politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Combination therapy. An occasional reminder that using seat pr
Options
Comments
-
He insulted me, I respond in kind within reasonBig_G_NorthWales said:
'Your in built diehard Remainer bias' demonstrates your belief that insulting a poster helps win your argument. For your information it does not and tactical voting is a genuine discussion topic in this climateHYUFD said:
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS should be ignored because you believe due to your inbuilt diehard Remainer bias there will be vast LD to Labour tactical voting against the Tories with very little evidence at allkjh said:
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much useIanB2 said:
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.kjh said:
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.HYUFD said:
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.Roger said:Fascinating header Alastair.
....Smelling salts for HYUFD please
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.0 -
DeletedBig_G_NorthWales said:
Maybe but I was talking about Maskellnichomar said:
Well being a lying journalist and failed foreign secretary qualifies Johnson to be PMBig_G_NorthWales said:
And how does that qualify her to spout nonsense on the railwayskinabalu said:
She is not, alas, an ex train driver - probably could not drive a train if her life depended on it - but she did have a real job before politics.A physiotherapist in the NHS.nichomar said:Shadow rail minister her only qualification it would seem being MP for York and having visited the railway museum. I’m probably wrong and she will be a former rail union official.
0 -
-
If in doubt, they could have read it on pb.com at the time.Big_G_NorthWales said:0 -
Ireland blinks.....Scott_P said:BoZo blinks first.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/11604718155605852162 -
The Tories lost their poll lead because of the dementia tax, hunting restoration etc. There was little difference between Remainer tactical voting at the beginning or end of the campaign and Corbyn is still polling lower than he was at the beginning of the 2017 campaign.SouthamObserver said:
His ratings improved during the campaign if I recall correctly. The Tories had a huge polling lead and lost it. Why? Because millions of voters wanted to stop the Tories winning. I would not rule that out happening again. I think it is less likely, but I would definitely not rule it out. In all the polls from all the companies anti-No Deal parties are on 50%+.HYUFD said:
When Corbyn had a significantly higher favourable rating than he does nowSouthamObserver said:
The evidence for the potential for widespread tactical voting is the 40% Labour got in 2017.HYUFD said:
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS shkjh said:
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much useIanB2 said:
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.kjh said:
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.HYUFD said:
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.Roger said:Fascinating header Alastair.
....Smelling salts for HYUFD please
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
In Opinium today Tories plus Brexit Party are more than Labour plus LDs plus Greens anyway0 -
My qualifier was 'most of the Tory party'. Its the most popular option with Tories even as a sizable minority are against it, and probably blocks some leakage to BXP.Chris said:
Will a No Deal Brexit keep the Tory party together? I don't think so.kle4 said:
The ram has touched the wall already - theres very little chance to pull it back even if they want to, and as oft noted a GE may occur whatever BoJo wants. Especially since now that Bogdanovic claim that a new parliament could retroactively say we never left, adding more fire to remainers not to fear a GE.Chris said:
Then again, it would be a brave man (which Johnson is not) who would bet against panic buying in the week or so before Brexit Day.Chris said:
Do people really think Johnson would want to hold a general election exactly a week or exactly a fortnight after a No Deal Brexit? Even the loopiest Brexiteers admit there may be some short-term disruption immediately after such a Brexit. It would be incredibly risky to schedule an election for the time when that disruption was at its height, when people couldn't help noticing it, and when the opposition parties could so easily argue that it was the beginning of catastrophe.Scott_P said:
Surely the date that would appeal is Brexit Day itself, 31 October?
A general election with no food on the supermarket shelves?
Either way any hardships will be blamed on the EU or called a price worth paying (do or die remember, any price is worth paying according to BoJo, except a backstop he already voted for). Damn risky as you say, but it keeps most of the Tory party together and that is the key when predicting what will happen. As United as possible they either mitigate the damage or they hope win. Any suffering is worth that.
It safeguards as many MPs as it can and avoids a wipeout is my theory. Any kind of brexit delay or the WA deal splits the no deal backing base even worse and they get hammered.
So it may not see them win - I certainly dont think it will - but the loss may be less intense.
If they dont believe that I cannot explain giving no wiggle room.0 -
If he were going for a deal I think we'd have seen some sign of it by now. Whatever activity there's been is consistent with going for No Deal while making token efforts to shift the blame elsewhere.kinabalu said:
In the spring of 2020 having just got a Brexit deal through. That would be perfect for Johnson. Can't see him losing that.Stuartinromford said:Only if you are confident that the state can run a challenging transition and a general election simultaneously. It's a heck of a gamble. But yes- a GE before Brexit leaves him vulnerable to Farage, and one afterwards leaves him vulnerable to something going badly wrong.
Quick physics conclusion: there isn't a good time for a general election for the government.
But can he pull it off? Can he avoid the phony crunch this autumn and buy himself the time he needs to have a serious crack at the negotiated Brexit which is surely what the national interest demands?
I do hope not.0 -
Now that is just childishHYUFD said:
He insulted me, I respond in kind within reasonBig_G_NorthWales said:
'Your in built diehard Remainer bias' demonstrates your belief that insulting a poster helps win your argument. For your information it does not and tactical voting is a genuine discussion topic in this climateHYUFD said:
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS should be ignored because you believe due to your inbuilt diehard Remainer bias there will be vast LD to Labour tactical voting against the Tories with very little evidence at allkjh said:
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much useIanB2 said:
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.kjh said:
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.HYUFD said:
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.Roger said:Fascinating header Alastair.
....Smelling salts for HYUFD please
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.0 -
On sheep, Maximinus Thrax was a roman emperor derided as a Thracian shepherd due to his humble upbringing.
Mind you, he was also a military usurper whose rise to power after the regicide of Alexander Severus kicked off the Crisis of the Third Century, so it's not like he didn't deserve some abuse.0 -
No.MarqueeMark said:Ireland blinks.....
BoZo. I refuse to talk to them until they remove the backstop
Ireland. Come to talk to us, without us removing the backstop.
BoZo. OK0 -
People who support Brexit tend to be older. And, yes, the cultural values of the over 50s now are generally conservative, but that just reflects the fact that they (we) grew up in different times. That is not the same as values becoming more conservative. If you are really relying on that you’re in trouble.HYUFD said:
More keen to preserve traditions and the way of life they know which is why the Tories have never won the votes of a majority of under 30s since 1983 and Labour have never won the votes of a majority of over 65s since 1997,SouthamObserver said:
In what way do people get culturally more conservative as they get older? The rest of your post doesn’t really add much to anything. The stories currently have the support of people of whatever class who support Brexit. The discussion is what happens post-Brexit.HYUFD said:
Which again is rubbish,ers and Labour had a clear lead with working class voters.SouthamObserver said:
Then the Tories are absolutely buggered. They have always relied on people becoming more economically self-interested as they got older. Cultural values are much less likely to change. And the cultural values that drive the current Tory vote are not those of the under 50s.HYUFD said:
Politics is more cultural now not class based so I suspect it will actuallyalex. said:
Conservativese for the longer term.Sean_F said:
The concentration i=onservative Remain seats.IanB2 said:Yes, it’s a good article, with perhaps two weaknesses. It doesn’t say anything about the changing drivers of voting =es as a straight swing (after all, in the LibDem’s case it didn’t depart as one).
An undercommented o seats across a broad swathe of the south.
A further the same as the one that always eluded the LibDems coming from below.
If Project Fear is even partly true, Bozo may get to explore that for himself.
Now with the LDs winning more middle class voters, on 26% with them with Yougov and the Brexit_Trackers_w.pdf
People who support Brexit tend to be culturally conservative, inevitably they will be more drawn to a conservative party than voters who are culturally liberal who tend to be Remainers, indeed the biggest problem may be for Labour who are losing their culturally conservative working class voters to the Brexit Party and a lesser extent the Boris led Tories and also losing their culturally liberal middle class voters to the LDs and to a lesser extent the Greens.
