politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Combination therapy. An occasional reminder that using seat pr

SandyRentool said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

alex. said:

Sean_F said:

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.

The concentration i=onservative Remain seats.

Conservativese

Politics is more cultural now not class based so I suspect it will actually

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.

Which again is rubbish,ers and Labour had a clear lead with working class voters.


Now with the LDs winning more middle class voters, on 26% with them with Yougov and the Brexit_Trackers_w.pdf

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.

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 1997liberal middle class voters to the LDs and to a lesser extent the Greens.

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.

I would dispute whether the generation who got off their faces on E and shagged anything that moved are culturally conservative.

Well, indeed!

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

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.

SNP types keep their most extreme behaviour for wimmen that aren’t our Nicla - whether it be Swinson, “Ruthie” or employees at Edinburgh airport.

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.

Touched a nerve malc ? Misogyny runs deep in the SNat psyche - see also Wings.

Salmonds trial should see more of that out I the public domain.

Harry the Woke Hun, wonders will never cease.
We'll be seeing WATP for trans rights afore we know it.

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see Boris is widening stop and search powers for the plod. Its like there is a GE coming or something.

More coppers, lifting villains, keeping them locked up.

Clearly chasing the hand-wringer vote.

Yorkcity said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Endillion said:

Scott_P said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

How would they do anything to the backstop without meeting to discuss it.

BoZo demanded they abandon it without meeting to discuss it.

Luckyguy1983 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.

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 Kingdom

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.

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 Europe

If it happens it will be a failure of spectacular enormity by all politicians both in the UK and the EU.

I think decimated in many parts of Europe is over done.
Ireland will be badly effected,but not as bad as the financial crash of 2008.

https://www.google.es/search?q=map+of+no+deal+impact+on+europ&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-es&client=safari#imgrc=nYnWpie4KrNHJM:

As posted a few days ago

Mysticrose said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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.

Revoking A50 is impossible in this climate and would make matters worse, much worse.

We need to brexit with a deal and that is where mps attention should be

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.

Technically, too, Revoking is actually very easy.

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 consequences

Also revoking is not easy, it requires political concensus

They already have suggested it:
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.

The problem is no one has found a parliamentary path to either stopping no deal or of course revoke which is the polar opposite of no deal. Both would be catastrophic

Lots of speculation but no one knows how to deal with this

SandyRentool said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

alex. said:

Sean_F said:

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.

The concentration i=onservative Remain seats.

Conservativese

Politics is more cultural now not class based so I suspect it will actually

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.

Which again is rubbish,ers and Labour had a clear lead with working class voters.


Now with the LDs winning more middle class voters, on 26% with them with Yougov and the Brexit_Trackers_w.pdf

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.

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,

People who support Bs and to a lesser extent the Greens.

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.

I would dispute whether the generation who got off their faces on E and shagged anything that moved are culturally conservative.

On immigration and crime they certainly are

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

Fascinating header Alastair.

....Sm salts for HYUFD please

All very well and seat predictors will nters will tactically vote

I prise.

There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without eding arguments at all.

Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use

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.

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.

Nothing to ignore, you blittle evidence at all

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.

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 rehe proposition.

I have this sneaky feeling you are just not going to understand my post are you?

y party

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?

(last try with a logical debating point)

As the Tory lead over Labour is currently 10% with ABC1s and 9% with C2DEs on the latest YouGov ie almost identical


https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8i9x45cenq/TheTimes_190806_VI_Trackers_w.pdf

Yes, as I was saying. So your response to my actual point is what?

UNS swing still applies exactly as I said

IanB2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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.

Revoking A50 is impossible in this climate and would make matters worse, much worse.

We need to brexit with a deal and that is where mps attention should be

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.

Technically, too, Revoking is actually very easy.

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 consequences

Also revoking is not easy, it requires political concensus

They already have suggested it:
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.

T.

