Dominic Grieve"s version of suspending democracy via devious behind the scenes legalistic mucking about, is any better than Johnson/Baker/Cash/whoever doing so by riding a coach and horses through it.

Getting binding decisions of Parliament passed by majority is not "devious behind the scenes legalistic mucking about", nor is it a "version of suspending democracy". You just don't like the policy outcome.

They couldn't get Parliament to outright vote to ban No Deal, so they've tried to amend a bill that has ostensibly nothing to do with Brexit in such a way that forces Parliament to legally be around so as to give them another go. That's mucking around. I'd be just as annoyed if the other side were doing it (they are, a bit, and I don't like it).

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1148537200134565888

IanB2 said:

Charles said:

I don’t have a problem with deal vs no deal, just with a Remain alternative

Frankly I think “advisory” referenda are BS - if you ask the voters you are duty bound to follow their instructions.

Fine, but your opinion can't change what it was.

If people cant confirm majority support for a specific change proposition, obviously we stay s we are

Are you sure you want that? "As we are" is leaving without a deal on 31 October. That is what the law as currently passed by Parliament says.

https://twitter.com/AndyEMorrison/status/1148522337681248257

Barnesian said:

That doesn't clarify what Labour would campaign on in a general election.

It appears to be to negotiate a Labour deal to leave (to satisfy the Leavers) but put it to the people in a referendum where Labour would campaign for Remain (to satisfy the Remainers) and against the Leave deal they have just negotiated. Have I got that right?

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1148538595520786433

Barnesian said:

Do you accept that the weather has changed? The day after EUref, the result was accepted by almost everyone. Now about half the country does not accept it.

I gave a number of possible reasons. What are yours?

I have already given the main one - at least in part.

The ineptitude and complete lack of understanding of the one person given all the power to actually get a deal with the EU. Bear in mind I want a 'soft' Brexit and would have supported the WA although I think it is very flawed. But May completely failed to build a consensus on this and instead decided to play politics with it. She should, at every turn, have tried to consult and include all the sides in these decisions. She failed to build a consensus in Parliament, in the country and even in her own party because she initially went for a hard Brexit and made a huge number of basic mistakes which turned people on all sides against her and against a reasonable deal.

There were also far more people who refused to accept the result than you claim.

https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/1148539055342309376

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Yes on 11 April.

Well Hansard doesn't mention it https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-04-11

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmvote/190411v01.html

That is Votes and Proceedings Thursday 11 April 2019.

I see a statement on the EU listed but please once again show me the vote and the result of the vote

The Commons endorsed the date via negative resolution. The Commons previously voted to set the law to require a negative resolution to get a new date.

Barnesian said:

That doesn't clarify what Labour would campaign on in a general election.

It appears to be to negotiate a Labour deal to leave (to satisfy the Leavers) but put it to the people in a referendum where Labour would campaign for Remain (to satisfy the Remainers) and against the Leave deal they have just negotiated. Have I got that right?

I don't think I've seen anything to contradict the stuff quoted on the last thread, namely that they want to negotiate their own Brexit deal, which they'll have a referendum on, but whether they recommend that or Remain depends on the deal they end up negotiating.

Barnesian said:

Do you accept that the weather has changed? The day after EUref, the result was accepted by almost everyone. Now about half the country does not accept it.

I gave a number of possible reasons. What are yours?

Mine would be that about half the country never accepted it.

kinabalu said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/1148539055342309376

Perhaps because there is not yet a general election.

So no change on their policy since last Conference then. Corbyn is mischievous isn't he?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Barnesian said:

Do you accept that the weather has changed? The day after EUref, the result was accepted by almost everyone. Now about half the country does not accept it.

I gave a number of possible reasons. What are yours?

I have already given the main one - at least in part.