0 -
Million euro question is -kle4 said:I just dont see how he can hold his coalition of support together to buy himself time. The EU are being stubborn, hes given himself no wriggle room and he cannot allow himself to appear forced into an extension without going for a GE.
I'd love to see if he could get a deal, but I just dont see how he gets there.
If he does say he wants an extension (6 months?) to get a deal, will the ERG hardliners bring him down or will they just make a hell of a racket but ultimately accept it for want of any feasible alternative?
I think it might be the latter, hence my view that 2019 will see neither Brexit nor an election.
Niche position now, I fully realize. Pretty much just me and Alastair Meeks.0 -
It is Warren 46% Trump 42% though ie she does no better than Hillary v Trump and Harris 45% Trump 44% ie she does worse than Hillary v Trump.OnboardG1 said:On the topic of our American friends, I think that this kind of polling will have an important effect on the Democratic primary (Sanders, Biden lead Trump by 8):
https://www.newsweek.com/biden-sanders-poll-trump-2020-election-1453658
What strikes me is that both of these people are well known national figures who have been subject to the GOP attack machine before and yet are STILL significantly more popular than the Orange Gorilla. I think that'll push Democratic electors towards one or the other, because their primary goal is defenestrating Trump.
Trump leads Buttigieg 44% to 42%
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollPrint.aspx?g=e05bf5ae-982d-4f96-b0ae-671cdfe56aab&d=00 -
Politician tries to appear not totally unreasonable.MarqueeMark said:
Ireland blinks.....Scott_P said:BoZo blinks first.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/11604718155605852160 -
I see we're 'my big brother's bigger than your big brother' territory.MarqueeMark said:
Ireland blinks.....Scott_P said:BoZo blinks first.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/11604718155605852160 -
HYUFD is only interested in spinning for the Conservative Party, usually by bombarding us with often unconnected factoids as Ian says. He does not seem interested in engaging in debate. That's fair enough, plenty do that if not with quite the same zeal but it doesn't often make for an interesting discussion.kjh said:
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much useIanB2 said:
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.kjh said:
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.HYUFD said:
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.Roger said:Fascinating header Alastair.
....Smelling salts for HYUFD please
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.3 -
I believe nothing of the sort. For crying out loud read what was written and not rely on your preconceived and wrong ideas about me.HYUFD said:
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS should be ignored because you believe due to your inbuilt diehard Remainer bias there will be vast LD to Labour tactical voting against the Tories with very little evidence at allkjh said:
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much useIanB2 said:
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.kjh said:
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.HYUFD said:
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.Roger said:Fascinating header Alastair.
....Sm salts for HYUFD please
sing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
a) I do not dismiss UNS
b) I have never said there will be LD to Labour tactical voting and what is more I do not believe that will happen so where you got that from I have no idea. Where did you get that from?
Let's try this just one more time:
An argument was put forward as to why UNS might not apply this time. I don't think anyone is suggesting it won't largely apply, but possibly not as much as before. Various arguments were put in support of this position. This was the discussion. Nothing else. Nobody knows who is right.
In all your replies you never responded to this arguemet one way or another. You neither said whether you agreed with this or disagreed with this although we can all guess you disagree with it.
So rather than post a load of stuff that has nothing to do with the issue let's hear why you agree or disagree with the proposition.
I have this sneaky feeling you are just not going to understand my post are you?3 -
Margin of error stuff. Lots to play for.HYUFD said:
The Tories lost their poll lead because of the dementia tax, hunting restoration etc. There was little difference between Remainer tactical voting at the beginning or end of the campaign and Corbyn is still polling lower than he was at the beginning of the 2017 campaign.SouthamObserver said:
His ratings improved during the campaign if I recall correctly. The Tories had a huge polling lead and lost it. Why? Because millions of voters wanted to stop the Tories winning. I would not rule that out happening again. I think it is less likely, but I would definitely not rule it out. In all the polls from all the companies anti-No Deal parties are on 50%+.HYUFD said:
When Corbyn had a significantly higher favourable rating than he does nowSouthamObserver said:
The evidence for the potential for widespread tactical voting is the 40% Labour got in 2017.HYUFD said:
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS shkjh said:
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much useIanB2 said:
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.kjh said:
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.HYUFD said:
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.Roger said:Fascinating header Alastair.
....Smelling salts for HYUFD please
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
In Opinium today Tories plus Brexit Party are more than Labour plus LDs plus Greens anyway0 -
OK. I suppose it can still be "most of the Tory party" all the way down to 51%.kle4 said:
My qualifier was 'most of the Tory party'. Its the most popular option with Tories even as a sizable minority are against it, and probably blocks some leakage to BXP.Chris said:
Will a No Deal Brexit keep the Tory party together? I don't think so.kle4 said:
The ram has touched the wall already - theres very little chance to pull it back even if they want to, and as oft noted a GE may occur whatever BoJo wants. Especially since now that Bogdanovic claim that a new parliament could retroactively say we never left, adding more fire to remainers not to fear a GE.Chris said:
Then again, it would be a brave man (which Johnson is not) who would bet against panic buying in the week or so before Brexit Day.Chris said:
Do people really think Johnson would want to hold a general election exactly a week or exactly a fortnight after a No Deal Brexit? Even the loopiest Brexiteers admit there may be some short-term disruption immediately after such a Brexit. It would be incredibly risky to schedule an election for the time when that disruption was at its height, when people couldn't help noticing it, and when the opposition parties could so easily argue that it was the beginning of catastrophe.Scott_P said:
Surely the date that would appeal is Brexit Day itself, 31 October?
A general election with no food on the supermarket shelves?
Either way any hardships will be blamed on the EU or called a price worth paying (do or die remember, any price is worth paying according to BoJo, except a backstop he already voted for). Damn risky as you say, but it keeps most of the Tory party together and that is the key when predicting what will happen. As United as possible they either mitigate the damage or they hope win. Any suffering is worth that.
It safeguards as many MPs as it can and avoids a wipeout is my theory. Any kind of brexit delay or the WA deal splits the no deal backing base even worse and they get hammered.
So it may not see them win - I certainly dont think it will - but the loss may be less intense.
If they dont believe that I cannot explain giving no wiggle room.0 -
Swinson and Farage now closer to Corbyn as preferred PM than Corbyn is to Boris.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1160482457113825280?s=200 -
This is just ballpark stuff but I assume they hope that it is more like 75%, otherwise the strategy does not work. All about preserving as large a core of MPs as possible to rebuildChris said:
OK. I suppose it can still be "most of the Tory party" all the way down to 51%.kle4 said:
My qualifier was 'most of the Tory party'. Its the most popular option with Tories even as a sizable minority are against it, and probably blocks some leakage to BXP.Chris said:
Will a No Deal Brexit keep the Tory party together? I don't think so.kle4 said:
The ram has touched the wall already - theres very little chance to pull it back even if they want to, and as oft noted a GE may occur whatever BoJo wants. Especially since now that Bogdanovic claim that a new parliament could retroactively say we never left, adding more fire to remainers not to fear a GE.Chris said:
Then again, it would be a brave man (which Johnson is not) who would bet against panic buying in the week or so before Brexit Day.Chris said:
Do people really think Johnson would want to hold a general election exactly a week or exactly a fortnight after a No Deal Brexit? Even the loopiest Brexiteers admit there may be some short-term disruption immediately after such a Brexit. It would be incredibly risky to schedule an election for the time when that disruption was at its height, when people couldn't help noticing it, and when the opposition parties could so easily argue that it was the beginning of catastrophe.Scott_P said:
Surely the date that would appeal is Brexit Day itself, 31 October?
A general election with no food on the supermarket shelves?
Either way any hardships will be blamed on the EU or called a price worth paying (do or die remember, any price is worth paying according to BoJo, except a backstop he already voted for). Damn risky as you say, but it keeps most of the Tory party together and that is the key when predicting what will happen. As United as possible they either mitigate the damage or they hope win. Any suffering is worth that.