The problem is no one has found a parliamentary path to either stopping no deal or of course revoke which is the polar opposite of no deal. Both would be catastrophic

Lots of speculation but no one knows how to deal with this

More correctly, there are several such paths (VONC and GOMOO, take control of the agenda, extend retrospectively after a Remain election win), but they all look politically difficult, mainly due to the divisions within and tribal outlook of Labour.

Yep.

You're always on the money, Ian. I think that is indeed where the problem lies, which is also why I think the only way a GNU would succeed is if they install a very temporary Conservative remainer with no serious ambitions left, like Ken Clarke. In other words, someone palatable to the tory Remainers but not a threat to Corbyn's ego.

kamski said:

kjh said:

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

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.

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.

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.

But you’d never have got Mansfield and Canterbury on that basis, last time. The only arguments I can see that would support your position are either:

- the shift from class to culture happened at the last GE and as a trend is now finished; hence normal swing between the two parties resumes (which goes against a lot of recent evidence, both polling and anecdotal)
- recognising that UNS is broken but hoping that the Mansfields and Canterburys somehow cancel out and so the overall prediction won’t be too wrong (which is relying on luck rather than a model)

IanB2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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.

Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.

Revoking A50 is impossible in this climate and would make matters worse, much worse.

We need to brexit with a deal and that is where mps attention should be

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.

Technically, too, Revoking is actually very easy.

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 consequences

Also revoking is not easy, it requires political concensus

They already have suggested it:
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.

The problem is no one has found a parliamentary path to either stopping no deal or of course revoke which is the polar opposite of no deal. Both would be catastrophic

Lots of speculation but no one knows how to deal with this

More correctly, there are several such paths (VONC and GOMOO, take control of the agenda, extend retrospectively after a Remain election win), but they all look politically difficult, mainly due to the divisions within and tribal outlook of Labour.

Yes I agree and there is the problem/s

FrancisUrquhart said:

SandyRentool said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see Boris is widening stop and search powers for the plod. Its like there is a GE coming or something.

More coppers, lifting villains, keeping them locked up.

Clearly chasing the hand-wringer vote.

It is clearly designed to try and close down a weakness of the last GE where even Corbyn appeared tougher on crime than May.

It's also likely to have a very positive impact on knife crime. Saving real lives.

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

Fascinating header Alastair.

....Sm salts for HYUFD please

All vote

I probably agree with your pise.

There is ras at all.

Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use

ying.

Notat all

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.

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.

I have this sneaky feeling you are just not going to understand my post are you?

UNS apparently won't ape main anti Tory party

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.

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.

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.

If Philip Thompson wishes to spend half his day nitpicking with you fine, I have better things to do

I agree. I much prefer your fact based posts to PT's constant sunlit uplands nonsense which is actually quite nauseating.

Mysticrose said:

IanB2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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.

Revoking A50 is impossible in this climate and would make matters worse, much worse.

We need to brexit with a deal and that is where mps attention should be

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.

Technically, too, Revoking is actually very easy.

snip

Also revoking is not easy, it requires political concensus

They already have suggested it:
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.

T.

The problem is no one has found a parliamentary path to either stopping no deal or of course revoke which is the polar opposite of no deal. Both would be catastrophic

Lots of speculation but no one knows how to deal with this

More correctly, there are several such paths (VONC and GOMOO, take control of the agenda, extend retrospectively after a Remain election win), but they all look politically difficult, mainly due to the divisions within and tribal outlook of Labour.

Yep.

You're always on the money, Ian. I think that is indeed where the problem lies, which is also why I think the only way a GNU would succeed is if they install a very temporary Conservative remainer with no serious ambitions left, like Ken Clarke. In other words, someone palatable to the tory Remainers but not a threat to Corbyn's ego.

Caroline Lucas?

Mysticrose said:

nichomar said:

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.

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.

I'm not sure that's true? This LSE post is very good, suggesting two other options for a Revocation:

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/

But it says of number 3 "This strategy, however, would meet serious objections." I think that's a serious understatement.

Roger said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

Fascinating header Alastair.

....Sm salts for HYUFD please

All vote

I probably agree with your pise.

There is ras at all.

Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use

ying.

Notat all

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.

