politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LDs just ahead of the Tories in 20 top CON-LD marginals YouGov
Options
Comments
-
Sabotage implies deliberate, so you can understand my confusion.Philip_Thompson said:
No of course not! No more than an incompetent batsman deliberately seeks to get his partner ran out.rcs1000 said:
"Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal"Philip_Thompson said:
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.Philip_Thompson said:
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Do you really believe that he deliberately set out to hobble the UK in negotiations with the EU?
I think he was that blinded by his own personal prejudices that he did so unwittingly.0 -
Haven't you heard? No Deal is the default option.Foxy said:
Sure, but everything was voted down, including No Deal.Philip_Thompson said:
Maybe that could have been voted on before rejecting the deal? Oh wait, it was before the third meaningful vote and it was rejected.Foxy said:
I am not advocating it, but it is a perfectly viable option for an alternative deal.TOPPING said:
But the country didn't vote for Labour so so what?Foxy said:rottenborough said:
No shit sherlock...Foxy said:
Labour has proposed Customs Union, Single Market alignment and close alignment on environmental and social policy.Byronic said:It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
0 -
I doubt he did, but there are some would rather we had a bad deal than a good one. I don’t think May’s deal was so bad considering her red lines.rcs1000 said:
"Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal"Philip_Thompson said:
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.Philip_Thompson said:
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Do you really believe that he deliberately set out to hobble the UK in negotiations with the EU?0 -
Remainers tried to define after the vote hard and soft that way, but actually during the referendum the SM and CU had been ruled out anyway.Streeter said:Revisionism as usual. ‘Hard’ and ‘Soft’ Brexits were defined soon after the vote as meaning outside or inside the SM and CU. May’s deal is therefore Hard. Norway Plus would be Soft.
No Deal is off the Mohs scale of hardness, notwithstanding the call of Byronic (or some other poster, maybe Sean something) for ‘Diamond Hard’ Brexit.
Anyhoo, seems the fellow’s got his wish, unless the unlikely figure of Hammond can lead us to salvation.
May's deal though keeps us in the SM and in the CU during the transition, then keeps us bound while in the backstop to the CU and to SM rules afterwards so it is soft even by your definition.0 -
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.JBriskinindyref2 said:Gotta love the unbiased Wikipedia,
3rd place, 12.6pc
But do they get a pic for the top four? No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold0 -
I am saying a situation where statutes were written into British law with a view to implementing EU policy, but disguised as Government reforms, was a subversion of parliamentary democracy, and added to the various other touchpoints whereby the EU exercised control (admittedly with the full cooperation of the British political class), made a mockery of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament couldn't even ban porn without the EU Comission's say so. But suspend it from sitting for a couple of weeks, OH HELL NO.Zephyr said:
Are you saying we pooled 100% of parliamentary sovereignty? 50%? What percentage makes it merely a rubber stamp for laws originated elsewhere?Luckyguy1983 said:
What is comical to me is that remainers are APOPLECTIC about a temporary suspension of parliament, but entirely comfortable with the permanent erosion of its powers, and the fact that it had become a rubber stamp for laws that originated elsewhere. Their concern for parliament's sovereignty is so breathtakingly self-serving it's astonishing that they expect to be heard out without derision.rottenborough said:In order to TAKE BACK CONTROL and ensure that Parliament is once again sovereign, it has become clear that we need to, errr, shut down Parliament for a few weeks.
Catch 22 is not a comedy.
Are you saying we cannot pool any sovereignty at all anywhere to put it to better use to us?0 -
Question for anyone who knows: Which of those signatories, or other Cons who didn't sign it but are clearly against No Deal, have clearly got to the end of their careers as Tory MPs, whether through retirement, likely deselection or general exasperation?0
-
Excellent analysis by Richard Nabavi. Philip Thompson’s blaming Hammond, of all people, is wacko conspiracy theory writ large. I’m concerned. When even, relatively, sensible Leavers are lashing out it suggests Brexit ain’t looking too good.0
-
Obviously I can't, but that wasn't the point you made. If we don't Leave, yes the ERG will have to live with the fact that they gambled leaving with an imperfect Deal against Leaving at all. If we No Deal, the Remainers who voted against the Deal will have to live with the converse (obverse?). As things stand, if we end up leaving with No Deal, the Leavers who voted down a Deal they saw as worse than No Deal will have, as they say, played a blinder.Richard_Nabavi said:
I can't think of any honest ones, who made it clear before the referendum that they advocated crashing out in chaos. Can you? If so, please point to your evidence.Endillion said:
How many Leavers are there in Parliament who both voted against the Deal (let's say more than once) and think No Deal is a disaster?Richard_Nabavi said:
It's entirely an answer. If the Leavers in parliament want us to leave, they should have voted - three times - for the deal. They can't blame anyone else for their actions. If it were purely the cynical Labour Party and other 'Remainiacs' who blocked the deal, they'd have a point. But it wasn't. They should address their own part in the disaster before blaming others - no-one forced them to go through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.Byronic said:
That's not remotely an answer, it's just a rant. But fair enough. Ranting is on trend.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.Byronic said:It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
0 -
May's deal was a good one, that respected the vote and would have been acceptable to the majority of people in the UK.notme2 said:
I doubt he did, but there are some would rather we had a bad deal than a good one. I don’t think May’s deal was so bad considering her red lines.rcs1000 said:
"Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal"Philip_Thompson said:
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.Philip_Thompson said:
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Do you really believe that he deliberately set out to hobble the UK in negotiations with the EU?
History will judge the fanatics - which includes both Dominic Grieve and Mark Francois - poorly.1 -
I tried to change the world for the better. Perhaps the style guide might change.rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.JBriskinindyref2 said:Gotta love the unbiased Wikipedia,
3rd place, 12.6pc
But do they get a pic for the top four? No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold0 -
Ah I see the confusion. No, he refused to conduct due dilligence in his Treasury for proper preparations for No Deal because he didn't want No Deal, which sabotaged our negotiations. Whether he intended to or not.rcs1000 said:
Sabotage implies deliberate, so you can understand my confusion.Philip_Thompson said:
No of course not! No more than an incompetent batsman deliberately seeks to get his partner ran out.rcs1000 said:
"Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal"Philip_Thompson said:
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.Philip_Thompson said:
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Do you really believe that he deliberately set out to hobble the UK in negotiations with the EU?
I think he was that blinded by his own personal prejudices that he did so unwittingly.
The Treasury spends a fortune on the military and on Trident not because it wants a [nuclear] war, but because it wants to avoid it and properly preparing for one best avoids it. That should have been the motto through our Article 50 period, doing whatever it took to prepare for No Deal and if it was unnecessary because we got a good deal . . . then it was job done, just as if our military was unnecessary because we kept peace.1 -
"There is an antagonistic strain in remainism that is just as important as this idealism. “Europeanism has always been more anti-Eurosceptic than pro-European,” says Robert Saunders, a historian at Queen Mary University of London. And what fuels remainists, three years into the Brexit process, is anger. They hate the people you’d expect them to hate: Johnson, Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg, “Andrea Loathsome”, to use one of their schoolboyish nicknames. They hate them for their lies, and their “cakeism”, the Johnsonian insistence that we really can have our cake and eat it: that Britain could leave the single market, say, without losing any of the benefits of being part of it. (One remainist podcast is called Cake Watch.)"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/13/brexit-remain-radicalisation-fbpe-peoples-vote0 -
Quitercs1000 said:
May's deal was a good one, that respected the vote and would have been acceptable to the majority of people in the UK.notme2 said:
I doubt he did, but there are some would rather we had a bad deal than a good one. I don’t think May’s deal was so bad considering her red lines.rcs1000 said:
"Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal"Philip_Thompson said:
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.Philip_Thompson said:
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Do you really believe that he deliberately set out to hobble the UK in negotiations with the EU?