The ineptitude and complete lack of understanding of the one person given all the power to actually get a deal with the EU. Bear in mind I want a 'soft' Brexit and would have supported the WA although I think it is very flawed. But May completely failed to build a consensus on this and instead decided to play politics with it. She should, at every turn, have tried to consult and include all the sides in these decisions. She failed to build a consensus in Parliament, in the country and even in her own party because she initially went for a hard Brexit and made a huge number of basic mistakes which turned people on all sides against her and against a reasonable deal.

Yep. The only proviso being I'm not sure any sane* PM would have ended up anywhere else. The WA covers the key issues which are germane to an orderly and sensible Brexit. As you say it is how she approached the whole problem that was, er, problematic.

Interesting telegraph article about RoI saying a border would be necessary with no deal. Everyone seems to be at the top of the hill and I have no idea how anyone marches back down.

AlastairMeeks said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

StuartDickson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

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.

Agree completely with your final paragraph. I would only add that anyone who the leak was intended to benefit should be put beyond the pale.

But it is the unfairness to Darroch which really grates with me. A civil servant doing his job, being completely undermined and potentially having his career ruined as a result. It is unforgivable. The damage to him should be mitigated as far as possible. If it is not, then he would have a pretty good employment claim I’d have thought.

Politicians depend on civil servants. If they do not stand behind them at a time like this, why should civil servants trust them? This is so corrosive of the trust essential to the proper functioning of our institutions.

As for Trump, if he does not want the British Ambassador anymore, let him formally declare him persona non grata, not via this bitchy tweeting. And then let us respond formally in the strongest possible terms - up to and including doing the same to the US Ambassador here. We should point out that to behave in this way, given the recent State visit, the British blood expended fighting the US’s wars, etc etc is not something we do lightly but the way the US President is behaving towards an ally and its representative is simply unworthy of the US and its best traditions.

Bullies should never be appeased, including US ones. There was a time when one could have assumed that Britain understood that point instinctively. Not any more, it seems. Our cravenness towards the US shames us.

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

1. We did not have a Leaver in charge of trying to enact the result, we had a Remainer - and a particularly inept one at that. It was her inability to either understand or seriously try to enact a reasonable Leave that has led us to this point.

Your biggest criticism of her is that she listened to what the Leave campaigns said and tried to deliver it.

Nope she did not. And even had she done so she would have failed. Her job was to govern fot the whole country not just those who voted Leave.

AlastairMeeks said:

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

Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the European Union

Stereotomy said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/1148539055342309376

Journalists pretending not to understand something perfectly simple to score political points is a weird sight

Good spot.

Philip_Thompson said:

So no change on their policy since last Conference then. Corbyn is mischievous isn't he?

There has been a change. What there is now is a clear offer to Remainers of Ref2 with Remain on the ballot IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.

Further moaning is purely about being against Corbyn rather than against Brexit.

I don't think that Labour have actually said what people think they have said. Corbyn's letter to party members says this:

Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote.

In those circumstances, I want to make it clear that Labour would campaign for Remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs.

In other words, IF there is a referendum on Revoke vs No Deal (or a wicked Tory-branded deal indistinguishable from the warm cuddly Labour-branded deal which Corbyn could magic up if he were PM), then Labour would campaign for Revoke. But they've always said they would oppose No Deal or a wicked Tory-branded deal, so there doesn't seem much new here.

What is very conspicuously missing is a commitment to support such a referendum in the first place.

Is it me that has missed something, or is it every journalist reporting on this who has failed to spot this?

https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1148543464449224704

Richard_Nabavi said:

I don't think that Labour have actually said what people think they have said. Corbyn's letter to party members says this:

Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote.

In those circumstances, I want to make it clear that Labour would campaign for Remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs.

In other words, IF there is a referendum on Revoke vs No Deal (or a wicked Tory-branded deal indistinguishable from the warm cuddly Labour-branded deal which Corbyn could magic up if he were PM), then Labour would campaign for Revoke. But they've always said they would oppose No Deal or a wicked Tory-branded deal, so there doesn't seem much new here.