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 understand my post are you?

UNS apparently won't ape main anti Tory party

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.

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.

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.

If Philip Thompson wishes to spend half his day nitpicking with you fine, I have better things to do

I agree. I much prefer your fact based posts to PT's constant sunlit uplands nonsense which is actually quite nauseating.

Thankyou, I think the main difference between Philip and myself is that while we are both pro Boris and want to see Brexit delivered he is a libertarian and I am not and he opposed the Withdrawal Agreement and I did not

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The problem is no one has found a parliamentary path to either stopping no deal or of course revoke which is the polar opposite of no deal. Both would be catastrophic

Lots of speculation but no one knows how to deal with this

I don't think revoke would be catastrophic.

It'd be great news for the Brexit Party, of course, but it'd also be good economic news in giving an extended respite from the constant essay crisis of a shifting deadline.

The reality is that unless and until there is a robust Parliamentary majority in favour of a particular type of Brexit, kicking the can down the road is crazy in terms of generating constant crisis with no prospect of a good outcome. If people still want to proceed with Brexit, we need to be honest with them and say they need to elect a majority Government with a plan, then that Government can reissue Article 50 and enact that plan.

The beauty of revoke from a diehard remainer perspective is that the counter-reaction could easily send voters back to BXP (revoke only happens if a bunch of Tories vote for it, after all) re-splitting the Leaver vote and potentially shafting the both of them under FPTP. I think that is what is known as a dream scenario. Especially if it leads to PR as well.

IanB2 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The problem is no one has found a parliamentary path to either stopping no deal or of course revoke which is the polar opposite of no deal. Both would be catastrophic

Lots of speculation but no one knows how to deal with this

I don't think revoke would be catastrophic.

It'd be great news for the Brexit Party, of course, but it'd also be good economic news in giving an extended respite from the constant essay crisis of a shifting deadline.

The reality is that unless and until there is a robust Parliamentary majority in favour of a particular type of Brexit, kicking the can down the road is crazy in terms of generating constant crisis with no prospect of a good outcome. If people still want to proceed with Brexit, we need to be honest with them and say they need to elect a majority Government with a plan, then that Government can reissue Article 50 and enact that plan.

The beauty of revoke from a diehard remainer perspective is that the counter-reaction could easily send voters back to BXP (revoke only happens if a bunch of Tories vote for it, after all) re-splitting the Leaver vote and potentially shafting the both of them under FPTP. I think that is what is known as a dream scenario. Especially if it leads to PR as well.

Which is why further extension and revoke is more dangerous for the Tories and beneficial to Corbyn than No Deal (though Brexit with a Deal would still be better than both)

IanB2 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The problem is no one has found a parliamentary path to either stopping no deal or of course revoke which is the polar opposite of no deal. Both would be catastrophic

Lots of speculation but no one knows how to deal with this

I don't think revoke would be catastrophic.

It'd be great news for the Brexit Party, of course, but it'd also be good economic news in giving an extended respite from the constant essay crisis of a shifting deadline.

The reality is that unless and until there is a robust Parliamentary majority in favour of a particular type of Brexit, kicking the can down the road is crazy in terms of generating constant crisis with no prospect of a good outcome. If people still want to proceed with Brexit, we need to be honest with them and say they need to elect a majority Government with a plan, then that Government can reissue Article 50 and enact that plan.

The beauty of revoke from a diehard remainer perspective is that the counter-reaction could easily send voters back to BXP (revoke only happens if a bunch of Tories vote for it, after all) re-splitting the Leaver vote and potentially shafting the both of them under FPTP. I think that is what is known as a dream scenario. Especially if it leads to PR as well.

Revoke is a much better option to no deal but I just cannot see any path to it

And I am not a 'diehard remainer', a term that is meant to insult

rottenborough said:

Mysticrose said:

IanB2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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?
.

Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.

We need to brexit with a deal and that is where mps attention should be

.

snip

Also revoking is not easy, it requires political concensus

They already have suggested it:
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.

T.

