politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Before we can make judgements about the outcome of an early ge

JBriskinindyref2 said:

williamglenn said:

algarkirk said:

Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.

This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?

Racist Remoaners showing some of their true colours.

You want to end free movement with Ireland?

justin124 said:

Currystardog said:

Yorkcity said:

Currystardog said:

I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.

For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal.
I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.

He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.

I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.

If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.

JBriskinindyref2 said:

williamglenn said:

JBriskinindyref2 said:

williamglenn said:

algarkirk said:

Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.

This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?

Racist Remoaners showing some of their true colours.

You want to end free movement with Ireland?

I think that would only be fair for Global Britain.

You mean navel-gazing Britain.

williamglenn said:

algarkirk said:

williamglenn said:

algarkirk said:

Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.

This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?

Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.

No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?

It would be popular but I am not sure it would be right in principle. I think we would end up with something as ethnically racist as the EU at its worst. The Tanzanian computer scientist (see above) by the way is a real person, a friend of mine, now back in Tanzania because of the policy of the Home Office, with racist overtones, which has to be ludicrously tough on skilled people from outside the EU as so many EU unskilled people were coming into the UK.

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'll put him down as a maybe:

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/08/27/why-no-deal-brexit-is-a-battle-for-the-soul-of-our-nation/

You would not really know from this that government policy is for an agreed deal and that the possibility of crashing out derives from Labour en masse not supporting a deal for purely party political motives + the EU drafting of Article 50.

If this ridiculous agitprop gets any worse I expect Mr Meeks will be switching sides.

If you think that the government's actual policy is for an agreed deal, I have a bridge to sell you.

Assume the legislative effort passes

If the Commons attempts to enforce a request for a brexit extension on Johnson, will he play ball in the same way that May did ?

One can argue that the courts will find against him but do they have the power to effectively enforce the law here.
A somewhat distant parallel might well be the Begum case, it's widely expected the Gov't will lose if heard but the practical effect of denying her UK citizenship can't be undone (We can't invent a time machine to let her back in 3 years ago).

& If Tory MPs (Letwin, Soames) say that 'this is abhorrent that the PM will not act with an Act' what is their remedy - to bring down the Johnson Gov't and precipitate a GE is the only remedy.

If Johnson really does want to leave then he doesn't have to request an extension, as May did even if Cooper/Boles II passes the Commons.

This is where the Brexit party can instantly get back votes as Johnson's "parliament made me do it" won't wash, and Corbyn's implied chances of becoming PM increase.

The other alternative is that if Johnson doesn't seek an extension then revocation of Art 50 might well come into play - or the EU grants an extension outwith Johnson's request. We're heading into a set of very poor options here, why the deal couldn't be agreed I do not know*

* I do I do, it's a rhetorical device !

AlastairMeeks said:

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'll put him down as a maybe:

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/08/27/why-no-deal-brexit-is-a-battle-for-the-soul-of-our-nation/

You would not really know from this that government policy is for an agreed deal and that the possibility of crashing out derives from Labour en masse not supporting a deal for purely party political motives + the EU drafting of Article 50.

If this ridiculous agitprop gets any worse I expect Mr Meeks will be switching sides.

If you think that the government's actual policy is for an agreed deal, I have a bridge to sell you.

I do think so, accept I may be wrong, and shall wait and see. With good negotiators you cannot ever know what their bottom line is until the doors of the court.

justin124 said:

Currystardog said:

justin124 said:

Currystardog said:

Yorkcity said:

Currystardog said:

I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.

For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal.
I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.

He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.

I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.

If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.

You - and most of the commentariat - may think that , but I expect voters to be very receptive to other issues being raised - as was true in 2017. Moreover, the Tories have probably already won back most of their natural supporters from the Brexit Party. The residual Brexit Party vote is likely to be much less Tory inclined , and many would vote Labour, support other parties - or abstain - rather than switch to the Tories. Johnson will also make it much easier for Labour to rally the anti - Tory vote. Corbyn is unlikely to be outcampaigned by Swinson.

For once I agree with you on the Brexit vote. Farage saying he won't strand against the Tories if he's in agreement with Johnson will NOT mean you can automatically add the BREX vote to the CON one.

DavidL said:

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

dixiedean said:

Lucas and Swinson both sounding positive on WATO.

It would be a bit strange if they didnt

Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.

A question along the lines of, "so do you regret voting against May's deal 3x then?" might not have gone amiss.

To be fair David , Swinson did not want Brexit Leave , under any circumstances.
So why would she vote for May's deal, or any deal.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Be glad when things cool down. As an aside, I had a brief chat with a bloke in Norway the other day. Apparently it's practically winter there now. He was surprised to hear how hot it is in the UK.