It safeguards as many MPs as it can and avoids a wipeout is my theory. Any kind of brexit delay or the WA deal splits the no deal backing base even worse and they get hammered.
So it may not see them win - I certainly dont think it will - but the loss may be less intense.
If they dont believe that I cannot explain giving no wiggle room.0 -
Yes, people voted tactically to stop the Tories in 2017. And anti-No Deal parties are on over 50% in today’s Opinium.HYUFD said:
The Tories lost their poll lead because of the dementia tax, hunting restoration etc. There was little difference between Remainer tactical voting at the beginning or end of the campaign and Corbyn is still polling lower than he was at the beginning of the 2017 campaign.SouthamObserver said:
His ratings improved during the campaign if I recall correctly. The Tories had a huge polling lead and lost it. Why? Because millions of voters wanted to stop the Tories winning. I would not rule that out happening again. I think it is less likely, but I would definitely not rule it out. In all the polls from all the companies anti-No Deal parties are on 50%+.HYUFD said:
When Corbyn had a significantly higher favourable rating than he does nowSouthamObserver said:
The evidence for the potential for widespread tactical voting is the 40% Labour got in 2017.HYUFD said:
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS shkjh said:
The point is or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much useIanB2 said:
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.kjh said:
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.HYUFD said:
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.Roger said:Fascinating header Alastair.
....Smelling salts for HYUFD please
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
In Opinium today Tories plus Brexit Party are more than Labour plus LDs plus Greens
0 -
Grown ups are just pleased that talks are going to take placeScott_P said:
No.MarqueeMark said:Ireland blinks.....
BoZo. I refuse to talk to them until they remove the backstop
Ireland. Come to talk to us, without us removing the backstop.
BoZo. OK0 -
I know. I should give up but it is so frustrating. I find it frustrating that someone can't follow a logical argument and then respond with a counter argument. The bizarre thing is a counter argument can change opinions. Chucking out unrelated stuff hardens views against them so it is counter productive.OllyT said:
HYUFD is only interested in spinning for the Conservative Party, usually by bombarding us with often unconnected factoids as Ian says. He does not seem interested in engaging in debate. That's fair enough, plenty do that if not with quite the same zeal but it doesn't often make for an interesting discussion.kjh said:
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much useIanB2 said:
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.kjh said:
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.HYUFD said:
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.Roger said:Fascinating header Alastair.
....Smelling salts for HYUFD please
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.1 -
That’s probably true and I have never been a fan of the ‘traitor’ rhetoric which gets deployed by both sides.kle4 said:
Fine, but that doesnt make the consequence of the law treacherous.....Nigelb said:
She didn’t.Big_G_NorthWales said:
There are better words to use to describe an irresponsible and unnecessary gamble with the future of the country.1 -
Or Ireland thinks Boris is a soft touch who is desperate for a deal. Who knows?MarqueeMark said:
Ireland blinks.....Scott_P said:BoZo blinks first.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/11604718155605852160 -
-
Tories plus Brexit Party on 47%, Labour plus LDs plus Greens on 46%SouthamObserver said:
Yes, people voted tactically to stop the Tories in 2017. And anti-No Deal parties are on over 50% in today’s Opinium.HYUFD said:
The Tories lost their poll lead because of the dementia tax, hunting restoration etc. There was little difference between Remainer tactical voting at the beginning or end of the campaign and Corbyn is still polling lower than he was at the beginning of the 2017 campaign.SouthamObserver said:
His ratings improved during the campaign if I recall correctly. The Tories had a huge polling lead andHYUFD said:
When Corbyn had a significantly higher favourable rating than he does nowSouthamObserver said:
The evidence for the potential for widespread tactical voting is the 40% Labour got in 2017.HYUFD said:
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS shkjh said:
The point is or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much useIanB2 said:
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.kjh said:
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.HYUFD said:
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.Roger said:Fascinating header Alastair.
....Smelling salts for HYUFD please
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
In Opinium today Tories plus Brexit Party are more than Labour plus LDs plus Greens
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1160277874626183170?s=200 -
It's a shame because there are plenty of places for that; this site is special because, partisan though most of us are, there is enough maturity and enough interest in making money from betting, as well some intelligent less aligned regulars, to avoid our sinking to debates where people are just on transmit.OllyT said:
HYUFD is only interested in spinning for the Conservative Party, usually by bombarding us with often unconnected factoids as Ian says. He does not seem interested in engaging in debate. That's fair enough, plenty do that if not with quite the same zeal but it doesn't often make for an interesting discussion.kjh said:
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much useIanB2 said:
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.kjh said:
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.HYUFD said:
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.Roger said:Fascinating header Alastair.
....Smelling salts for HYUFD please
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Best advice to HY would be to start actively betting. He could have made nicely on Bozo but would have been punished for JRM. I wonder what the site would be like were it restricted to punters only!0 -
Out of interest, what’s the UNS seat breakdown on today’s Opinium?0
-
Link?JonWC said:Go onto the Guardian website and read the article by Sajid Javid calling for ref2... shocking but not for the reason you might imagine!
0 -
Where did I insult you HYFUD?HYUFD said:
He insulted me, I respond in kind within reasonBig_G_NorthWales said:
'Your in built diehard Remainer bias' demonstrates your belief that insulting a poster helps win your argument. For your information it does not and tactical voting is a genuine discussion topic in this climateHYUFD said:
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS should be ignored because you believe due to your inbuilt diehard Remainer bias there will be vast LD to Labour tactical voting against the Tories with very little evidence at allkjh said:
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much useIanB2 said:
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.kjh said:
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.HYUFD said:
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.Roger said:Fascinating header Alastair.
....Smelling salts for HYUFD please
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.0 -
UNS apparently won't apply because there is a smaller voteshare for the 2 main parties, yet in reality it will in Labour v Tory marginals unless and until the LDs say overtook Labour as the main anti Tory partykjh said:
I believe nothing of the sort. For crying out loud read what was written and not rely on your preconceived and wrong ideas about me.HYUFD said:
Nothing to ignore, you blittle evidence at allkjh said:
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
a) I do not dismiss UNS
b) I have never said there will be LD to Labour tactical voting and what is more I do not believe that will happen so where you got that from I have no idea. Where did you get that from?
Let's try this just one more time:
An argument was put forward as to why UNS might not apply this time. I don't think anyone is suggesting it won't largely apply, but possibly not as much as before. Various arguments were put in support of this position. This was the discussion. Nothing else. Nobody knows who is right.
In all your replies you never responded to this arguemet one way or another. You neither said whether you agreed with this or disagreed with this although we can all guess you disagree with it.
So rather than post a load of stuff that has nothing to do with the issue let's hear why you agree or disagree with the proposition.
I have this sneaky feeling you are just not going to understand my post are you?0 -
HYUFD has adopted Boris as his guiding light. Taking the side of a reflexive liar rather inhibits one’s capacity to engage in reasoned argument.kjh said:
I know. I should give up but it is so frustrating. I find it frustrating that someone can't follow a logical argument and then respond with a counter argument. The bizarre thing is a counter argument can change opinions. Chucking out unrelated stuff hardens views against them so it is counter productive.OllyT said:
HYUFD is only interested in spinning for the Conservative Party, usually by bombarding us with often unconnected factoids as Ian says. He does not seem interested in engaging in debate. That's fair enough, plenty do that if not with quite the same zeal but it doesn't often make for an interesting discussion.kjh said:
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much useIanB2 said:
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.kjh said:
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.HYUFD said:
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.Roger said:Fascinating header Alastair.
....Smelling salts for HYUFD please
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.1 -
You're far cleverer than that. How would they do anything to the backstop without meeting to discuss it.Scott_P said:
No.MarqueeMark said:Ireland blinks.....
BoZo. I refuse to talk to them until they remove the backstop
Ireland. Come to talk to us, without us removing the backstop.