The problem is no one has found a parliamentary path to either stopping no deal or of course revoke which is the polar opposite of no deal. Both would be catastrophic

Lots of speculation but no one knows how to deal with this

More correctly, there are several such paths (VONC and GOMOO, take control of the agenda, extend retrospectively after a Remain election win), but they all look politically difficult, mainly due to the divisions within and tribal outlook of Labour.

Yep.

You're always on the money, Ian. I think that is indeed where the problem lies, which is also why I think the only way a GNU would succeed is if they install a very temporary Conservative remainer with no serious ambitions left, like Ken Clarke. In other words, someone palatable to the tory Remainers but not a threat to Corbyn's ego.

Caroline Lucas?

That would give the Greens unprecedented oxygen. Not something I have a problem with, but other parties might.

Wouldn't a caretaker need to be a really safe pair of hands? Even if it's the case, as I'd hope, it was a GNU for a couple of weeks, with the sole job of extending Art 50 and then calling a GE.

The reason why I like the idea of Ken Clarke is that he's father of the House so ticks every box in terms of relations inside Parliament and with the Queen. He has also held the offices of Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary, Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, Education Secretary and Health Secretary.

He's also close to retirement, so very little threat to Labour MPs.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

IanB2 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The problem is no one has found a parliamentary path to either stopping no deal or of course revoke which is the polar opposite of no deal. Both would be catastrophic

Lots of speculation but no one knows how to deal with this

I don't think revoke would be catastrophic.

It'd be great news for the Brexit Party, of course, but it'd also be good economic news in giving an extended respite from the constant essay crisis of a shifting deadline.

The reality is that unless and until there is a robust Parliamentary majority in favour of a particular type of Brexit, kicking the can down the road is crazy in terms of generating constant crisis with no prospect of a good outcome. If people still want to proceed with Brexit, we need to be honest with them and say they need to elect a majority Government with a plan, then that Government can reissue Article 50 and enact that plan.

The beauty of revoke from a diehard remainer perspective is that the counter-reaction could easily send voters back to BXP (revoke only happens if a bunch of Tories vote for it, after all) re-splitting the Leaver vote and potentially shafting the both of them under FPTP. I think that is what is known as a dream scenario. Especially if it leads to PR as well.

Revoke is a much better option to no deal but I just cannot see any path to it

And I am not a 'diehard remainer', a term that is meant to insult

I thought it was a badge of honor!

Theuniondivvie said:

TGOHF said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

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.

SNP types keep their most extreme behaviour for wimmen that aren’t our Nicla - whether it be Swinson, “Ruthie” or employees at Edinburgh airport.

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.

Touched a nerve malc ? Misogyny runs deep in the SNat psyche - see also Wings.

Salmonds trial should see more of that out I the public domain.

Harry the Woke Hun, wonders will never cease.
We'll be seeing WATP for trans rights afore we know it.

Apologies divvers - Of course the Nat bigotry isn’t just limited to wimmen- other swathes of society are equally held in contempt by your party.

I sense a 'they Natz ur racist against us prods an oor kultur' bleat in the pipeline.

Only applies to some TUD, many of us live in the 21st century rather than the 17th.

One consequence of a General Election under the current scenario is that the parties are likely to be all over the place in knowing where to target and accurately assessing whether they are doing well or not. It will almost be a mirror image of last time.
In 2017 the Conservative vote appeared to be up everywhere, and often in the most unexpected places. Hence canvassers were constantly getting good news messages on the door steps. Of course the problem was that the opposition was growing rapidly at the same time.

Next time there will be completely the opposite effect - they will be constantly running into people who have been lost since the last election and I expect to hear lots of stories about how seats are almost certain to be lost, that end up being retained quite comfortably and the opposition splits simultaneously.

So Tories and Labour in constant panic mode at a local level - there is going to have to be a lot of nerve holding at the centre to get resources targeted appropriately.

Luckyguy1983 said:

OllyT said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

Fascinating header Alastair.

....Smelling salts for HYUFD please

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.

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

I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.

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.

Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think HYUFD offers something to the forum too. And indeed to the country. We only have democracy because people like him are prepared to get up and do something. If his views are a bit partisan, that goes with the package.

alex. said:

IanB2 said:

kamski said:

kjh said:

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

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.

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.

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.

But you’d never have got Mansfield and Canterbury on that basis, last time. The only arguments I can see that would support your position are either:

- the shift from class to culture happened at the last GE and as a trend is now finished; hence normal swing between the two parties resumes (which goes against a lot of recent evidence, both polling and anecdotal)
- recognising that UNS is broken but hoping that the Mansfields and Canterburys somehow cancel out and so the overall prediction won’t be too wrong (which is relying on luck rather than a model)

To be fair I don't believe UNS/Baxter claims to be able to forecast individual seats accurately - that as much is just a "bit of fun". The basis of these models is that the extreme swings will be balanced out by the lower than expected swings, and the overall seat numbers will come in broadly as forecast, even if not quite exactly where expected. So Mansfield/Canterbury are not really a problem for the model.

To be fair, if one looks at the elections since the 1990's in both constituencies, neither is that surprising.

Cummings is becoming the story.

https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/08/watch-heseltine-cummings-is-parading-himself-as-the-mastermind-behind-the-government.html

Recidivist said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OllyT said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

Fascinating header Alastair.

....Smelling salts for HYUFD please

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.

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

I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.

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.

Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think HYUFD offers something to the forum too. And indeed to the country. We only have democracy because people like him are prepared to get up and do something. If his views are a bit partisan, that goes with the package.

Absolutely , he has being going a bit crazy recently but it needs all sorts of views and opinions and he is entitled to his and may well prove to be right, god forbid.

alex. said:

One consequence of a General Election under the current scenario is that the parties are likely to be all over the place in knowing where to target and accurately assessing whether they are doing well or not. It will almost be a mirror image of last time.
In 2017 the Conservative vote appeared to be up everywhere, and often in the most unexpected places. Hence canvassers were constantly getting good news messages on the door steps. Of course the problem was that the opposition was growing rapidly at the same time.

Next time there will be completely the opposite effect - they will be constantly running into people who have been lost since the last election and I expect to hear lots of stories about how seats are almost certain to be lost, that end up being retained quite comfortably and the opposition splits simultaneously.

So Tories and Labour in constant panic mode at a local level - there is going to have to be a lot of nerve holding at the centre to get resources targeted appropriately.

Yes. And as someone else wisely said a few days back, it will be difficult for the major parties to write off sitting MPs and send activists elsewhere, even where the scale of political change has left them high and dry in their seats.

IanB2 said:

Mysticrose said:

rottenborough said:

Mysticrose said:

IanB2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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?
.

Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.

We need to brexit with a deal and that is where mps attention should be

.

snip

Also revoking is not easy, it requires political concensus

They already have suggested it:
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.

T.

The problem is no one has found a parliamentary path to either stopping no deal or of

f Labour.

Yep.

You're always on the money, Ian. I think that is indeed where the problem lies, which is also why I think the only way a GNU would succeed is if they install a very temporary Conservative remainer with no serious ambitions left, like Ken Clarke. In other words, someone palatable to the tory Remainers but not a threat to Corbyn's ego.

Caroline Lucas?

Wouldn't a caretaker need to be a really safe pair of hands? Even if it's the case, as I'd hope, it was a GNU for a couple of weeks, with the sole job of extending Art 50 and then calling a GE.

The reason why I like the idea of Ken Clarke is that he's father of the House so ticks every box in terms of relations inside Parliament and with the Queen. He has also held the offices of Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary, Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, Education Secretary and Health Secretary.

He's also close to retirement, so very little threat to Labour MPs.

If would also help if Clarke resigned from the Tories first, such that he’d be an independent MP. Anyone in that position is going to be thrown out anyway, so nothing to lose.

Indeed it would surely be better for those Tory MPs willing to ‘go nuclear’ to act first off by just resigning the whip. This might in itself be enough to start other balls rolling, before arriving at a point where they have to press the button.