History will judge the fanatics - which includes both Dominic Grieve and Mark Francois - poorly.0 -
Well, I don't want to blight their careers if they're not quite there yet, but TBH I'd have thought most of the signatories, and a few others. Whether they would go as far as voting against the government in a VONC is another matter - they will certainly be incredibly reluctant to do so; these are very, very loyal Conservatives, or what used to be called Conservatives. But I think they will do anything else to stop a no-deal crash-out.edmundintokyo said:Question for anyone who knows: Which of those signatories, or other Cons who didn't sign it but are clearly against No Deal, have clearly got to the end of their careers as Tory MPs, whether through retirement, likely deselection or general exasperation?
0 -
Blocking proper preparations wasn't adult behaviour. An adult prepares for all eventualities even if they don't want them.Foxy said:
Hammond was the only adult in the room. It Lord of the Flies in cabinet now.Philip_Thompson said:
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.Philip_Thompson said:
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!0 -
While disagreeing on May's deal, we've had that debate enough . . .rcs1000 said:
May's deal was a good one, that respected the vote and would have been acceptable to the majority of people in the UK.notme2 said:
I doubt he did, but there are some would rather we had a bad deal than a good one. I don’t think May’s deal was so bad considering her red lines.rcs1000 said:
"Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal"Philip_Thompson said:
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.Philip_Thompson said:
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Do you really believe that he deliberately set out to hobble the UK in negotiations with the EU?
History will judge the fanatics - which includes both Dominic Grieve and Mark Francois - poorly.
. . . For history surely it depends upon how Brexit goes now?0 -
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.JBriskinindyref2 said:Gotta love the unbiased Wikipedia,
3rd place, 12.6pc
But do they get a pic for the top four? No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide0 -
Both they and the ultra-remainers were willing to gamble it all rather than accept a sensible, managed compromise.Endillion said:
Obviously I can't, but that wasn't the point you made. If we don't Leave, yes the ERG will have to live with the fact that they gambled leaving with an imperfect Deal against Leaving at all. If we No Deal, the Remainers who voted against the Deal will have to live with the converse (obverse?). As things stand, if we end up leaving with No Deal, the Leavers who voted down a Deal they saw as worse than No Deal will have, as they say, played a blinder.
That's not playing a blinder though, it's just an irrational bet (ie poor expected value) that happened to land.
1 -
I quite agree. My view is that the best negotiating strategy is to talk softly but carry a big stick, and the worst is to scream insults but have no fallback plan. I feel that throughout, we have done insufficient planning for No Deal, and that will bite us hard in about ten weeks time.Philip_Thompson said:
Ah I see the confusion. No, he refused to conduct due dilligence in his Treasury for proper preparations for No Deal because he didn't want No Deal, which sabotaged our negotiations. Whether he intended to or not.rcs1000 said:
Sabotage implies deliberate, so you can understand my confusion.Philip_Thompson said:
No of course not! No more than an incompetent batsman deliberately seeks to get his partner ran out.rcs1000 said:
"Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal"Philip_Thompson said:
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.Philip_Thompson said:
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Do you really believe that he deliberately set out to hobble the UK in negotiations with the EU?
I think he was that blinded by his own personal prejudices that he did so unwittingly.
The Treasury spends a fortune on the military and on Trident not because it wants a [nuclear] war, but because it wants to avoid it and properly preparing for one best avoids it. That should have been the motto through our Article 50 period, doing whatever it took to prepare for No Deal and if it was unnecessary because we got a good deal . . . then it was job done, just as if our military was unnecessary because we kept peace.
I also believe that proper No Deal planning would have reduced the risk of a No Deal outcome.
And so your criticism is fair.0 -
Yes, and I hope it goes well, and that the majority of people in the UK are able to get behind it.Philip_Thompson said:
While disagreeing on May's deal, we've had that debate enough . . .rcs1000 said:
May's deal was a good one, that respected the vote and would have been acceptable to the majority of people in the UK.notme2 said:
I doubt he did, but there are some would rather we had a bad deal than a good one. I don’t think May’s deal was so bad considering her red lines.rcs1000 said:
"Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal"Philip_Thompson said:
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.Philip_Thompson said:
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Do you really believe that he deliberately set out to hobble the UK in negotiations with the EU?
History will judge the fanatics - which includes both Dominic Grieve and Mark Francois - poorly.
. . . For history surely it depends upon how Brexit goes now?
My concern - my very, very grave concern - is that by pushing through a Brexit that is both hated by a great number of people, and is seen to have been pushed through against the will of the Parliament, means that the divisions in our society that looked like they were being healed will be ripped apart again.
There's a saying, to do with dieting but I think it's true of business and other things, that goals don't work, but systems do.
I think jettisoning the system to get a desired outcome ends badly. I would compare it to Roe vs Wade or to the appalling gerrymandering in the US.1 -
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.JBriskinindyref2 said:Gotta love the unbiased Wikipedia,
3rd place, 12.6pc
But do they get a pic for the top four? No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election0 -
Knock yourself out.JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.JBriskinindyref2 said:Gotta love the unbiased Wikipedia,
3rd place, 12.6pc
But do they get a pic for the top four? No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide0 -
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.JBriskinindyref2 said:Gotta love the unbiased Wikipedia,
3rd place, 12.6pc
But do they get a pic for the top four? No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election0 -
I'm not too hot at the old html thing like - can you fix it for me?rcs1000 said:
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.JBriskinindyref2 said:Gotta love the unbiased Wikipedia,
3rd place, 12.6pc
But do they get a pic for the top four? No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election0 -
Need to make it 2x2rcs1000 said:
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.JBriskinindyref2 said:Gotta love the unbiased Wikipedia,
3rd place, 12.6pc
But do they get a pic for the top four? No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
0 -
Aren't we getting to the stage where any Tory MP who is against No Deal is likely to have their career terminated by the contagious insanity in the party?edmundintokyo said:Question for anyone who knows: Which of those signatories, or other Cons who didn't sign it but are clearly against No Deal, have clearly got to the end of their careers as Tory MPs, whether through retirement, likely deselection or general exasperation?
0 -
Well, that, or your (and my) expected value calculation was wrong, and they understood the British political system and underlying mechanics of the current Parliament more deeply than we, or their opponents, did. I still think it's probably what you said. But we can't rule out that they were just several steps ahead of us.Andrew said:
Both they and the ultra-remainers were willing to gamble it all rather than accept a sensible, managed compromise.Endillion said:
Obviously I can't, but that wasn't the point you made. If we don't Leave, yes the ERG will have to live with the fact that they gambled leaving with an imperfect Deal against Leaving at all. If we No Deal, the Remainers who voted against the Deal will have to live with the converse (obverse?). As things stand, if we end up leaving with No Deal, the Leavers who voted down a Deal they saw as worse than No Deal will have, as they say, played a blinder.
That's not playing a blinder though, it's just an irrational bet (ie poor expected value) that happened to land.