He obviously doesn't live in Oslo where it's about 28 degrees at the moment.

algarkirk said:

williamglenn said:

algarkirk said:

williamglenn said:

algarkirk said:

Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.

This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?

Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.

No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?

It would be popular but I am not sure it would be right in principle. I think we would end up with something as ethnically racist as the EU at its worst. The Tanzanian computer scientist (see above) by the way is a real person, a friend of mine, now back in Tanzania because of the policy of the Home Office, with racist overtones, which has to be ludicrously tough on skilled people from outside the EU as so many EU unskilled people were coming into the UK.

There is nothing ethnically racist about reciprocal free movement based on citizenship. The only way to reduce the sanctimony from your argument would be to advocate treating all non-citizens the same as citizens.

Currystardog said:

justin124 said:

Currystardog said:

justin124 said:

Currystardog said:

Yorkcity said:

Currystardog said:

I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.

For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal.
I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.

He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.

I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.

If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.

You - and most of the commentariat - may think that , but I expect voters to be very receptive to other issues being raised - as was true in 2017. Moreover, the Tories have probably already won back most of their natural supporters from the Brexit Party. The residual Brexit Party vote is likely to be much less Tory inclined , and many would vote Labour, support other parties - or abstain - rather than switch to the Tories. Johnson will also make it much easier for Labour to rally the anti - Tory vote. Corbyn is unlikely to be outcampaigned by Swinson.

Its a one policy election, Lib Dems are Remain,the Tories are leave. Labour are nowhere.

Have you seen the Labour leavers on here ? They are so ridiculously tribally Labour it isn't even funny (I'm not including Justin who has indicated he would spoil his ballot)

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1166349969210654720

AndyJS said:

algarkirk said:

williamglenn said:

algarkirk said:

williamglenn said:

algarkirk said:

Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.

This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?

Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.

No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?

It would be popular but I am not sure it would be right in principle. I think we would end up with something as ethnically racist as the EU at its worst. The Tanzanian computer scientist (see above) by the way is a real person, a friend of mine, now back in Tanzania because of the policy of the Home Office, with racist overtones, which has to be ludicrously tough on skilled people from outside the EU as so many EU unskilled people were coming into the UK.

I'd be in favour of free movement between the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

But not any Commonwealth countries where brown and black people live, I’ll wager.

MikeSmithson said:

justin124 said:

Currystardog said:

justin124 said:

Currystardog said:

Yorkcity said:

Currystardog said:

I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.

For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal.
I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.

He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.

I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.

If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.

You - and most of the commentariat - may think that , but I expect voters to be very receptive to other issues being raised - as was true in 2017. Moreover, the Tories have probably already won back most of their natural supporters from the Brexit Party. The residual Brexit Party vote is likely to be much less Tory inclined , and many would vote Labour, support other parties - or abstain - rather than switch to the Tories. Johnson will also make it much easier for Labour to rally the anti - Tory vote. Corbyn is unlikely to be outcampaigned by Swinson.

For once I agree with you on the Brexit vote. Farage saying he won't strand against the Tories if he's in agreement with Johnson will NOT mean you can automatically add the BREX vote to the CON one.

Presumably there would also be a segment of the Conservative vote which would abstain or defect in the event of a Tory/TBP coalition for GE purposes and consequently a No Deal Brexit in the Manifesto.

Tactical voting would also be likely to kick in, as would a kicking for the Tories in Scotland.

Difficult to see the Conservatives increasing their representation in these circumstances. More likely they would fall back a bit, leaving a severely hung Parliament wih the LDs power brokers.

All nice and uncertain - very bad for the country, very good for punters!

hamiltonace said:

DavidL said:

justin124 said:

DavidL said:

I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.

The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.

Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.

To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.

Scotland is the most Anti Brexit region of the UK. This has not changed since the referendum. Any election that is based on a hard Brexit will be bad for the Tories.

In many ways over the last decade Scotland has become more European than England. It does not do Marxism anymore or even big Government. It is very Scandinavian in its feel.

The Brexit Party were second in Scotland in the European Parliament elections but only third in London

The Brazilian government has said it will reject an offer of aid from G7 countries to help tackle fires in the Amazon rainforest. Brazilian ministers say the money is not needed and accuse foreign powers of wanting control of the Amazon.

Mr. JS, well, it's a long old country so I can well believe it's got some hefty fluctuations (and with the jetstream as it is, drastically different weather to one side or the other seems eminently possible).

justin124 said:

MikeSmithson said:

justin124 said:

Currystardog said:

justin124 said:

Currystardog said:

Yorkcity said:

Currystardog said:

I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.