BoZo. OK
If Varadkar has asked to meet Boris so he can re-emphasise the EU's current line it seems a bit pointless. If he's actually prepared to look at finding a way around the border question that avoids no deal and doesn't include the backstop (or at least an eternal backstop) good for Varadkar, and good for Boris.1 -
The Conservative Party always reflects, or should reflect, the values of the culturally more conservative parts of society, even if voters now accept gay marriage for example or divorce or abortion they are much less keen on legalising drugs (certainly beyond cannabis) or uncontrolled immigration or a liberal approach to crime and indeed it was a majority of voters as a whole who voted for Brexit even when the then leader of the Tory Party opposed it.SouthamObserver said:
People who support Brexit tend to be older. And, yes, the cultural values of the over 50s now are generally conservative, but that just reflects the fact that they (we) grew up in different times. That is not the same as values becoming more conservative. If you are really relying on that you’re in trouble.HYUFD said:
More keen to preserve traditions and the way of life they know which is why the Tories have never won the votes of a majority of under 30s since 1983 and Labour have never won the votes of a majority of over 65s since 1997,SouthamObserver said:
In what way do people get culturally more conservative as they get older? The rest of your post doesn’t really add much to anything. The stories currently have the support of people of whatever class who support Brexit. The discussion is what happens post-Brexit.HYUFD said:
Which again is rubbish,ers and Labour had a clear lead with working class voters.SouthamObserver said:
Then the Tories are absolutely buggered. They have always relied on people becoming more economically self-interested as they got older. Cultural values are much less likely to change. And the cultural values that drive the current Tory vote are not those of the under 50s.HYUFD said:
Politics is more cultural now not class based so I suspect it will actuallyalex. said:
Conservativese for the longer term.Sean_F said:
The concentration i=onservative Remain seats.IanB2 said:Yes, it’s a good article, with perhaps two weaknesses. It doesn’t say anything about the changing drivers of voting =es as a straight swing (after all, in the LibDem’s case it didn’t depart as one).
An undercommented o seats across a broad swathe of the south.
A further the same as the one that always eluded the LibDems coming from below.
If Project Fear is even partly true, Bozo may get to explore that for himself.
Now with the LDs winning more middle class voters, on 26% with them with Yougov and the Brexit_Trackers_w.pdf
People who support Brexit tendr extent the Greens.0 -
He "accepts an offer," which means the other side has blinked first, surely?Scott_P said:BoZo blinks first.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/11604718155605852161 -
SNP types keep their most extreme behaviour for wimmen that aren’t our Nicla - whether it be Swinson, “Ruthie” or employees at Edinburgh airport.Mysticrose said:Malcolmmg, a tip for your well-being. When you have a disagreement with someone, esp over something trivial like your passionate dislike of Jo Swinson and my support of her, it's a good idea not to let it become cancerous in all other postings. Richard T and I once had a minor disagreement, but in agreeing to disagree I grew to respect him and his considered posts. I get it that you're an ardent nationalist, something I don't actually have a problem with. So drop the bile. It doesn't do you any favours and makes you look a bit of a schmuck.
0 -
You are probably right.Chris said:If he were going for a deal I think we'd have seen some sign of it by now. Whatever activity there's been is consistent with going for No Deal while making token efforts to shift the blame elsewhere.
But the alternative -
He is seeking to engineer a cliff-edge binary choice between deal (or short extension to allow deal) and chaotic crash-out. And for this to work he needs enough MPs to believe (as you do) that he really would crash out - something TM never managed since it became clear that she would not, at the death, countenance it. Hence all this 'No Deal' drama.
Course, the best threats are those that are meant. So maybe he does mean it. But 'No Deal 31 Oct' is something I will believe when I see it and not before. It would be such a crazy outcome.0 -
BoZo demanded they abandon it without meeting to discuss it.Luckyguy1983 said:How would they do anything to the backstop without meeting to discuss it.
We will perhaps find out in due course, but I think it is more likely Varadkar wants to look BoZo in the eye and ask if he really wants to be the PM that breaks up the United KingdomLuckyguy1983 said:If Varadkar has asked to meet Boris so he can re-emphasise the EU's current line it seems a bit pointless. If he's actually prepared to look at finding a way around the border question that avoids no deal and doesn't include the backstop (or at least an eternal backstop) good for Varadkar, and good for Boris.
0 -
Just had a Yougov survey on Boris, gave him a glowing report.0
-
Are the Biden gaffes going to start eroding his support ?
Imagine this sort of thing during the run up to the election if he were selected as the nominee:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/joe-biden-gaffe-vice-president-parkland-shooting.html0 -
It seems rather futile to try to guess who has blinked first since whatever comments were made about talking or not talking until x happens, if nothing arises from the talks neither will have blinked despite the talks. I wish them well, so long as they don't come out and say afterwards how tough but productive the talks were, the standard cliche for when nothing is agreed.Endillion said:
He "accepts an offer," which means the other side has blinked first, surely?Scott_P said:BoZo blinks first.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/11604718155605852160 -
I am sure it always will. The problem is that the cultural conservatism is dying off.HYUFD said:
The Conservative Party always reflects, or should reflect, the values of the culturally more conservative parts of society, even if voters now accept gay marriage for example or divorce or abortion they are much less keen on legalising drugs (certainly beyond cannabis) or a liberal approach to crime and indeed it was a majority of voters as a whole who voted for Brexit even when the then leader of the Tory Party opposed it.SouthamObserver said:
People who support Brexit tendin trouble.HYUFD said:
More keen to preserve traditions and the way of life they know which is why the Tories have never won the votes of a majority of under 30s since 1983 and Labour have never won the votes of a majority of over 65s since 1997,SouthamObserver said:
In what way do people get culturally more conservative as they get older? The rest of your post doesn’t really add much to anything. The stories currently have the support of people of whatever class who support Brexit. The discussion is what happens post-Brexit.HYUFD said:
Which again is rubbish,ers and Labour had a clear lead with working class voters.SouthamObserver said:
Then the Tories are absolutely buggered. They have always relied on people becoming more economically self-interested as they got older. Cultural values are much less likely to change. And the cultural values that drive the current Tory vote are not those of the under 50s.HYUFD said:
Politics is more cultural now not class based so I suspect it will actuallyalex. said:
Conservativese for the longer term.Sean_F said:
The concentration i=onservative Remain seats.IanB2 said:Yes, it’s a good article, with perhaps two weaknesses. It doesn’t say anything about the changing drivers of voting =es as a straight swing (after all, in the LibDem’s case it didn’t depart as one).
An undercommented o seats across a broad swathe of the south.
A further the same as the one that always eluded the LibDems coming from below.
If Project Fear is even partly true, Bozo may get to explore that for himself.
Now with the LDs winning more middle class voters, on 26% with them with Yougov and the Brexit_Trackers_w.pdf
People who support Brexit tendr extent the Greens.
0 -
I like the way you miss out the SNP and Plaid!!HYUFD said:
Tories plus Brexit Party on 47%, Labour plus LDs plus Greens on 46%SouthamObserver said:
Yes, people voted tactically to stop the Tories in 2017. And anti-No Deal parties are on over 50% in today’s Opinium.HYUFD said:
The Tories lost their poll lead because of the dementia tax, hunting restoration etc. There was little difference between Remainer tactical voting at the beginning or end of the campaign and Corbyn is still polling lower than he was at the beginning of the 2017 campaign.SouthamObserver said:
His ratings improved during the campaign if I recall correctly. The Tories had a huge polling lead andHYUFD said:
When Corbyn had a significantly higher favourable rating than he does nowSouthamObserver said:
The evidence for the potential for widespread tactical voting is the 40% Labour got in 2017.HYUFD said:
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS shkjh said:
The point is or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much useIanB2 said:
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.kjh said:
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.HYUFD said:
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.Roger said:Fascinating header Alastair.
....Smelling salts for HYUFD please
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
In Opinium today Tories plus Brexit Party are more than Labour plus LDs plus Greens
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1160277874626183170?s=20
0 -
I had that a few days ago - strangemalcolmg said:Just had a Yougov survey on Boris, gave him a glowing report.