As an example, a lot of pundits thought, and some still think, that Corbyn would co-operate with various other groups in all sorts of ways to prevent No Deal. Are you absolutely certain that the likes of Rees-Mogg and Baker didn't work out months ago that he wouldn't?0 -
I'm open to suggestions on how I do this other than looking for 3x3 in the code ?RobD said:
Need to make it 2x2rcs1000 said:
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.JBriskinindyref2 said:Gotta love the unbiased Wikipedia,
3rd place, 12.6pc
But do they get a pic for the top four? No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
Edit 2x3 obviously0 -
Could copy it from how it looks on a previous election page. I think 2015 has a 2x2.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I'm open to suggestions on how I do this other than looking for 3x3 in the code ?RobD said:
Need to make it 2x2rcs1000 said:
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.JBriskinindyref2 said:Gotta love the unbiased Wikipedia,
3rd place, 12.6pc
But do they get a pic for the top four? No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election0 -
Possibly but I don't think so, deselections have always been rare and I don't think we've seen a lot of movement in that direction.Chris said:
Aren't we getting to the stage where any Tory MP who is against No Deal is likely to have their career terminated by the contagious insanity in the party?0 -
Thanks - will try my bestRobD said:
Could copy it from how it looks on a previous election page. I think 2015 has a 2x2.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I'm open to suggestions on how I do this other than looking for 3x3 in the code ?RobD said:
Need to make it 2x2rcs1000 said:
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.JBriskinindyref2 said:Gotta love the unbiased Wikipedia,
3rd place, 12.6pc
But do they get a pic for the top four? No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election0 -
Sovereignty isn’t like something you have, give away, and get back again after a vote to repatriate it. Sovereignty operates like a currency, you have 100 quid in the bank, put 20 quid to work to your advantage.Luckyguy1983 said:
I am saying a situation where statutes were written into British law with a view to implementing EU policy, but disguised as Government reforms, was a subversion of parliamentary democracy, and added to the various other touchpoints whereby the EU exercised control (admittedly with the full cooperation of the British political class), made a mockery of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament couldn't even ban porn without the EU Comission's say so. But suspend it from sitting for a couple of weeks, OH HELL NO.Zephyr said:
Are you saying we pooled 100% of parliamentary sovereignty? 50%? What percentage makes it merely a rubber stamp for laws originated elsewhere?Luckyguy1983 said:
What is comical to me is that remainers are APOPLECTIC about a temporary suspension of parliament, but entirely comfortable with the permanent erosion of its powers, and the fact that it had become a rubber stamp for laws that originated elsewhere. Their concern for parliament's sovereignty is so breathtakingly self-serving it's astonishing that they expect to be heard out without derision.rottenborough said:In order to TAKE BACK CONTROL and ensure that Parliament is once again sovereign, it has become clear that we need to, errr, shut down Parliament for a few weeks.
Catch 22 is not a comedy.
Are you saying we cannot pool any sovereignty at all anywhere to put it to better use to us?
Such as and not exclusively, membership of the world’s largest trading bloc with over 500 million consumers, representing 23% of global GDP. Removal of trade barriers and greater trade efficiency’s to 44% of all UK exports. Greater competition in services and elimination of anti-competitive practices such as monopolies and cartels which is good for businesses and consumers, Free movement of labour has helped UK firms plug skills gaps (translators, doctors, plumber) and helped address shortages of unskilled workers (fruit picking, catering). I love watching English Premier League football, the Single Market has brought the best continental footballers to the Premier League.
This is one of the great hinges of Brexit, you saying to me I don’t understand what sovereignty is, me saying to you you don’t understand what sovereignty is.0 -
A bit like being photographed with Ribbentrop. Bolton is every bit as evil.HYUFD said:0 -
YaS!JBriskinindyref2 said:
Thanks - will try my bestRobD said:
Could copy it from how it looks on a previous election page. I think 2015 has a 2x2.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I'm open to suggestions on how I do this other than looking for 3x3 in the code ?RobD said:
Need to make it 2x2rcs1000 said:
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.JBriskinindyref2 said:Gotta love the unbiased Wikipedia,
3rd place, 12.6pc
But do they get a pic for the top four? No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
I am the leet master0 -
Whilst I wouldn't have described May's deal as 'good' I think it was a compromise that a sizable majority of the country could have accepted to ensure the referendum result was honored...at least in spirit.rcs1000 said:
May's deal was a good one, that respected the vote and would have been acceptable to the majority of people in the UK.
History will judge the fanatics - which includes both Dominic Grieve and Mark Francois - poorly.
The fact that the extreme ERG wing rejected it in no way absolves the remainer majority in parliament from their gross recklessness in pursuit not of a realistic deal but of the revoking of Article 50 itself.
Francois is an idiot but Grieve is a democratic disgrace whose name in the future will become synonymous in politics for traits of the kind no honourable person would want to be known for.0 -
Well done, though I feel like 2005 that 3 pictures should be sufficient. Paisley isn't pictured with 9 MPs so I don't see why the Lib Dems deserve a picture from 2015 onwards.JBriskinindyref2 said:
YaS!JBriskinindyref2 said:
Thanks - will try my bestRobD said:
Could copy it from how it looks on a previous election page. I think 2015 has a 2x2.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I'm open to suggestions on how I do this other than looking for 3x3 in the code ?RobD said:
Need to make it 2x2rcs1000 said:
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.JBriskinindyref2 said:Gotta love the unbiased Wikipedia,
3rd place, 12.6pc
But do they get a pic for the top four? No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
I am the leet master0 -
I'm doing my part!JBriskinindyref2 said:
YaS!JBriskinindyref2 said:
Thanks - will try my bestRobD said:
Could copy it from how it looks on a previous election page. I think 2015 has a 2x2.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I'm open to suggestions on how I do this other than looking for 3x3 in the code ?RobD said:
Need to make it 2x2rcs1000 said:
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.JBriskinindyref2 said:Gotta love the unbiased Wikipedia,
3rd place, 12.6pc
But do they get a pic for the top four? No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
I am the leet master0 -
Couldn't have done it without you my leet comradeRobD said:
I'm doing my part!JBriskinindyref2 said:
YaS!JBriskinindyref2 said:
Thanks - will try my bestRobD said:
Could copy it from how it looks on a previous election page. I think 2015 has a 2x2.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I'm open to suggestions on how I do this other than looking for 3x3 in the code ?RobD said:
Need to make it 2x2rcs1000 said:
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.JBriskinindyref2 said:Gotta love the unbiased Wikipedia,
3rd place, 12.6pc
But do they get a pic for the top four? No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
I am the leet master0 -
That's quite enough wiki editing for me for one day - have a go yourself - remember - Be BoldPhilip_Thompson said:
Well done, though I feel like 2005 that 3 pictures should be sufficient. Paisley isn't pictured with 9 MPs so I don't see why the Lib Dems deserve a picture from 2015 onwards.JBriskinindyref2 said:
YaS!JBriskinindyref2 said:
Thanks - will try my bestRobD said:
Could copy it from how it looks on a previous election page. I think 2015 has a 2x2.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I'm open to suggestions on how I do this other than looking for 3x3 in the code ?RobD said:
Need to make it 2x2rcs1000 said:
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.JBriskinindyref2 said:Gotta love the unbiased Wikipedia,
3rd place, 12.6pc
But do they get a pic for the top four? No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
I am the leet master0 -
No problem, comrade PBer.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Couldn't have done it without you my leet comradeRobD said:
I'm doing my part!JBriskinindyref2 said:
YaS!JBriskinindyref2 said:
Thanks - will try my bestRobD said:
Could copy it from how it looks on a previous election page. I think 2015 has a 2x2.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I'm open to suggestions on how I do this other than looking for 3x3 in the code ?RobD said:
Need to make it 2x2rcs1000 said:
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.JBriskinindyref2 said:Gotta love the unbiased Wikipedia,
3rd place, 12.6pc
But do they get a pic for the top four? No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
I am the leet master
0 -
They do have a mandate for racist bigotry though. Please continue pointing that out.AlastairMeeks said:
Once again, you’re claiming a mandate for something that during the referendum campaign Leavers not only did not campaign for but disavowed.