What is very conspicuously missing is a commitment to support such a referendum in the first place.

Is it me that has missed something, or is it every journalist reporting on this who has failed to spot this?

I'd take it as a clear pivot to a second referendum actually. But it's too late, Labour won't see the polling boost the hypothetical 2nd ref would have given them.

New Zealand looked in trouble - but now India are a bowler short through injury, and Kohli will probably need to bowl a few overs... could get interesting.

Richard_Tyndall said:

IanB2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Barnesian said:

I think respecting the result of an election or referendum in the UK is like forming an orderly queue at a bus stop. We just do it. We don't need a law to enforce it. Even if the result is close, role is to represent the interests of the people. If that conflicts with the result of the referendum (and it seems to) then it puts a question mark against mindlessly executing the result of the referendum. People are divided on that question.

The result of the referendum is no longer accepted as holy writ. People who declare it would be the end of democracy to ask the people again are greeted with a big yawn.

The trouble with your argument is that every single one of your points is wrong.

1. We did not have a Leaver in charge of trying to enact the result, we had a Remainer - and a particularly inept one at that. It was her inability to either understand or seriously try to enact a reasonable Leave that has led us to this point.

2. There are not a significant proportion that have changed their minds. As far as the polls go there is little difference between the polls today and those in advance of the referendum itself.

3. The magnitude of the change was always clear. Indeed the Remain camp spent the whole referendum campaign telling us just how important and irreversible this decision would be.

4. Parliament do not see their role as representing the interests of the people. They see it as achieving their own personal political ends. When almost three quarters of MPs are Remain voters and they put their own personal views and advancement ahead of the interests of the people they can in no way be considered representative nor fit for purpose.

You compare polls with the result, not with polls before the vote. There is data now on how people voted last time and on turnout that wasnt available before, and the level of public understanding and engagement is much higher. Real elections also confirm the growing opposition to Brexjt.

Nope. If the polls before the result could not be trusted then why should the polls now be considered an accurate representation.

Because of how polls work

Theuniondivvie said:

williamglenn said:

GIN1138 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Gentlemen every one.....

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1148514985355743233

Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?

She successfully kicked the can this far. No mean feat.

'Was May merely the fall guy for an inevitable failure or was she utterly incompetent? The answer is of course both – May was doomed to fail but she and her government sure managed, to adapt Samuel Beckett, to fail better.'

https://twitter.com/fotoole/status/1148487472806072321

That book sounds brutal.

On the ideas floating around in Whitehall for the Border, one official asks Cook: “Has someone told you about facial recognition for pigs?”

Fucking hell. However bad you think this is in the repining hours before dawn; it's actually worse.

Scott_P said:

Philip_Thompson said:

That's no change. To oppose a Tory deal has been their policy since last Conference.

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1148537229343694848

I don't think that's an accurate reading. He's leaving himself room to campaign for Leave in the event of a Labour deal that protects the economy and jobs.

As stated on here few days ago - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-gagging-orders-are-useless-znd9sf87x

Labour's position is as follows -

If in opposition, push for Ref2 on any Tory deal or on No Deal.

If in government, offer Ref2 on any Labour deal.

Ref2 in all cases to have Remain as an option.

It's crystal clear.

kinabalu said:

Labour's position is as follows -

If in opposition, push for Ref2 on any Tory deal or on No Deal.

If in government, offer Ref2 on any Labour deal.

Ref2 in all cases to have Remain as an option.

It's crystal clear.

Yes of course it is. Others would say it is nonsense and vote Lib Dem to stop Brexit

Given that the EU won't renegotiate, I assume a Labour deal will be the same as a (evil baby-eating) Tory deal?

kjohnw said:

Scott_P said:

Charles said:

It’s up to the executive to deliver on instructions and be judged for it

Unfortunately parliament tried a power grab

We voted to "Take Back Control"

This is what Parliamentary Sovereignty looks like

And as predicted, it is denounced by those who wanted it...