How do the pension arrangements for MP's work? I seem to recall they are better off if defeated after many years than if they are defeated.
Am I right?

Endillion said:

rottenborough said:

Mysticrose said:

IanB2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

IanB2 and I have recently

Revoking A50 is impossible in this climate and would make matters worse, much worse.

We need to brexit with a deal and that is where mps attention should be

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.

Technically, too, Revoking is actually very easy.

snip

Also revoking is not easy, it requires political concensus

They already have suggested it:
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.

T.

The problem is no one has found a parliamentary path to either stopping no deal or of course revoke which is the polar opposite of no deal. Both would be catastrophic

Lots of speculation but no one knows how to deal with this

More correctly, there are several such paths (VONC and GOMOO, take control of the agenda, extend retrospectively after a Remain election win), but they all look politically difficult, mainly due to the divisions within and tribal outlook of Labour.

Yep.

You're always on the money, Ian. I think that is indeed where the problem lies, which is also why I think the only way a GNU would succeed is if they install a very temporary Conservative remainer with no serious ambitions left, like Ken Clarke. In other words, someone palatable to the tory Remainers but not a threat to Corbyn's ego.

Caroline Lucas?

It's Sunday, so PB is touting Lucas as PM, on the grounds that she is equally unpalatable to all sides of the Commons.

It is mental , you could not make it up. I have more chance of being able to fly than that happening. Of all the MP's, who other than Lucas would vote for her.

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

Fascinating header Alastair.

....Sm salts for HYUFD please

All vote

I probably agree with your pise.

There is ras at all.

Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use

ying.

Notat all

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.

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 understand my post are you?

UNS apparently won't ape main anti Tory party

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.

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.

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.

If Philip Thompson wishes to spend half his day nitpicking with you fine, I have better things to do

I agree. I much prefer your fact based posts to PT's constant sunlit uplands nonsense which is actually quite nauseating.

Thankyou, I think the main difference between Philip and myself is that while we are both pro Boris and want to see Brexit delivered he is a libertarian and I am not and he opposed the Withdrawal Agreement and I did not

The main difference is Philip debates (whether you agree with him or not). You don't.

Chris said:

Mysticrose said:

nichomar said:

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.

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.

I'm not sure that's true? This LSE post is very good, suggesting two other options for a Revocation:

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/

But it says of number 3 "This strategy, however, would meet serious objections." I think that's a serious understatement.

I don’t think that third option is a runner, and since it needs control of the agenda it merges into the legislation option anyway. The options appear to be:

- the current PM gets an offer he can’t refuse, and does it under duress
- after a VONC, a new GOMOO does it
- after some Cooper-Letwin motion, Parliament does it
- after a Remain election win, a new PM does it retrospectively (arguable)

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

Fascinating header Alastair.

....Sm salts for HYUFD please

All vote

I probably agree with your pise.

There is ras at all.

Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use

ying.

Notat all

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.

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 understand my post are you?

UNS apparently won't ape main anti Tory party

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.

HYFUD I am giving up now, but it would be useful to know if this is deliberate or whether you really don't understand

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.

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.

If Philip Thompson wishes to spend half his day nitpicking with you fine, I have better things to do

I agree. I much prefer your fact based posts to PT's constant sunlit uplands nonsense which is actually quite nauseating.

Thankyou, I think the main difference between Philip and myself is that while we are both pro Boris and want to see Brexit delivered he is a libertarian and I am not and he opposed the Withdrawal Agreement and I did not

We have nothing at all in common then. I loathe leaving and Johnson equally. But what I most dislike about the Philip Thompson's Promised Land are the Little Englander xenophobes that took us there

Beibheirli_C said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The problem is no one has found a parliamentary path to either stopping no deal or of course revoke which is the polar opposite of no deal. Both would be catastrophic

Lots of speculation but no one knows how to deal with this

Are they both equally catastrophic? Revoke would at least not disrupt business and the economy.