0 -
Francois is just dim. Grieve has revealed himself as a rotter. That is worse.CaptainBuzzkill said:
Whilst I wouldn't have described May's deal as 'good' I think it was a compromise that a sizable majority of the country could have accepted to ensure the referendum result was honored...at least in spirit.rcs1000 said:
May's deal was a good one, that respected the vote and would have been acceptable to the majority of people in the UK.
History will judge the fanatics - which includes both Dominic Grieve and Mark Francois - poorly.
The fact that the extreme ERG wing rejected it in no way absolves the remainer majority in parliament from their gross recklessness in pursuit not of a realistic deal but of the revoking of Article 50 itself.
Francois is an idiot but Grieve is a democratic disgrace whose name in the future will become synonymous in politics for traits of the kind no honourable person would want to be known for.0 -
What's the threshold?Philip_Thompson said:
Well done, though I feel like 2005 that 3 pictures should be sufficient. Paisley isn't pictured with 9 MPs so I don't see why the Lib Dems deserve a picture from 2015 onwards.JBriskinindyref2 said:
YaS!JBriskinindyref2 said:
Thanks - will try my bestRobD said:
Could copy it from how it looks on a previous election page. I think 2015 has a 2x2.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I'm open to suggestions on how I do this other than looking for 3x3 in the code ?RobD said:
Need to make it 2x2rcs1000 said:
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
I am the leet master
10 MPs (they get a pic in 2017 but not 2015)?
15 MPs?
20 MPs?
Edit to add: you'll need to go back and remove all the old Lib pictures from (for example) 1979 if you want to make threshold higher than 10 or so.0 -
How about over 5 as long as they stand in all four constituent parts of the UK? I'd like to remove Nicola's face nextrcs1000 said:
What's the threshold?Philip_Thompson said:
Well done, though I feel like 2005 that 3 pictures should be sufficient. Paisley isn't pictured with 9 MPs so I don't see why the Lib Dems deserve a picture from 2015 onwards.JBriskinindyref2 said:
YaS!JBriskinindyref2 said:
Thanks - will try my bestRobD said:
Could copy it from how it looks on a previous election page. I think 2015 has a 2x2.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I'm open to suggestions on how I do this other than looking for 3x3 in the code ?RobD said:
Need to make it 2x2rcs1000 said:
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were...JBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
I am the leet master
10 MPs (they get a pic in 2017 but not 2015)?
15 MPs?
20 MPs?
Edit to add: you'll need to go back and remove all the old Lib pictures from (for example) 1979 if you want to make threshold higher than 10 or so.
Edit: oops that wouldn't work at all - let's say more than one of the four constituent parts0 -
How about top 3, or 3% of MPs?rcs1000 said:
What's the threshold?Philip_Thompson said:
Well done, though I feel like 2005 that 3 pictures should be sufficient. Paisley isn't pictured with 9 MPs so I don't see why the Lib Dems deserve a picture from 2015 onwards.JBriskinindyref2 said:
YaS!JBriskinindyref2 said:
Thanks - will try my bestRobD said:
Could copy it from how it looks on a previous election page. I think 2015 has a 2x2.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I'm open to suggestions on how I do this other than looking for 3x3 in the code ?RobD said:
Need to make it 2x2rcs1000 said:
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
I am the leet master
10 MPs (they get a pic in 2017 but not 2015)?
15 MPs?
20 MPs?
Edit to add: you'll need to go back and remove all the old Lib pictures from (for example) 1979 if you want to make threshold higher than 10 or so.0 -
Wow SNP went from 6 seats in 2010 to 56 in 2015 - that's quite a swing.Philip_Thompson said:
How about top 3, or 3% of MPs?rcs1000 said:
What's the threshold?Philip_Thompson said:
Well done, though I feel like 2005 that 3 pictures should be sufficient. Paisley isn't pictured with 9 MPs so I don't see why the Lib Dems deserve a picture from 2015 onwards.JBriskinindyref2 said:
YaS!JBriskinindyref2 said:
Thanks - will try my bestRobD said:
Could copy it from how it looks on a previous election page. I think 2015 has a 2x2.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I'm open to suggestions on how I do this other than looking for 3x3 in the code ?RobD said:
Need to make it 2x2rcs1000 said:
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly,...JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:
Democracy is seats won.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.rcs1000 said:Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
I am the leet master
10 MPs (they get a pic in 2017 but not 2015)?
15 MPs?
20 MPs?
Edit to add: you'll need to go back and remove all the old Lib pictures from (for example) 1979 if you want to make threshold higher than 10 or so.
But they're not a UK wide party - Who's up for removing Sturgeon?0 -
The problem with top three - from an aesthetic point of view - is that it has a gap in a 2x2 grid. Although you can always go 3x1 to avoid that.Philip_Thompson said:
How about top 3, or 3% of MPs?rcs1000 said:
What's the threshold?Philip_Thompson said:
Well done, though I feel like 2005 that 3 pictures should be sufficient. Paisley isn't pictured with 9 MPs so I don't see why the Lib Dems deserve a picture from 2015 onwards.JBriskinindyref2 said:
YaS!JBriskinindyref2 said:
Thanks - will try my bestRobD said:
Could copy it from how it looks on a previous election page. I think 2015 has a 2x2.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I'm open to suggestions on how I do this other than looking for 3x3 in the code ?RobD said:
Need to make it 2x2rcs1000 said:
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:Democracy is seats won.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
I am the leet master
10 MPs (they get a pic in 2017 but not 2015)?
15 MPs?
20 MPs?
Edit to add: you'll need to go back and remove all the old Lib pictures from (for example) 1979 if you want to make threshold higher than 10 or so.
Top three feels arbitrary. It means that if it's 330, 320, 1 then the third placed party gets in. I think I'd probably go for something like 10 or a dozen MPs.0 -
How about any party that gets more than 5% of the number of seats of the top party?
So, 325/325/1 wouldn't count
Nor would 330/200/6
Nor would 320/220/12
But the Alliance in the mid 1980s would (I think)0 -
I think it was always 3x1 until 2015 postwar.rcs1000 said:
The problem with top three - from an aesthetic point of view - is that it has a gap in a 2x2 grid. Although you can always go 3x1 to avoid that.Philip_Thompson said:
How about top 3, or 3% of MPs?rcs1000 said:
What's the threshold?Philip_Thompson said:
Well done, though I feel like 2005 that 3 pictures should be sufficient. Paisley isn't pictured with 9 MPs so I don't see why the Lib Dems deserve a picture from 2015 onwards.JBriskinindyref2 said:
YaS!JBriskinindyref2 said:
Thanks - will try my bestRobD said:
Could copy it from how it looks on a previous election page. I think 2015 has a 2x2.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I'm open to suggestions on how I do this other than looking for 3x3 in the code ?RobD said:
Need to make it 2x2rcs1000 said:
You've messed up the formatting.JBriskinindyref2 said:
Done!JBriskinindyref2 said:
And there's only 3 photos for 2005, 3 for 2010, 4 for 2015, and 6 for 2017rcs1000 said:
Interestingly, on the Wikipedia style guide for elections, it states that the 2005 UK election page should be the model for all parliamentary style elections. In that article, the parties are (guess what) ranked by seats, not votes.JBriskinindyref2 said:
I was only following their rules-Charles said:
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one caseJBriskinindyref2 said:
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.Philip_Thompson said:Democracy is seats won.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
I'll delete the NI ones from 2017 then to fit the style guide
check my leet skills-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
I am the leet master
10 MPs (they get a pic in 2017 but not 2015)?
15 MPs?
20 MPs?
Edit to add: you'll need to go back and remove all the old Lib pictures from (for example) 1979 if you want to make threshold higher than 10 or so.