0 -
Naughty!malcolmg said:Just had a Yougov survey on Boris, gave him a glowing report.
But thanks for explaining the "5% of SNP voters think Boris is great" headline that will drop out of the survey results.
0 -
Another partisan post. It is not helpingScott_P said:
BoZo demanded they abandon it without meeting to discuss it.Luckyguy1983 said:How would they do anything to the backstop without meeting to discuss it.
We will perhaps find out in due course, but I think it is more likely Varadkar wants to look BoZo in the eye and ask if he really wants to be the PM that breaks up the United KingdomLuckyguy1983 said:If Varadkar has asked to meet Boris so he can re-emphasise the EU's current line it seems a bit pointless. If he's actually prepared to look at finding a way around the border question that avoids no deal and doesn't include the backstop (or at least an eternal backstop) good for Varadkar, and good for Boris.
0 -
IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.0 -
Tories 314, Labour 248, SNP 37, LDs 27, PC 3, Brexit Party 2, Greens 1, NI 18SouthamObserver said:Out of interest, what’s the UNS seat breakdown on today’s Opinium?
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=31&LAB=28&LIB=13&Brexit=16&Green=5&UKIP=1&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017base0 -
On the other hand, he can always back what he says using a very strong knowledge of the recent polling. And his perspective, even as a vociferous Conservative Party supporter, is valuable here because it is so rare, with other previous Conservative Party voices on the site currently having swooning fits over Brexit.OllyT said:
HYUFD is only interested in spinning for the Conservative Party, usually by bombarding us with often unconnected factoids as Ian says. He does not seem interested in engaging in debate. That's fair enough, plenty do that if not with quite the same zeal but it doesn't often make for an interesting discussion.kjh said:
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much useIanB2 said:
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.kjh said:
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.HYUFD said:
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.Roger said:Fascinating header Alastair.
....Smelling salts for HYUFD please
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.0 -
Varadkar is much closer to being a silly petulant child than the wise elder statesman and master negotiater that you make him out to be.Scott_P said:
BoZo demanded they abandon it without meeting to discuss it.Luckyguy1983 said:How would they do anything to the backstop without meeting to discuss it.
We will perhaps find out in due course, but I think it is more likely Varadkar wants to look BoZo in the eye and ask if he really wants to be the PM that breaks up the United KingdomLuckyguy1983 said:If Varadkar has asked to meet Boris so he can re-emphasise the EU's current line it seems a bit pointless. If he's actually prepared to look at finding a way around the border question that avoids no deal and doesn't include the backstop (or at least an eternal backstop) good for Varadkar, and good for Boris.
1 -
Yep, you didn't understand at all. Again ignored the discussion point. At no point did I mention the smaller vote share for the 2 main parties. Nothing to do with the points I made at all.HYUFD said:
UNS apparently won't apply because there is a smaller voteshare for the 2 main parties, yet in reality it will in Labour v Tory marginals unless and until the LDs say overtook Labour as the main anti Tory partykjh said:
I believe nothing of the sort. For crying out loud read what was written and not rely on your preconceived and wrong ideas about me.HYUFD said:
Notat allkjh said:
a) I do not dismiss UNS
b) I have never said there will be LD to Labour tactical voting and what is more I do not believe that will happen so where you got that from I have no idea. Where did you get that from?
Let's try this just one more time:
An argument was put forward as to why UNS might not apply this time. I don't think anyone is suggesting it won't largely apply, but possibly not as much as before. Various arguments were put in support of this position. This was the discussion. Nothing else. Nobody knows who is right.
In all your replies you never responded to this arguemet one way or another. You neither said whether you agreed with this or disagreed with this although we can all guess you disagree with it.
So rather than post a load of stuff that has nothing to do with the issue let's hear why you agree or disagree with the proposition.
I have this sneaky feeling you are just not going to understand my post are you?
HYFUD I am giving up now, but it would be useful to know if this is deliberate or whether you really don't understand what is being said to you.
Have you not noticed how others comment on the fact that you ignore replies to you and that you respond with unrelated stuff. Do you not understand how a discussion works?
Take a look at the arguments I have with Philip. They are heated, but the responses back and forth relate to the previous posts. Occasionally we misunderstand each other, but with you there is nothing in common with the previous post.0 -
How does that work, when you have been telling us yourself that the Tories are gaining working class support and losing middle class support, and there are different numbers of working and middle class people in each seat?HYUFD said:
UNS apparently won't apply because there is a smaller voteshare for the 2 main parties, yet in reality it will in Labour v Tory marginals unless and until the LDs say overtook Labour as the main anti Tory partykjh said:
I believe nothing of the sort. For crying out loud read what was written and not rely on your preconceived and wrong ideas about me.HYUFD said:
Nothing to ignore, you blittle evidence at allkjh said:
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
a) I do not dismiss UNS
b) I have never said there will be LD to Labour tactical voting and what is more I do not believe that will happen so where you got that from I have no idea. Where did you get that from?
Let's try this just one more time:
An argument was put forward as to why UNS might not apply this time. I don't think anyone is suggesting it won't largely apply, but possibly not as much as before. Various arguments were put in support of this position. This was the discussion. Nothing else. Nobody knows who is right.
In all your replies you never responded to this arguemet one way or another. You neither said whether you agreed with this or disagreed with this although we can all guess you disagree with it.
So rather than post a load of stuff that has nothing to do with the issue let's hear why you agree or disagree with the proposition.
I have this sneaky feeling you are just not going to understand my post are you?
(last try with a logical debating point)0 -
So after the debacle of the Euro elections, the Tories have crawled back into the thirties - Labour still mired in the twenties....SouthamObserver said:
I like the way you miss out the SNP and Plaid!!
Direction of travel.0 -
Revoking A50 is impossible in this climate and would make matters worse, much worse.Mysticrose said:IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.
We need to brexit with a deal and that is where mps attention should be0 -
Well he could do that on Skype. I think domestic pressure will be on him to come up with a little more. He must be seen to have done everything he can, as support for his strategy is ebbing. As you say, we shall see.Scott_P said:
BoZo demanded they abandon it without meeting to discuss it.Luckyguy1983 said:How would they do anything to the backstop without meeting to discuss it.
We will perhaps find out in due course, but I think it is more likely Varadkar wants to look BoZo in the eye and ask if he really wants to be the PM that breaks up the United KingdomLuckyguy1983 said:If Varadkar has asked to meet Boris so he can re-emphasise the EU's current line it seems a bit pointless. If he's actually prepared to look at finding a way around the border question that avoids no deal and doesn't include the backstop (or at least an eternal backstop) good for Varadkar, and good for Boris.
0 -
Shocking that the strongly anti no deal SNP are on 0%HYUFD said:
Tories plus Brexit Party on 47%, Labour plus LDs plus Greens on 46%SouthamObserver said:
Yes, people voted tactically to stop the Tories in 2017. And anti-No Deal parties are on over 50% in today’s Opinium.HYUFD said:
The Tories lost their poll lead because of the dementia tax, hunting restoration etc. There was little difference between Remainer tactical voting at the beginning or end of the campaign and Corbyn is still polling lower than he was at the beginning of the 2017 campaign.SouthamObserver said:
His ratings improved during the campaign if I recall correctly. The Tories had a huge polling lead andHYUFD said:
When Corbyn had a significantly higher favourable rating than he does nowSouthamObserver said:
The evidence for the potential for widespread tactical voting is the 40% Labour got in 2017.HYUFD said:
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS shkjh said:
The point is or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much useIanB2 said:
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.kjh said:
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.HYUFD said:
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.Roger said:Fascinating header Alastair.