Politically yes but economical no

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The problem is no one has found a parliamentary path to either stopping no deal or of course revoke which is the polar opposite of no deal. Both would be catastrophic

Lots of speculation but no one knows how to deal with this

Are they both equally catastrophic? Revoke would at least not disrupt business and the economy.

Politically yes but economical no

There you go then... decision made.

Paristonda said:

rottenborough said:

Cummings is becoming the story.

https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/08/watch-heseltine-cummings-is-parading-himself-as-the-mastermind-behind-the-government.html

This was the initial tactic against Trump and bannon too, portraying bannon as the puppet master annoyed the hell out of trump and contributed to his eventual firing of him. Seen as trying to upstage the boss. Cummings could go the same way, Boris won't want to look like he is nothing more than a puppet.

I doubt Johnson cares whether Cummings is the story or not. He just wants to be PM and pretending to be Churchill. Trump has always been obsessive about being seen to be totally in charge and taking all the decisions. Both men are totally self-obsessed to the exclusion of all else, but that manifests itself in very different ways.

Beibheirli_C said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The problem is no one has found a parliamentary path to either stopping no deal or of course revoke which is the polar opposite of no deal. Both would be catastrophic

Lots of speculation but no one knows how to deal with this

Are they both equally catastrophic? Revoke would at least not disrupt business and the economy.

Also revoke can be unrevoked. It's not easy to redeal a No Deal.

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TGOHF said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

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.

SNP types keep their most extreme behaviour for wimmen that aren’t our Nicla - whether it be Swinson, “Ruthie” or employees at Edinburgh airport.

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.

Touched a nerve malc ? Misogyny runs deep in the SNat psyche - see also Wings.

Salmonds trial should see more of that out I the public domain.

Harry the Woke Hun, wonders will never cease.
We'll be seeing WATP for trans rights afore we know it.

Apologies divvers - Of course the Nat bigotry isn’t just limited to wimmen- other swathes of society are equally held in contempt by your party.

I sense a 'they Natz ur racist against us prods an oor kultur' bleat in the pipeline.

Only applies to some TUD, many of us live in the 21st century rather than the 17th.

Och, I know.
One of my proudest achievements in 2014 was persuading a pal and her Rangers season ticket holding, Orange Order member hubby to vote yes. Harry's been away so long that his mindset's stuck in the triumphalist, nine in a row 90s, there are plenty of Gers that support indy. Still plenty of roasters marching up and down outside priests' houses as well, mind.

Beibheirli_C said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The problem is no one has found a parliamentary path to either stopping no deal or of course revoke which is the polar opposite of no deal. Both would be catastrophic

Lots of speculation but no one knows how to deal with this

Are they both equally catastrophic? Revoke would at least not disrupt business and the economy.

Politically yes but economical no

There you go then... decision made.

Oh that it was so easy

Philip_Thompson said:

On the topic of Stop and Search I respect the reason why May chose to restrict it. It was one of the few times she wasn't authoritarian and I respect that.

However given the endemic of fatal knife crime giving the powers back to the Police seems sensible. But there can't be a return to racial profiling and abuse.

I don't think as we are now the solution is not using stop and search. The solution is to not abuse it and the best way to ensure that is to ensure ALL officers with this power are wearing body cams. No body cam, no stop and search.

If the powers are abused body cams should show evidence of that and it can be tackled. If it's not abused then job done and hopefully lives saved.

I would encourage anyone who is stopped and searched to take their own video, and with smartphones as ubiquitous as they are this is easily done. Police should encourage this too.

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

UNS swing still applies exactly as I said

Just answer his damn question. This has to be a windup. He really can't be that stupid that he doesn't recognise the questions.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know."

- John Heywood, 1546

kamski said:

kjh said:

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

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.

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.

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.

I have no problem with the points HYFUD makes. Many of which I might agree with. It is just they had nothing to do with the discussion. It is just like a random sentence generator. You make a post and a completely unrelated response comes back.

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/WilliamsJon/status/1160490413268058112

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 Knows

No certainty, but that so many don't give a sh*t whether they cannot have both, and are prepared to sacrifice the UK, is a major reason why the Tories won't be getting my vote. UK trumps EU, and that includes UK trumping exiting the EU.