Top three feels arbitrary. It means that if it's 330, 320, 1 then the third placed party gets in. I think I'd probably go for something like 10 or a dozen MPs.0 -
If it wasn't for that damn style guide 5pc of popular vote would do it for mercs1000 said:How about any party that gets more than 5% of the number of seats of the top party?
So, 325/325/1 wouldn't count
Nor would 330/200/6
Nor would 320/220/12
But the Alliance in the mid 1980s would (I think)0 -
Wishful thinking I fear:
When there are no good options, leaders must choose the least bad one. China’s government may loathe the idea of making concessions to the Hong Kong protesters, but considering the catastrophic consequences of a military crackdown, that is what it must do.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/hong-kong-protests-crackdown-tiananmen-by-minxin-pei-2019-080 -
There is no conceivable form of Brexit that will not be hated by a great number of people - whichever way they voted in 2016 - and seen as being imposed by politicians against the will of the people.rcs1000 said:Yes, and I hope it goes well, and that the majority of people in the UK are able to get behind it.
My concern - my very, very grave concern - is that by pushing through a Brexit that is both hated by a great number of people, and is seen to have been pushed through against the will of the Parliament, means that the divisions in our society that looked like they were being healed will be ripped apart again.
There's a saying, to do with dieting but I think it's true of business and other things, that goals don't work, but systems do.
I think jettisoning the system to get a desired outcome ends badly. I would compare it to Roe vs Wade or to the appalling gerrymandering in the US.
Given what you've written, you must surely support a people's vote based on a specific form of Brexit?0 -
He's clearly somebody who might do this. He went AWOL, sulking that he was going to lose his job, during the 2017 election campaign - giving Labour a free run on their made-up numbers. He cost the Tories seats as a result.rcs1000 said:
"Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal"Philip_Thompson said:
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.Philip_Thompson said:
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Do you really believe that he deliberately set out to hobble the UK in negotiations with the EU?1 -
0
-
I thought Nick Timothy wanted to hide Hammond in 2017 because he was due to be fired straight after the election.MarqueeMark said:
He's clearly somebody who might do this. He went AWOL, sulking that he was going to lose his job, during the 2017 election campaign - giving Labour a free run on their made-up numbers. He cost the Tories seats as a result.rcs1000 said:
"Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal"Philip_Thompson said:
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.Philip_Thompson said:
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Do you really believe that he deliberately set out to hobble the UK in negotiations with the EU?
And then when the results were - errr - unexpected, he ended up with a reprieve.0 -
By that argument Theresa May's deal also had a mandate - so why did the ERG vote against it?MarqueeMark said:
And, if it was okay for the ERG to vote against a form of Brexit that wasn't their preferred form of Brexit then I'm sure you'll have no problems with MPs voting to prevent no deal if they decide that isn't their preferred form of Brexit.1 -
Hammond was front and centre of the last 3 years of crap government - chance after chance to do something to move events forward. He failed.
His opinion now is discredited and worthless.0 -
OoooooohhhOblitusSumMe said:
By that argument Theresa May's deal also had a mandate - so why did the ERG vote against it?MarqueeMark said:
And, if it was okay for the ERG to vote against a form of Brexit that wasn't their preferred form of Brexit then I'm sure you'll have no problems with MPs voting to prevent no deal if they decide that isn't their preferred form of Brexit.
That's a fair point0 -
Absolutely. There was a Dan Hodges Tweet after MV3 that said "if we end up with no deal, Labour MPs can't complain. And if we end up with No Brexit, the ERG can't complain."OblitusSumMe said:
By that argument Theresa May's deal also had a mandate - so why did the ERG vote against it?MarqueeMark said:
And, if it was okay for the ERG to vote against a form of Brexit that wasn't their preferred form of Brexit then I'm sure you'll have no problems with MPs voting to prevent no deal if they decide that isn't their preferred form of Brexit.
The default is No Deal - the MPs voted for it when they voted to give May permission to trigger A50 - if they want to stop it, they can.0 -
That's my recollection at the time too - it was to be the "Theresa May Show" supporting cast not required.rcs1000 said:
I thought Nick Timothy wanted to hide Hammond in 2017 because he was due to be fired straight after the election.MarqueeMark said:
He's clearly somebody who might do this. He went AWOL, sulking that he was going to lose his job, during the 2017 election campaign - giving Labour a free run on their made-up numbers. He cost the Tories seats as a result.rcs1000 said:
"Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal"Philip_Thompson said:
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.Philip_Thompson said:
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Do you really believe that he deliberately set out to hobble the UK in negotiations with the EU?
And then when the results were - errr - unexpected, he ended up with a reprieve.0 -
As can be seen the Lib Dems just have the edge of just one percent ahead
*Cough* Anyone would think OGH hadn't recently complained about inaccurate reporting of polling......35 vs 36 is a statistical tie.......comfortably within MOE.....0 -
Do you think pb should report any lead within the MoE as "a statistical tie" instead of quoting the actual numbers???CarlottaVance said:As can be seen the Lib Dems just have the edge of just one percent ahead
*Cough* Anyone would think OGH hadn't recently complained about inaccurate reporting of polling......35 vs 36 is a statistical tie.......comfortably within MOE.....0 -
Since OGH quite rightly took the Telegraph & ComRes to task yesterday, a headline of 'Tories and LibDems tied in top 20 Con-LD Marginals' would have been a more accurate reflection of the facts than "LDs just ahead". Caesar's wife & all that.edmundintokyo said:
Do you think pb should report any lead within the MoE as "a statistical tie" instead of quoting the actual numbers???CarlottaVance said:As can be seen the Lib Dems just have the edge of just one percent ahead
*Cough* Anyone would think OGH hadn't recently complained about inaccurate reporting of polling......35 vs 36 is a statistical tie.......comfortably within MOE.....
Separately on that ComRes poll the Question 7 agree/disagree questions were randomised and not asked in the order presented in the results.0 -
No, that would be dumb and unhelpful. From a betting PoV there's a huge difference between say a lead of +3 and a lead of -3, even though they're both within the MoE of a lead of 0.CarlottaVance said:
Since OGH quite rightly took the Telegraph & ComRes to task yesterday, a headline of 'Tories and LibDems tied in top 20 Con-LD Marginals' would have been a more accurate reflection of the facts than "LDs just ahead". Caesar's wife & all that.
Separately on that ComRes poll the Question 7 agree/disagree questions were randomised and not asked in the order presented in the results.