....Smelling salts for HYUFD please
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
In Opinium today Tories plus Brexit Party are more than Labour plus LDs plus Greens
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1160277874626183170?s=200 -
Maybe you should look in the mirror, trying to pretend you are all knowing and insulting other posters because you do not like their message and asking for them to be removed from the site says a lot about you and none of it nice.Mysticrose said:Malcolmmg, a tip for your well-being. When you have a disagreement with someone, esp over something trivial like your passionate dislike of Jo Swinson and my support of her, it's a good idea not to let it become cancerous in all other postings. Richard T and I once had a minor disagreement, but in agreeing to disagree I grew to respect him and his considered posts. I get it that you're an ardent nationalist, something I don't actually have a problem with. So drop the bile. It doesn't do you any favours and makes you look a bit of a schmuck.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if you are unable to discuss and argue against that then you should heed your own message.
Pomposity is not a nice trait.0 -
I feel your sentiments and where you are coming from. However, I do seriously consider this may be the Cummings plan. If they can attempt to block off all other routes to stopping No Deal, so that Revoking becomes the only available option to avoid it, then I think they can present the case to the country of the nasty Remainer Parliament vs the People.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Revoking A50 is impossible in this climate and would make matters worse, much worse.Mysticrose said:IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.
We need to brexit with a deal and that is where mps attention should be
Technically, too, Revoking is actually very easy.0 -
'Robust exchange of views' is the real killer.kle4 said:
It seems rather futile to try to guess who has blinked first since whatever comments were made about talking or not talking until x happens, if nothing arises from the talks neither will have blinked despite the talks. I wish them well, so long as they don't come out and say afterwards how tough but productive the talks were, the standard cliche for when nothing is agreed.Endillion said:
He "accepts an offer," which means the other side has blinked first, surely?Scott_P said:BoZo blinks first.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/11604718155605852160 -
Oh Dear , Harry making an idiot of himself again, get that chip off your shoulder , you don't need to pretend your Scottish and know anything about the SNP, just stick with your Little Englander Tory persona.TGOHF said:
SNP types keep their most extreme behaviour for wimmen that aren’t our Nicla - whether it be Swinson, “Ruthie” or employees at Edinburgh airport.Mysticrose said:Malcolmmg, a tip for your well-being. When you have a disagreement with someone, esp over something trivial like your passionate dislike of Jo Swinson and my support of her, it's a good idea not to let it become cancerous in all other postings. Richard T and I once had a minor disagreement, but in agreeing to disagree I grew to respect him and his considered posts. I get it that you're an ardent nationalist, something I don't actually have a problem with. So drop the bile. It doesn't do you any favours and makes you look a bit of a schmuck.
0 -
Varadkar is a very worried man at present coming under pressure from inside Ireland to talk. Ireland will be decimated in a no deal as will many parts of EuropeEndillion said:
Varadkar is much closer to being a silly petulant child than the wise elder statesman and master negotiater that you make him out to be.Scott_P said:
BoZo demanded they abandon it without meeting to discuss it.Luckyguy1983 said:How would they do anything to the backstop without meeting to discuss it.
We will perhaps find out in due course, but I think it is more likely Varadkar wants to look BoZo in the eye and ask if he really wants to be the PM that breaks up the United KingdomLuckyguy1983 said:If Varadkar has asked to meet Boris so he can re-emphasise the EU's current line it seems a bit pointless. If he's actually prepared to look at finding a way around the border question that avoids no deal and doesn't include the backstop (or at least an eternal backstop) good for Varadkar, and good for Boris.
If it happens it will be a failure of spectacular enormity by all politicians both in the UK and the EU.1 -
Yep and I'm getting the same treatment, but I'll let it pass. I like the proper debating on here which can be so stimulating. It outranks all other sites by a long way because of it.TGOHF said:
SNP types keep their most extreme behaviour for wimmen that aren’t our Nicla - whether it be Swinson, “Ruthie” or employees at Edinburgh airport.Mysticrose said:Malcolmmg, a tip for your well-being. When you have a disagreement with someone, esp over something trivial like your passionate dislike of Jo Swinson and my support of her, it's a good idea not to let it become cancerous in all other postings. Richard T and I once had a minor disagreement, but in agreeing to disagree I grew to respect him and his considered posts. I get it that you're an ardent nationalist, something I don't actually have a problem with. So drop the bile. It doesn't do you any favours and makes you look a bit of a schmuck.
0 -
0
-
I would dispute whether the generation who got off their faces on E and shagged anything that moved are culturally conservative.SouthamObserver said:
People who support Brexit tend to be older. And, yes, the cultural values of the over 50s now are generally conservative, but that just reflects the fact that they (we) grew up in different times. That is not the same as values becoming more conservative. If you are really relying on that you’re in trouble.HYUFD said:
More keen to preserve traditions and the way of life they know which is why the Tories have never won the votes of a majority of under 30s since 1983 and Labour have never won the votes of a majority of over 65s since 1997,SouthamObserver said:
In what way do people get culturally more conservative as they get older? The rest of your post doesn’t really add much to anything. The stories currently have the support of people of whatever class who support Brexit. The discussion is what happens post-Brexit.HYUFD said:
Which again is rubbish,ers and Labour had a clear lead with working class voters.SouthamObserver said:
Then the Tories are absolutely buggered. They have always relied on people becoming more economically self-interested as they got older. Cultural values are much less likely to change. And the cultural values that drive the current Tory vote are not those of the under 50s.HYUFD said:
Politics is more cultural now not class based so I suspect it will actuallyalex. said:
ConservativeseSean_F said:
The concentration i=onservative Remain seats.IanB2 said:Yes, it’s a good article, with perhaps two weaknesses. It doesn’t say anything about the changing drivers of voting =es as a straight swing (after all, in the LibDem’s case it didn’t depart as one).
An undercommented o seats across a broad swathe of the south.
A further the same as the one that always eluded the LibDems coming from below.
If Project Fear is even partly true, Bozo may get to explore that for himself.
Now with the LDs winning more middle class voters, on 26% with them with Yougov and the Brexit_Trackers_w.pdf
People who support Brexit tend to be culturally conservative, inevitably they will be more drawn to a conservative party than voters who are culturally liberal who tend to be Remainers, indeed the biggest problem may be for Labour who are losing their culturally conservative working class voters to the Brexit Party and a lesser extent the Boris led Tories and also losing their culturally liberal middle class voters to the LDs and to a lesser extent the Greens.0 -
Advertising doesn't require giving equal weight to your competitor's product. It's hard enough finding a USP let alone one a day. I think HYUFD is making a good fist of selling a very testing product. Of course he'd prefer to be doing a sun lotion-wouldn't we all.OllyT said:
HYUFD is only interested in spinning for the Conservative Party, usually by bombarding us with often unconnected factoids as Ian says. He does not seem interested in engaging in debate. That's fair enough, plenty do that if not with quite the same zeal but it doesn't often make for an interesting discussion.kjh said:
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much useIanB2 said:
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.kjh said:
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.HYUFD said:
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.Roger said:Fascinating header Alastair.
....Smelling salts for HYUFD please
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.0 -
Boris is being mightily helped by the vast amout of bed-wetting going on over his No Deal 31 Oct stance.kinabalu said:
You are probably right.Chris said:If he were going for a deal I think we'd have seen some sign of it by now. Whatever activity there's been is consistent with going for No Deal while making token efforts to shift the blame elsewhere.
But the alternative -
He is seeking to engineer a cliff-edge binary choice between deal (or short extension to allow deal) and chaotic crash-out. And for this to work he needs enough MPs to believe (as you do) that he really would crash out - something TM never managed since it became clear that she would not, at the death, countenance it. Hence all this 'No Deal' drama.
Course, the best threats are those that are meant. So maybe he does mean it. But 'No Deal 31 Oct' is something I will believe when I see it and not before. It would be such a crazy outcome.
It seems clear everybody here believes it. Hopefully that is transmitting to EU capitals. Good job, guys.
A more sanguine approach by his detractors might have been to point and laugh at his posturing...0 -
Yep, all the polls have the Tories in the low 30s, so it’s fair to conclude that’s where they are. Labour’s Number tends to vary a lot more.MarqueeMark said:
So after the debacle of the Euro elections, the Tories have crawled back into the thirties - Labour still mired in the twenties....SouthamObserver said:
I like the way you miss out the SNP and Plaid!!