SouthamObserver said:

I doubt Johnson cares whether Cummings is the story or not. He just wants to be PM and pretending to be Churchill. Trump has always been obsessive about being seen to be totally in charge and taking all the decisions. Both men are totally self-obsessed to the exclusion of all else, but that manifests itself in very different ways.

Ironically I get the sense that Trump does not get to make any important decisions. I think they have found a way to keep him away from all that whilst allowing him plenty of 'being the Big Man' time, thus keeping him happy. It's unusual but necessity is the mother of invention.

I see KT is getting her alternative facts out there before truth gets its boots on.

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1160464653417422848?s=20

Paristonda said:

Wasn't lady Sylvia Hermon suggested as a pote tial acceptable Gonu leader at one point? She is not a prominent remainer like Lucas but rather wanted the deal and to respect the brexit vote, she is opposed to no deal, and she is an independent in NI so literally no threat to any other party. No-one in the wider public knows who she is so you can't really get campaigns after saying "Labour put the crazy greens in power, can't trust em". Seems to me if you are looking for long shot Gonu pm options she is a better bet than the more divise Caroline Lucas. Not that I'm saying she is likely (I think Corbyn has more chance of getting quitting tory votes if he promises to extend A50 and trigger an election after)

Just go the whole hog and nominate Jared O'Mara, on the grounds that he's an Independent who's said he'll resign as an MP soon so is no threat to anyone.

You can get a good price on Lady Sylvia Hermon for next PM.

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

On the topic of Stop and Search I respect the reason why May chose to restrict it. It was one of the few times she wasn't authoritarian and I respect that.

However given the endemic of fatal knife crime giving the powers back to the Police seems sensible. But there can't be a return to racial profiling and abuse.

I don't think as we are now the solution is not using stop and search. The solution is to not abuse it and the best way to ensure that is to ensure ALL officers with this power are wearing body cams. No body cam, no stop and search.

If the powers are abused body cams should show evidence of that and it can be tackled. If it's not abused then job done and hopefully lives saved.

I would encourage anyone who is stopped and searched to take their own video, and with smartphones as ubiquitous as they are this is easily done. Police should encourage this too.

As a coward I would be too worried to do that in case the police took exception to it. My experience of the police is strange in that I come across a great many truly excellent officers, high and low, and the rest can be of the 'you are required to do as I say' kind of reactionary arseholes, with noone in the middle and not knowing which you will get. Unfair on the police I know.

Body cameras do eliminate the fear though, very good things. And quite funny when someone makes a complaint about their own total reasonableness in the face of thuggery, and then contrast it with the video evidence.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The problem is no one has found a parliamentary path to either stopping no deal or of course revoke which is the polar opposite of no deal. Both would be catastrophic

Lots of speculation but no one knows how to deal with this

Are they both equally catastrophic? Revoke would at least not disrupt business and the economy.

Politically yes but economical no

There you go then... decision made.

Oh that it was so easy

It is. Just do not give a monkeys about the politicians or their careers or their parties.

Speaking of which, how did your local party take your resignation?

Endillion said:

Paristonda said:

Wasn't lady Sylvia Hermon suggested as a pote tial acceptable Gonu leader at one point? She is not a prominent remainer like Lucas but rather wanted the deal and to respect the brexit vote, she is opposed to no deal, and she is an independent in NI so literally no threat to any other party. No-one in the wider public knows who she is so you can't really get campaigns after saying "Labour put the crazy greens in power, can't trust em". Seems to me if you are looking for long shot Gonu pm options she is a better bet than the more divise Caroline Lucas. Not that I'm saying she is likely (I think Corbyn has more chance of getting quitting tory votes if he promises to extend A50 and trigger an election after)

Just go the whole hog and nominate Jared O'Mara, on the grounds that he's an Independent who's said he'll resign as an MP soon so is no threat to anyone.

Quite, although he objects to people being mean to him, so probably not a good fit to what is clearly a completely serious suggestion.