Take back control doesn’t mean block the people’s referendum decision

Vote Leave. Take control...away.

JBriskinindyref2 said:

malcolmg said:

JBriskinindyref2 said:

eristdoof said:

OldKingCole said:

There was also alleged, IIRC, to be a 'problem' with identifying which constituency people identified with.

That's odd, because the rule is quite clear even under boudary changes or constituency name changes. The last address at which you were registered as an "inland" voter determines which constituency.
How appropriate it is that the vote counts in a constitiency in which someone lived years ago is questionable, but in a FPTP system it is hard to justify any other system, ...unless..... we are given our own MP. A constituency for all overseas voters. I think it would be a good idea, but I can't see it being popular in Westminster or the Daily Telegraph.

It's hardly disenfraishment if you don't live here. Even maxing out their gerrymandering the separatists managed to get that part right in indyref1

Yes only cheating was done by the cretinous colonists

Morning Malky!

You're not making to much sense but I can explain to posters and lurkers how the separatists vote-rigged indyref1-

1. They used a question that miraculously managed to leave out the term "United Kingdom". Can you imagine the EUref without the term "European Union" ?. It was extremely silly. For shame Electoral Commission.

2. They expanded the franchise purely as a (correct) gamble that the youth would be more nationalistic. Expand the franchise all you want - but as a one off just to push up your vote share it was rather disgusting.

And you still lost!

Roll on #indyref2

LOL Morning. you mean the unionists could not rig it 100% and also prevent democracy by excluding living people and adding the dead back in as they did previously.
It will be different story next time for sure.

viewcode said:

kjohnw said:

Scott_P said:

Charles said:

It’s up to the executive to deliver on instructions and be judged for it

Unfortunately parliament tried a power grab

We voted to "Take Back Control"

This is what Parliamentary Sovereignty looks like

And as predicted, it is denounced by those who wanted it...

Take back control doesn’t mean block the people’s referendum decision

Vote Leave. Take control...away.

The idea is for the voters to have control at elections. That only happens if we leave. Blocking Brexit isn't taking control.

We the voters should have control. Not Grieve and his cohort of MPs.

kjohnw said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1148546707673812993

So basically the Lib Dem position is two fingers to the 2016 referendum . Yet at the time vince cable said the referendum should be honoured . Hypocrites the lot of them

I am rather surprised that you have not realised the Lib Dems whole objective is to stop Brexit as indicated on their T shirts at the EU parliament

At least they are honest unlike the nonense coming out of labour

tlg86 said:

Gardenwalker said:

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

He called it right on Boris, though.

anyone with more than one brain cell could have called that

It’s been painfully slow but Labour are getting there !

Clearly though any election manifesto will have to ditch the Labour negotiating a new deal.

Has Bercow allowed the Grieve amendment?

https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1148552863427305474

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1148553156747546624

malcolmg said:

Charles said:

Dura_Ace said:

Nigelb said:

Ambassador to China ?

My father was posted at the DC embassy in the early-mid 80s and he always maintained that anything else after is a step down and a big one (he got sent to Zaire after DC - haha). The ambassador's residence on Massachusetts Ave. alone makes it a glittering prize.

Paris is the only posting that comes close - even that is a clear #2 slot (and a New College fiefdom anyway)

Roll out the tumbrils and rid us of these effete greedy old school tie troughers

I do like a good tie trougher, especially one who's old school.

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1148553156747546624

As I've constantly said, that Bercow is a jolly good egg.

I am sure he will find one to select shortly with the cover that he previously rejected some other attempts.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Dura_Ace said:

Theuniondivvie said:

williamglenn said:

GIN1138 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Gentlemen every one.....

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1148514985355743233

Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?

She successfully kicked the can this far. No mean feat.

'Was May merely the fall guy for an inevitable failure or was she utterly incompetent? The answer is of course both – May was doomed to fail but she and her government sure managed, to adapt Samuel Beckett, to fail better.'

https://twitter.com/fotoole/status/1148487472806072321

That book sounds brutal.