This is different to throwing out don't knows and scaling up one answer, which is deliberately misleading bullshit.0 -
AndyJS said:
"There is an antagonistic strain in remainism that is just as important as this idealism. “Europeanism has always been more anti-Eurosceptic than pro-European,” says Robert Saunders, a historian at Queen Mary University of London. And what fuels remainists, three years into the Brexit process, is anger. They hate the people you’d expect them to hate: Johnson, Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg, “Andrea Loathsome”, to use one of their schoolboyish nicknames. They hate them for their lies, and their “cakeism”, the Johnsonian insistence that we really can have our cake and eat it: that Britain could leave the single market, say, without losing any of the benefits of being part of it. (One remainist podcast is called Cake Watch.)"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/13/brexit-remain-radicalisation-fbpe-peoples-vote
That's a good article.AndyJS said:"There is an antagonistic strain in remainism that is just as important as this idealism. “Europeanism has always been more anti-Eurosceptic than pro-European,” says Robert Saunders, a historian at Queen Mary University of London. And what fuels remainists, three years into the Brexit process, is anger. They hate the people you’d expect them to hate: Johnson, Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg, “Andrea Loathsome”, to use one of their schoolboyish nicknames. They hate them for their lies, and their “cakeism”, the Johnsonian insistence that we really can have our cake and eat it: that Britain could leave the single market, say, without losing any of the benefits of being part of it. (One remainist podcast is called Cake Watch.)"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/13/brexit-remain-radicalisation-fbpe-peoples-vote
I think it's a problem for such campaigners that they are less likely to encounter opposing views than their opponents are.0 -
Do you think if the results had been the other way round OGH would have reported 'Tories just ahead of LDs in top 20 Con-LD marginals'?edmundintokyo said:
No, that would be dumb and unhelpfulCarlottaVance said:
Since OGH quite rightly took the Telegraph & ComRes to task yesterday, a headline of 'Tories and LibDems tied in top 20 Con-LD Marginals' would have been a more accurate reflection of the facts than "LDs just ahead". Caesar's wife & all that.
Separately on that ComRes poll the Question 7 agree/disagree questions were randomised and not asked in the order presented in the results.
That wouldn't have been true either.0 -
A whole load of trouble could have been avoided by voting for the WA. Whether A.50 gets revoked or we get a No Deal Brexit, half the population will want revenge.rcs1000 said:
OoooooohhhOblitusSumMe said:
By that argument Theresa May's deal also had a mandate - so why did the ERG vote against it?MarqueeMark said:
And, if it was okay for the ERG to vote against a form of Brexit that wasn't their preferred form of Brexit then I'm sure you'll have no problems with MPs voting to prevent no deal if they decide that isn't their preferred form of Brexit.
That's a fair point0 -
But a lot of remainists aren’t actually very interested in leavers. They prefer to look inward, at the 48% rather than the 52%. Surrounded by people who get their jokes, they have finally found a political identity that fits them. That means their priority is mobilising opinion, not changing it. If Brexit has torn the country apart, remainism isn’t yet trying to put it back together.Sean_F said:AndyJS said:"There is an antagonistic strain in remainism that is just as important as this idealism. “Europeanism has always been more anti-Eurosceptic than pro-European,” says Robert Saunders, a historian at Queen Mary University of London. And what fuels remainists, three years into the Brexit process, is anger. They hate the people you’d expect them to hate: Johnson, Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg, “Andrea Loathsome”, to use one of their schoolboyish nicknames. They hate them for their lies, and their “cakeism”, the Johnsonian insistence that we really can have our cake and eat it: that Britain could leave the single market, say, without losing any of the benefits of being part of it. (One remainist podcast is called Cake Watch.)"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/13/brexit-remain-radicalisation-fbpe-peoples-vote
That's a good article.AndyJS said:"There is an antagonistic strain in remainism that is just as important as this idealism. “Europeanism has always been more anti-Eurosceptic than pro-European,” says Robert Saunders, a historian at Queen Mary University of London. And what fuels remainists, three years into the Brexit process, is anger. They hate the people you’d expect them to hate: Johnson, Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg, “Andrea Loathsome”, to use one of their schoolboyish nicknames. They hate them for their lies, and their “cakeism”, the Johnsonian insistence that we really can have our cake and eat it: that Britain could leave the single market, say, without losing any of the benefits of being part of it. (One remainist podcast is called Cake Watch.)"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/13/brexit-remain-radicalisation-fbpe-peoples-vote
I think it's a problem for such campaigners that they are less likely to encounter opposing views than their opponents are.0 -
In every age, the doomsayers cry the same vision: Britain has had a good innings but, thanks to a combination of hubris, ignorance and immutable progress, our fading days are upon us.
The Cambridge historian Robert Tombs detects ‘the revival of an old and familiar malady: “declinism”, a periodic fear that the nation has declined and is declining from some earlier time of strength, cohesion and success. Declinism is a syndrome: it assumes a combination of moral, political and economic failures.’....
Brexit is not the only vessel for this myth. Scotland’s present dalliance with separatism has convinced some of our finest minds — and some of the more humdrum — that the dissolution of the UK is now unavoidable. What’s more, the psychic trauma of the public’s Leave vote has so disturbed political, academic and cultural elites that many now will the break-up of Britain as a fitting punishment.
https://stephendaisley.com/2019/08/10/standing-up-to-the-snp-is-the-only-way-to-save-the-union/1 -
That's been my point throughout.Sean_F said:
A whole load of trouble could have been avoided by voting for the WA. Whether A.50 gets revoked or we get a No Deal Brexit, half the population will want revenge.rcs1000 said:
OoooooohhhOblitusSumMe said:
By that argument Theresa May's deal also had a mandate - so why did the ERG vote against it?MarqueeMark said:
And, if it was okay for the ERG to vote against a form of Brexit that wasn't their preferred form of Brexit then I'm sure you'll have no problems with MPs voting to prevent no deal if they decide that isn't their preferred form of Brexit.
That's a fair point
By not giving a single centimetre to the middle on Brexit, we're likely to end up with an even more poisoned political system0 -
Whereas if the WA had gone through, both halves would want revenge...Sean_F said:A whole load of trouble could have been avoided by voting for the WA. Whether A.50 gets revoked or we get a No Deal Brexit, half the population will want revenge.
0 -
The nastiness on this thread is matched by the nastiness in the country. "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" is being shouted in the faces of the people raising genuine fact based objections to crash Brexit.
When the effects of the things being warned about crash into the lives of the "I'm too ignorant to know/care how the world works just give me my unicorn" people and makes them personally suffer, will the well off mob continue chanting "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" in their faces, and for how ling before fisticuffs breaks out.
Hubris can and will do Bad Things.0 -
Sure he would, and it would have been true, as this was. Or if OGH's bias had come in somehow, it would have been by reporting some different aspect of the poll.CarlottaVance said:
Do you think if the results had been the other way round OGH would have reported 'Tories just ahead of LDs in top 20 Con-LD marginals'?
That wouldn't have been true either.
PB doesn't normally feature on the MoE aspect or talk about things being "statistically tied" unless there's something newsworthy about it, like X having a lead for a long time then it dropping to a few points. From a betting PoV every poll is a data point, and the MoE is one of various things you consider when you interpret it.0 -
Sure, except having voted to invoke Article 50, it isn't enough for them to vote against No Deal. They have to vote in favour of something to replace it.OblitusSumMe said:
By that argument Theresa May's deal also had a mandate - so why did the ERG vote against it?MarqueeMark said:
And, if it was okay for the ERG to vote against a form of Brexit that wasn't their preferred form of Brexit then I'm sure you'll have no problems with MPs voting to prevent no deal if they decide that isn't their preferred form of Brexit.
Fundamentally, the "mandate" for No Deal comes from the way the Lisbon treaty is written. We accepted those terms, then we voted to leave, then MPs voted to start the leaving process. Hence No Deal is the default position unless the two parliaments can find a deal they both agree on.0 -
But Vote Leave disavowed that process.Endillion said:
Sure, except having voted to invoke Article 50, it isn't enough for them to vote against No Deal. They have to vote in favour of something to replace it.OblitusSumMe said:
By that argument Theresa May's deal also had a mandate - so why did the ERG vote against it?MarqueeMark said:
And, if it was okay for the ERG to vote against a form of Brexit that wasn't their preferred form of Brexit then I'm sure you'll have no problems with MPs voting to prevent no deal if they decide that isn't their preferred form of Brexit.