Direction of travel.
0 -
I was joking , he got both barrels.Benpointer said:
Naughty!malcolmg said:Just had a Yougov survey on Boris, gave him a glowing report.
But thanks for explaining the "5% of SNP voters think Boris is great" headline that will drop out of the survey results.0 -
-
I think we can assume Trump doesn't want to face Biden with a whip-smart VP pick....rottenborough said:This could be big trouble:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/11603209504680099840 -
G, maybe me just seeing it , I have yougov on work e-mailBig_G_NorthWales said:
I had that a few days ago - strangemalcolmg said:Just had a Yougov survey on Boris, gave him a glowing report.
0 -
Well there would have to be a few things happen before we get to revoke because only the executive can revoke, that means we need VONC then VOC which will only happen on a two step program 1 request extension 2 election (probably via 2/3 rd majority route) but Johnson could still fight the election as you say on a ‘people v parliament’ ticket. So not sure how the revoke comes about unless Johnson surprises us all.Mysticrose said:IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.0 -
One other comment, for now, on the current zeitgeist. I think it's really disturbing, tragic even, that MPs are being held up as anti-democratic. It's Trumpian, of course. It's Bannian, of course. It's Cummings-esque, of course. But, really, we can see the roots of this here further back. That appalling speech to the nation by Theresa May showed up the very worst of her character defects. Having attempted to ram through a non-consensual Brexit deal she then hectored Members of Parliament for doing their job: scrutinising government.
This whole Brexit saga has been divisive beyond belief. It will take years, probably decades, to heal the nation (whether a United Kingdom one or not) and I'm not sure we ever will. This seems to delight some people on both extremes. But it's not a happy place in which to find ourselves.1 -
I think Johnson is trying to convince everyone that no deal is a serious prospect in the hope that the EU will blink. I don't think he really wants to fight an election on a no deal płatform, there is precious little evidence that he could win one on that basis.Mysticrose said:IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.0 -
I respect your view but also cannot agree that Boris/Cummings are trying to force a position that they could even suggest to the HOC they revoke. It would see the immediate end of the conservative party and the rise of Farage and TBP with dreadful consequencesMysticrose said:
I feel your sentiments and where you are coming from. However, I do seriously consider this may be the Cummings plan. If they can attempt to block off all other routes to stopping No Deal, so that Revoking becomes the only available option to avoid it, then I think they can present the case to the country of the nasty Remainer Parliament vs the People.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Revoking A50 is impossible in this climate and would make matters worse, much worse.Mysticrose said:IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.
We need to brexit with a deal and that is where mps attention should be
Technically, too, Revoking is actually very easy.
Also revoking is not easy, it requires political concensus0 -
Touched a nerve malc ? Misogyny runs deep in the SNat psyche - see also Wings.malcolmg said:
Oh Dear , Harry making an idiot of himself again, get that chip off your shoulder , you don't need to pretend your Scottish and know anything about the SNP, just stick with your Little Englander Tory persona.TGOHF said:
SNP types keep their most extreme behaviour for wimmen that aren’t our Nicla - whether it be Swinson, “Ruthie” or employees at Edinburgh airport.Mysticrose said:Malcolmmg, a tip for your well-being. When you have a disagreement with someone, esp over something trivial like your passionate dislike of Jo Swinson and my support of her, it's a good idea not to let it become cancerous in all other postings. Richard T and I once had a minor disagreement, but in agreeing to disagree I grew to respect him and his considered posts. I get it that you're an ardent nationalist, something I don't actually have a problem with. So drop the bile. It doesn't do you any favours and makes you look a bit of a schmuck.
Salmonds trial should see more of that out I the public domain.
0 -
Deleted0
-
It’s like the old Soviet Unionkinabalu said:
She is not, alas, an ex train driver - probably could not drive a train if her life depended on it - but she did have a real job before politics.A physiotherapist in the NHS.nichomar said:Shadow rail minister her only qualification it would seem being MP for York and having visited the railway museum. I’m probably wrong and she will be a former rail union official.
0 -
I'm not sure that's true? This LSE post is very good, suggesting two other options for a Revocation:nichomar said:
Well there would have to be a few things happen before we get to revoke because only the executive can revoke, that means we need VONC then VOC which will only happen on a two step program 1 request extension 2 election (probably via 2/3 rd majority route) but Johnson could still fight the election as you say on a ‘people v parliament’ ticket. So not sure how the revoke comes about unless Johnson surprises us all.Mysticrose said:IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.
3. The House of Commons, through the Speaker, notifies the European Council that article 50 is revoked
4. Parliament passes a fresh Act to revoke article 50. An Act may be desirable, but it’s not necessary.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/03/26/we-can-and-should-revoke-article-50-heres-how-to-do-it/
0 -
I see Boris is widening stop and search powers for the plod. Its like there is a GE coming or something.0
-
The whole point of Alistair Meeks argument is largely to do with the smaller vote for the 2 main parties but off you go on your high horse being tedious and patronising again.kjh said:
Yep, you didn't understand at all. Again ignored the discussion point. At no point did I mention the smaller vote share for the 2 main parties. Nothing to do with the points I made at all.HYUFD said:
UNS apparently won't ape main anti Tory partykjh said:
I believe nothing of the sort. For crying out loud read what was written and not rely on your preconceived and wrong ideas about me.HYUFD said:
a) I do not dismiss UNS
b) I have never said there will be LD to Labour tactical voting and what is more I do not believe that will happen so where you got that from I have no idea. Where did you get that from?
Let's try this just one more time:
An argument was put forward as to why UNS might not apply this time. I don't think anyone is suggesting it won't largely apply, but possibly not as much as before. Various arguments were put in support of this position. This was the discussion. Nothing else. Nobody knows who is right.
In all your replies you never responded to this arguemet one way or another. You neither said whether you agreed with this or disagreed with this although we can all guess you disagree with it.
So rather than post a load of stuff that has nothing to do with the issue let's hear why you agree or disagree with the proposition.
I have this sneaky feeling you are just not going to understand my post are you?
HYFUD I am giving up now, but it would be useful to know if this is deliberate or whether you really don't understand what is being said to you.
Have you not noticed how others comment on the fact that you ignore replies to you and that you respond with unrelated stuff. Do you not understand how a discussion works?
Take a look at the arguments I have with Philip. They are heated, but the responses back and forth relate to the previous posts. Occasionally we misunderstand each other, but with you there is nothing in common with the previous post.
If Philip Thompson wishes to spend half his day nitpicking with you fine, I have better things to do0 -
Probablymalcolmg said:
G, maybe me just seeing it , I have yougov on work e-mailBig_G_NorthWales said:
I had that a few days ago - strangemalcolmg said:Just had a Yougov survey on Boris, gave him a glowing report.
0 -
Harry, don't make yourself look any more stupid than normal.TGOHF said:
Touched a nerve malc ? Misogyny runs deep in the SNat psyche - see also Wings.malcolmg said:
Oh Dear , Harry making an idiot of himself again, get that chip off your shoulder , you don't need to pretend your Scottish and know anything about the SNP, just stick with your Little Englander Tory persona.TGOHF said:
SNP types keep their most extreme behaviour for wimmen that aren’t our Nicla - whether it be Swinson, “Ruthie” or employees at Edinburgh airport.Mysticrose said:Malcolmmg, a tip for your well-being. When you have a disagreement with someone, esp over something trivial like your passionate dislike of Jo Swinson and my support of her, it's a good idea not to let it become cancerous in all other postings. Richard T and I once had a minor disagreement, but in agreeing to disagree I grew to respect him and his considered posts. I get it that you're an ardent nationalist, something I don't actually have a problem with. So drop the bile. It doesn't do you any favours and makes you look a bit of a schmuck.