On the ideas floating around in Whitehall for the Border, one official asks Cook: “Has someone told you about facial recognition for pigs?”

Fucking hell. However bad you think this is in the repining hours before dawn; it's actually worse.

May’s joint chief of staff Fiona Hill instructs Britain’s most senior civil servant, the cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, to commission experts to come up with technological solutions [for the Irish border]. Her actual instruction is: “spaff some money on some geeks”.

I am so buying that book. I'm plowing thru Goodwin's "National Populism"' at the moment, then it's "The Labyrinth Index", then I've set aside Max Hastings's Vietnam for Xmas, then "Chastise" comes out in paperback in May next year, so it'll probably be Spring 2019. Fuck, I need a holiday...

I am glad that Grieve has failed again in his attempts to twist parliamentary procedures in ways they were never designed to be used.

I am sure he feels very clever coming up with these new twists and turns - but it is not how Parliament should be used by anyone - government or backbencher

For what he seeks to be legitimate, it has to be done within the framework that has been the norm for how we do business in that chamber.

The NI bill is far too important to be mired in the mess he was seeking to create.

Enough with this sort of ruse.

Nigelb said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Dura_Ace said:

Theuniondivvie said:

williamglenn said:

GIN1138 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Gentlemen every one.....

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1148514985355743233

Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?

She successfully kicked the can this far. No mean feat.

'Was May merely the fall guy for an inevitable failure or was she utterly incompetent? The answer is of course both – May was doomed to fail but she and her government sure managed, to adapt Samuel Beckett, to fail better.'

https://twitter.com/fotoole/status/1148487472806072321

That book sounds brutal.

On the ideas floating around in Whitehall for the Border, one official asks Cook: “Has someone told you about facial recognition for pigs?”

Fucking hell. However bad you think this is in the repining hours before dawn; it's actually worse.

May’s joint chief of staff Fiona Hill instructs Britain’s most senior civil servant, the cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, to commission experts to come up with technological solutions [for the Irish border]. Her actual instruction is: “spaff some money on some geeks”.

'Spaff' appears to have become the new term of art to describe the direction of government spending.

That a public school term for ejaculation has become the word of the moment seems entirely appropriate. We are quite literally a country led by posh wankers.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1148552863427305474

Surely People's Vote would rather have a referendum and Labour campaigning to leave than no referendum and Labour wanting to remain?

Scenario 1: Imagine that a General Election is held later this year before Brexit has been delivered. Boris Johnson is the leader of the Conservatives, Jeremy Corbyn remains leader of the Labour Party, Jo Swinson is leader of the Liberal Democrats and Nigel Farage is leader of the Brexit Party. How do you think you would then vote?

Con: 17%
LDem: 17%
Brex: 16%
Lab: 13%
SNP: 3%
Green: 6%
Plaid: 1%
Oth: 2%
Don’t know: 14%
Would not vote: 9%
Refused: 2%

Figures with undecideds and refused excluded:
Con: 23%
LDem: 23%
Brex: 21%
Lab: 17%
Grn: 8%

Scenario 2: Imagine that a General Election is held later this year after Brexit has been delivered. Boris Johnson is the leader of the Conservatives, Jeremy Corbyn remains leader of the Labour Party, Jo Swinson is leader of the Liberal Democrats and Nigel Farage is leader of the Brexit Party. How do you think you would then vote?

Con: 20%
Lib: 15%
Brex: 10%
Lab: 13%
SNP: 3%
Grn: 7%
Plaid: 1%
Oth: 1%
Don’t know: 16%
Would not vote: 9%
Refused: 4%

Figures with undecideds and refused excluded:
Con: 28%
LDem: 20%
Brex: 14%
Lab: 17%
Grn: 9%

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1148552863427305474

Bit confused by that. A Tory govt = no second referendum.
That doesn't sound like a solution if you're a remainer.