Fundamentally, the "mandate" for No Deal comes from the way the Lisbon treaty is written. We accepted those terms, then we voted to leave, then MPs voted to start the leaving process. Hence No Deal is the default position unless the two parliaments can find a deal they both agree on.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
So no mandate.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Wonder if Hammond's comment will have much impact.0 -
The reality is that the past century has been the best period in our history, despite losing an Empire.CarlottaVance said:In every age, the doomsayers cry the same vision: Britain has had a good innings but, thanks to a combination of hubris, ignorance and immutable progress, our fading days are upon us.
The Cambridge historian Robert Tombs detects ‘the revival of an old and familiar malady: “declinism”, a periodic fear that the nation has declined and is declining from some earlier time of strength, cohesion and success. Declinism is a syndrome: it assumes a combination of moral, political and economic failures.’....
Brexit is not the only vessel for this myth. Scotland’s present dalliance with separatism has convinced some of our finest minds — and some of the more humdrum — that the dissolution of the UK is now unavoidable. What’s more, the psychic trauma of the public’s Leave vote has so disturbed political, academic and cultural elites that many now will the break-up of Britain as a fitting punishment.
https://stephendaisley.com/2019/08/10/standing-up-to-the-snp-is-the-only-way-to-save-the-union/0 -
So nothing's got a mandate. Revoke certainly doesn't, the deal's been rejected at least twice, no one wants continued uncertainty and No Deal wasn't the preferred option among most of those who led the successful Leave campaign, but is the default position given events since then.AlastairMeeks said:
But Vote Leave disavowed that process.Endillion said:
Sure, except having voted to invoke Article 50, it isn't enough for them to vote against No Deal. They have to vote in favour of something to replace it.OblitusSumMe said:
By that argument Theresa May's deal also had a mandate - so why did the ERG vote against it?MarqueeMark said:
And, if it was okay for the ERG to vote against a form of Brexit that wasn't their preferred form of Brexit then I'm sure you'll have no problems with MPs voting to prevent no deal if they decide that isn't their preferred form of Brexit.
Fundamentally, the "mandate" for No Deal comes from the way the Lisbon treaty is written. We accepted those terms, then we voted to leave, then MPs voted to start the leaving process. Hence No Deal is the default position unless the two parliaments can find a deal they both agree on.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
So no mandate.
I think No Deal has a better claim to a mandate than any alternative course of action. I'm still not in favour of it.0 -
Exactly. Nothing has a mandate.Endillion said:
So nothing's got a mandate. Revoke certainly doesn't, the deal's been rejected at least twice, no one wants continued uncertainty and No Deal wasn't the preferred option among most of those who led the successful Leave campaign, but is the default position given events since then.AlastairMeeks said:
But Vote Leave disavowed that process.Endillion said:
Sure, except having voted to invoke Article 50, it isn't enough for them to vote against No Deal. They have to vote in favour of something to replace it.OblitusSumMe said:
By that argument Theresa May's deal also had a mandate - so why did the ERG vote against it?MarqueeMark said:
And, if it was okay for the ERG to vote against a form of Brexit that wasn't their preferred form of Brexit then I'm sure you'll have no problems with MPs voting to prevent no deal if they decide that isn't their preferred form of Brexit.
Fundamentally, the "mandate" for No Deal comes from the way the Lisbon treaty is written. We accepted those terms, then we voted to leave, then MPs voted to start the leaving process. Hence No Deal is the default position unless the two parliaments can find a deal they both agree on.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
So no mandate.
I think No Deal has a better claim to a mandate than any alternative course of action. I'm still not in favour of it.
So a new mandate is needed.2 -
Rather like the Treaty of Westphalia, a deal is more likely to endure if neither side gets everything it wants.edmundintokyo said:
Whereas if the WA had gone through, both halves would want revenge...Sean_F said:A whole load of trouble could have been avoided by voting for the WA. Whether A.50 gets revoked or we get a No Deal Brexit, half the population will want revenge.
1 -
They never did when he was Chancellor. Maybe people will be surprised that he is still about?Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Wonder if Hammond's comment will have much impact.0 -
Nope. We were asked a simple question: leave or remain. We voted to leave. How we left was left to our political masters. You do not overturn that decision to leave simply because they have made a mess of it or because they have dragged it out. That's undemocratic no matter how much sophistry is applied. It is still open for them to leave with a deal. They just need to be honest rather than dishonest. I appreciate that is a big ask.AlastairMeeks said:
Exactly. Nothing has a mandate.Endillion said:
So nothing's got a mandate. Revoke certainly doesn't, the deal's been rejected at least twice, no one wants continued uncertainty and No Deal wasn't the preferred option among most of those who led the successful Leave campaign, but is the default position given events since then.AlastairMeeks said:
But Vote Leave disavowed that process.Endillion said:
Sure, except having voted to invoke Article 50, it isn't enough for them to vote against No Deal. They have to vote in favour of something to replace it.OblitusSumMe said:
By that argument Theresa May's deal also had a mandate - so why did the ERG vote against it?MarqueeMark said:
And, if it was okay for the ERG to vote against a form of Brexit that wasn't their preferred form of Brexit then I'm sure you'll have no problems with MPs voting to prevent no deal if they decide that isn't their preferred form of Brexit.
Fundamentally, the "mandate" for No Deal comes from the way the Lisbon treaty is written. We accepted those terms, then we voted to leave, then MPs voted to start the leaving process. Hence No Deal is the default position unless the two parliaments can find a deal they both agree on.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
So no mandate.
I think No Deal has a better claim to a mandate than any alternative course of action. I'm still not in favour of it.
So a new mandate is needed.0 -
Sophistry is claiming a mandate for something that Leavers explicitly and angrily disavowed during the referendum campaign.DavidL said:
Nope. We were asked a simple question: leave or remain. We voted to leave. How we left was left to our political masters. You do not overturn that decision to leave simply because they have made a mess of it or because they have dragged it out. That's undemocratic no matter how much sophistry is applied. It is still open for them to leave with a deal. They just need to be honest rather than dishonest. I appreciate that is a big ask.AlastairMeeks said:
Exactly. Nothing has a mandate.Endillion said:
So nothing's got a mandate. Revoke certainly doesn't, the deal's been rejected at least twice, no one wants continued uncertainty and No Deal wasn't the preferred option among most of those who led the successful Leave campaign, but is the default position given events since then.AlastairMeeks said:
But Vote Leave disavowed that process.Endillion said:
Sure, except having voted to invoke Article 50, it isn't enough for them to vote against No Deal. They have to vote in favour of something to replace it.OblitusSumMe said:
By that argument Theresa May's deal also had a mandate - so why did the ERG vote against it?MarqueeMark said:
And, if it was okay for the ERG to vote against a form of Brexit that wasn't their preferred form of Brexit then I'm sure you'll have no problems with MPs voting to prevent no deal if they decide that isn't their preferred form of Brexit.
Fundamentally, the "mandate" for No Deal comes from the way the Lisbon treaty is written. We accepted those terms, then we voted to leave, then MPs voted to start the leaving process. Hence No Deal is the default position unless the two parliaments can find a deal they both agree on.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
So no mandate.
I think No Deal has a better claim to a mandate than any alternative course of action. I'm still not in favour of it.
So a new mandate is needed.0 -
But that's not true.DavidL said:Nope. We were asked a simple question: leave or remain. We voted to leave. How we left was left to our political masters.
The Leave campaign said we would get a deal.
I know Brexiteers want to ignore the campaign, but you can't claim the vote was despite the campaign.
If the campaign had said there would be food and medicine shortages, a blockade in Kent and pyres of burning mutton, they might not have won the vote...