Salmonds trial should see more of that out I the public domain.0 -
They already have suggested it:Big_G_NorthWales said:
I respect your view but also cannot agree that Boris/Cummings are trying to force a position that they could even suggest to the HOC they revoke. It would see the immediate end of the conservative party and the rise of Farage and TBP with dreadful consequencesMysticrose said:
I feel your sentiments and where you are coming from. However, I do seriously consider this may be the Cummings plan. If they can attempt to block off all other routes to stopping No Deal, so that Revoking becomes the only available option to avoid it, then I think they can present the case to the country of the nasty Remainer Parliament vs the People.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Revoking A50 is impossible in this climate and would make matters worse, much worse.Mysticrose said:IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.
We need to brexit with a deal and that is where mps attention should be
Technically, too, Revoking is actually very easy.
Also revoking is not easy, it requires political concensus
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/26/jacob-rees-mogg-dares-remainer-rebels-revoke-article-50-way/
Jacob Rees-Mogg has dared Remainers to do it, and said it's their only option.
That's the point I'm wondering here: that they want to goad Remainers into doing it, shutting off all other escape routes from No Deal.
For the record, I think they're wrong. Parliament will find a way to stop No Deal. And, also for the record, I am not in favour of Revoking Article 50 at this stage, despite myself being a Remainer.0 -
I'm an analyst who works in the banking/insurance industries. I have absolutely no power whatsoever. But thank you for thinking that I am so powerful Governments change their behavior when they hear me speak. I shall of course use my power for good...MarqueeMark said:
Boris is being mightily helped by the vast amout of bed-wetting going on over his No Deal 31 Oct stance.kinabalu said:
You are probably right.Chris said:If he were going for a deal I think we'd have seen some sign of it by now. Whatever activity there's been is consistent with going for No Deal while making token efforts to shift the blame elsewhere.
But the alternative -
He is seeking to engineer a cliff-edge binary choice between deal (or short extension to allow deal) and chaotic crash-out. And for this to work he needs enough MPs to believe (as you do) that he really would crash out - something TM never managed since it became clear that she would not, at the death, countenance it. Hence all this 'No Deal' drama.
Course, the best threats are those that are meant. So maybe he does mean it. But 'No Deal 31 Oct' is something I will believe when I see it and not before. It would be such a crazy outcome.
It seems clear everybody here believes it. Hopefully that is transmitting to EU capitals. Good job, guys.
A more sanguine approach by his detractors might have been to point and laugh at his posturing...
0 -
No certainty they cannot have both Brexit and the Union, even on the latest Ashcroft poll only 46% of Scots back independence including Don't KnowsScott_P said:0 -
Interesting I had not heard those two possibilities floated. ThanksMysticrose said:
I'm not sure that's true. This LSE post is very good, suggesting two other options for a Revocation:nichomar said:
Well there would have to be a few things happen before we get to revoke because only the executive can revoke, that means we need VONC then VOC which will only happen on a two step program 1 request extension 2 election (probably via 2/3 rd majority route) but Johnson could still fight the election as you say on a ‘people v parliament’ ticket. So not sure how the revoke comes about unless Johnson surprises us all.Mysticrose said:IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.
3. The House of Commons, through the Speaker, notifies the European Council that article 50 is revoked
4. Parliament passes a fresh Act to revoke article 50. An Act may be desirable, but it’s not necessary.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/03/26/we-can-and-should-revoke-article-50-heres-how-to-do-it/0 -
Please. They need doing urgently. Really, they do.HYUFD said:
The whole point of Alistair Meeks argument is largely to do with the smaller vote for the 2 main parties but off you go on your high horse being tedious and patronising again.kjh said:
Yep, you didn't understand at all. Again ignored the discussion point. At no point did I mention the smaller vote share for the 2 main parties. Nothing to do with the points I made at all.HYUFD said:
UNS apparently won't ape main anti Tory partykjh said:
I believe nothing of the sort. For crying out loud read what was written and not rely on your preconceived and wrong ideas about me.HYUFD said:
a) I do not dismiss UNS
b) I have never said there will be LD to Labour tactical voting and what is more I do not believe that will happen so where you got that from I have no idea. Where did you get that from?
Let's try this just one more time:
An argument was put forward as to why UNS might not apply this time. I don't think anyone is suggesting it won't largely apply, but possibly not as much as before. Various arguments were put in support of this position. This was the discussion. Nothing else. Nobody knows who is right.
In all your replies you never responded to this arguemet one way or another. You neither said whether you agreed with this or disagreed
So rather than post a load of stuff that has nothing to do with the issue let's hear why you agree or disagree with the proposition.
I have this sneaky feeling you are just not going to understand my post are you?
HYFUD I am giving up now, but it would be useful to know if this is deliberate or whether you really don't understand what is being said to you.
Have you not noticed how others comment on the fact that you ignore replies to you and that you respond with unrelated stuff. Do you not understand how a discussion works?
Take a look at the arguments I have with Philip. They are heated, but the responses back and forth relate to the previous posts. Occasionally we misunderstand each other, but with you there is nothing in common with the previous post.
If Philip Thompson wishes to spend half his day nitpicking with you fine, I have better things to do2 -
To be fair to HYUFD the point about UNS remaining important in Lab/Tory marginals is a lot more pertinent than the obviously false claim that "only" tactical voting can make UNS wrong. Has anyone looked at this? I would try to identify "definite Lab/Tory 2-horse races" rather than "marginals" (which sounds too much like the result was already close last time), but maybe even this is getting hard to do, and definite ones might be a much smaller percentage of total seats than in the past.kjh said:
Yep, you didn't understand at all. Again ignored the discussion point. At no point did I mention the smaller vote share for the 2 main parties. Nothing to do with the points I made at all.HYUFD said:
UNS apparently won't apply because there is a smaller voteshare for the 2 main parties, yet in reality it will in Labour v Tory marginals unless and until the LDs say overtook Labour as the main anti Tory party
HYFUD I am giving up now, but it would be useful to know if this is deliberate or whether you really don't understand what is being said to you.
Have you not noticed how others comment on the fact that you ignore replies to you and that you respond with unrelated stuff. Do you not understand how a discussion works?
Take a look at the arguments I have with Philip. They are heated, but the responses back and forth relate to the previous posts. Occasionally we misunderstand each other, but with you there is nothing in common with the previous post.0 -
ThankyouLuckyguy1983 said:
On the other hand, he can always back what he says using a very strong knowledge of the recent polling. And his perspective, even as a vociferous Conservative Party supporter, is valuable here because it is so rare, with other previous Conservative Party voices on the site currently having swooning fits over Brexit.OllyT said:
HYUFD is only interested in spinning for the Conservative Party, usually by bombarding us with often unconnected factoids as Ian says. He does not seem interested in engaging in debate. That's fair enough, plenty do that if not with quite the same zeal but it doesn't often make for an interesting discussion.kjh said:
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.HYUFD said:
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much useIanB2 said:
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.kjh said:
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.HYUFD said:
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.Roger said:Fascinating header Alastair.
....Smelling salts for HYUFD please
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.0 -
I think decimated in many parts of Europe is over done.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Varadkar is a very worried man at present coming under pressure from inside Ireland to talk. Ireland will be decimated in a no deal as will many parts of EuropeEndillion said:
Varadkar is much closer to being a silly petulant child than the wise elder statesman and master negotiater that you make him out to be.Scott_P said:
BoZo demanded they abandon it without meeting to discuss it.Luckyguy1983 said:How would they do anything to the backstop without meeting to discuss it.
We will perhaps find out in due course, but I think it is more likely Varadkar wants to look BoZo in the eye and ask if he really wants to be the PM that breaks up the United KingdomLuckyguy1983 said:If Varadkar has asked to meet Boris so he can re-emphasise the EU's current line it seems a bit pointless. If he's actually prepared to look at finding a way around the border question that avoids no deal and doesn't include the backstop (or at least an eternal backstop) good for Varadkar, and good for Boris.
If it happens it will be a failure of spectacular enormity by all politicians both in the UK and the EU.
Ireland will be badly effected,but not as bad as the financial crash of 2008.0
This discussion has been closed.