The mandate to Leave stems from the campaign that won the vote. To deny the campaign negates the mandate0 -
If the vision for Leave has not survived contact with reality, that requires a rethink, not to redefine reality.0
-
Yes. A simple question was asked when actually the situation is very complex. This is the entire problem.DavidL said:
Nope. We were asked a simple question: leave or remain. We voted to leave. How we left was left to our political masters. You do not overturn that decision to leave simply because they have made a mess of it or because they have dragged it out. That's undemocratic no matter how much sophistry is applied. It is still open for them to leave with a deal. They just need to be honest rather than dishonest. I appreciate that is a big ask.AlastairMeeks said:
Exactly. Nothing has a mandate.Endillion said:
So nothing's got a mandate. Revoke certainly doesn't, the deal's been rejected at least twice, no one wants continued uncertainty and No Deal wasn't the preferred option among most of those who led the successful Leave campaign, but is the default position given events since then.AlastairMeeks said:
But Vote Leave disavowed that process.Endillion said:
Sure, except having voted to invoke Article 50, it isn't enough for them to vote against No Deal. They have to vote in favour of something to replace it.OblitusSumMe said:
By that argument Theresa May's deal also had a mandate - so why did the ERG vote against it?MarqueeMark said:
And, if it was okay for the ERG to vote against a form of Brexit that wasn't their preferred form of Brexit then I'm sure you'll have no problems with MPs voting to prevent no deal if they decide that isn't their preferred form of Brexit.
Fundamentally, the "mandate" for No Deal comes from the way the Lisbon treaty is written. We accepted those terms, then we voted to leave, then MPs voted to start the leaving process. Hence No Deal is the default position unless the two parliaments can find a deal they both agree on.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
So no mandate.
I think No Deal has a better claim to a mandate than any alternative course of action. I'm still not in favour of it.
So a new mandate is needed.
Anyway, can overturn democracy with democracy bla bla bla etc.0 -
Oh they know. They just choose not to understand.Scott_P said:
But that's not true.DavidL said:Nope. We were asked a simple question: leave or remain. We voted to leave. How we left was left to our political masters.
The Leave campaign said we would get a deal.
I know Brexiteers want to ignore the campaign, but you can't claim the vote was despite the campaign.
If the campaign had said there would be food and medicine shortages, a blockade in Kent and pyres of burning mutton, they might not have won the vote...
The mandate to Leave stems from the campaign that won the vote. To deny the campaign negates the mandate0 -
Willfully stupid. Brexit in a nutshellAlastairMeeks said:Oh they know. They just choose not to understand.
0 -
Mr. Gate, it's an empty question at the moment, though.
Politicians are happy to bleat they're against everything possible but lack the courage or the wit to actually put forward something else. So we have becalmed politics, a jester leading one party and a Communist the other.2 -
Good morning everyone. Another day, another depreciated pound sterling. It’s currently grey but still up here in North East England.0
-
Yeah, that. If we end up with No Deal, it'll be because parliament refused to implement anything else. The vast majority of those responsible are in favour of Remain.DavidL said:
Nope. We were asked a simple question: leave or remain. We voted to leave. How we left was left to our political masters. You do not overturn that decision to leave simply because they have made a mess of it or because they have dragged it out. That's undemocratic no matter how much sophistry is applied. It is still open for them to leave with a deal. They just need to be honest rather than dishonest. I appreciate that is a big ask.AlastairMeeks said:
Exactly. Nothing has a mandate.Endillion said:
So nothing's got a mandate. Revoke certainly doesn't, the deal's been rejected at least twice, no one wants continued uncertainty and No Deal wasn't the preferred option among most of those who led the successful Leave campaign, but is the default position given events since then.AlastairMeeks said:
But Vote Leave disavowed that process.Endillion said:
Sure, except having voted to invoke Article 50, it isn't enough for them to vote against No Deal. They have to vote in favour of something to replace it.OblitusSumMe said:
By that argument Theresa May's deal also had a mandate - so why did the ERG vote against it?MarqueeMark said:
And, if it was okay for the ERG to vote against a form of Brexit that wasn't their preferred form of Brexit then I'm sure you'll have no problems with MPs voting to prevent no deal if they decide that isn't their preferred form of Brexit.
Fundamentally, the "mandate" for No Deal comes from the way the Lisbon treaty is written. We accepted those terms, then we voted to leave, then MPs voted to start the leaving process. Hence No Deal is the default position unless the two parliaments can find a deal they both agree on.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
So no mandate.
I think No Deal has a better claim to a mandate than any alternative course of action. I'm still not in favour of it.
So a new mandate is needed.0 -
A good article about quite a strong movement, and one that is going to be a fixture after Brexit still. I never expected hundreds of thousands of people to March in Britain proudly waving the EU flag as a result of Brexit, but they are.AndyJS said:"There is an antagonistic strain in remainism that is just as important as this idealism. “Europeanism has always been more anti-Eurosceptic than pro-European,” says Robert Saunders, a historian at Queen Mary University of London. And what fuels remainists, three years into the Brexit process, is anger. They hate the people you’d expect them to hate: Johnson, Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg, “Andrea Loathsome”, to use one of their schoolboyish nicknames. They hate them for their lies, and their “cakeism”, the Johnsonian insistence that we really can have our cake and eat it: that Britain could leave the single market, say, without losing any of the benefits of being part of it. (One remainist podcast is called Cake Watch.)"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/13/brexit-remain-radicalisation-fbpe-peoples-vote
Not so long ago these people would have been core Tory voters. I cannot see that happening again.0 -
Spread shit Phil!Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Wonder if Hammond's comment will have much impact.0 -
If Britain ends up with no deal it will be because the Conservative party chose a leader who sabotaged the deal on the table as an extremist Leaver and then followed a no deal path. As always, Leavers are relentless in their attempts to avoid responsibility.Endillion said:
Yeah, that. If we end up with No Deal, it'll be because parliament refused to implement anything else. The vast majority of those responsible are in favour of Remain.DavidL said:
Nope. We were asked a simple question: leave or remain. We voted to leave. How we left was left to our political masters. You do not overturn that decision to leave simply because they have made a mess of it or because they have dragged it out. That's undemocratic no matter how much sophistry is applied. It is still open for them to leave with a deal. They just need to be honest rather than dishonest. I appreciate that is a big ask.AlastairMeeks said:
Exactly. Nothing has a mandate.Endillion said:
So nothing's got a mandate. Revoke certainly doesn't, the deal's been rejected at least twice, no one wants continued uncertainty and No Deal wasn't the preferred option among most of those who led the successful Leave campaign, but is the default position given events since then.AlastairMeeks said:
But Vote Leave disavowed that process.Endillion said:
Sure, except having voted to invoke Article 50, it isn't enough for them to vote against No Deal. They have to vote in favour of something to replace it.OblitusSumMe said:
By that argument Theresa May's deal also had a mandate - so why did the ERG vote against it?MarqueeMark said:
And, if it was okay for the ERG to vote against a form of Brexit that wasn't their preferred form of Brexit then I'm sure you'll have no problems with MPs voting to prevent no deal if they decide that isn't their preferred form of Brexit.
Fundamentally, the "mandate" for No Deal comes from the way the Lisbon treaty is written. We accepted those terms, then we voted to leave, then MPs voted to start the leaving process. Hence No Deal is the default position unless the two parliaments can find a deal they both agree on.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
So no mandate.
I think No Deal has a better claim to a mandate than any alternative course of action. I'm still not in favour of it.
So a new mandate is needed.0
This discussion has been closed.