For Johnson to come to an agreement with Farage is no deal.
I think that was the plan , whatever Johnson says that no deal was a million to one.

He will get 40-45% at any early GE if Brexit Party don't stand, Labour will get 20-25%. Thats why what Labour is currently doing is beyond stupid. They should have voted for May's deal and let the Tories tear themselves apart.

I doubt that very much. The Tories will be unlikely to exceed their 2010 and 2015 vote shares.

If there is a Brexit Party then the Tories will poll 30-35, no Brexit Party 40-45. This is an entirely different world to 2010 and 2015. There is only one political subject that matters and Labour are playing it terribly.

You - and most of the commentariat - may think that , but I expect voters to be very receptive to other issues being raised - as was true in 2017. Moreover, the Tories have probably already won back most of their natural supporters from the Brexit Party. The residual Brexit Party vote is likely to be much less Tory inclined , and many would vote Labour, support other parties - or abstain - rather than switch to the Tories. Johnson will also make it much easier for Labour to rally the anti - Tory vote. Corbyn is unlikely to be outcampaigned by Swinson.

For once I agree with you on the Brexit vote. Farage saying he won't strand against the Tories if he's in agreement with Johnson will NOT mean you can automatically add the BREX vote to the CON one.

Absolutely - we saw this in 2017 when 2015 UKIP voters declined the opportunity to switch to the Tories en masse.

Do you truly think that if there is only one party standing that will respect and implement the referedum result, that they will not win a GE in the next few months?

MikeSmithson said:

Currystardog said:

I think Labour's policy of preventing Brexit with no policy of how they will implement it will be massively negative for them . If Boris can come to an agreement with the Brexit party then Labours chance of getting below 200 seats at an early GE will be huge. What will sitting Labour MPs in leave seats say to their electorate. Labour have prevented Brexit at every stage and are now holding meetings with other parties to keep preventing it. It is a disatorous policy.

Labour voters are much less fixated by brexit than Conservatives ones. The he simple assumption that all the leave voting areas Labour MPs were going to get swamped was completely undermined at the last general election

Only as many centrist Remainers lent their vote to Corbyn Labour and will vote LD this time and Corbyn promised Labour Leavers he would deliver Brexit and failed to do so some of them will vote Brexit Party and due to May's dementia tax disaster Boris will not repeat

Comments to this article -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49483374?ns_linkname=news_central&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_politics&ns_mchannel=social

BBC HYS = Remainer central ? Not today..

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1166349923438223360
Corbyn writes to 116 Tory MPs including May, Hammond, Clark....

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'll put him down as a maybe:

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/08/27/why-no-deal-brexit-is-a-battle-for-the-soul-of-our-nation/

You would not really know from this that government policy is for an agreed deal and that the possibility of crashing out derives from Labour en masse not supporting a deal for purely party political motives + the EU drafting of Article 50.

If this ridiculous agitprop gets any worse I expect Mr Meeks will be switching sides.

If you think that the government's actual policy is for an agreed deal, I have a bridge to sell you.

I do think so, accept I may be wrong, and shall wait and see. With good negotiators you cannot ever know what their bottom line is until the doors of the court.

So far the negotiation has consisted of:

"We don't like what's on the table."

"OK, come up with something else but it has to meet our concerns, which the current agreement does (and we don't believe you can)."

"..."

You don't need to be Perry Mason to work out that the government isn't taking this seriously.

I interpret it as fumbling with the ball while hoping a fig leaf will emerge, as TMs deal is about a sensible as it gets. It is not elegant and it may not work. Boris of course is not deserving of sympathy, especially as he is one of the reasons for the current catastrophic position, but put all that one one side I think being where we are the government thinks that the only way out is try to get a deal by going for broke. I very much doubt if it really has a policy yet for what to do if that fails. He can't do much more than you describe because he wants something like TMs deal, but of course can't say so. Bit of a mix up really.

Theresa May's deal, and anything with a backstop in, is dead. Boris Johnson played a very large part in killing it.

PS your metaphor about fumbling with the ball while hoping a fig leaf will emerge is not the happiest of images. I'm sure Adam was better behaved before the fall of Eden.

Pulpstar said:

Comments to this article -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49483374?ns_linkname=news_central&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_politics&ns_mchannel=social

BBC HYS = Remainer central ? Not today..

First page looks pretty balanced to me. Understand that can change.

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

dixiedean said:

Lucas and Swinson both sounding positive on WATO.

It would be a bit strange if they didnt

Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.

They want a referendum that will either result in us leaving under May's WA or revoking A50. What is negative about that?

Charles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Charles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Alanbrooke said:

algarkirk said:

The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.

It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.

odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,

If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.

Internationalism is the opposite of parochialism not xenophobia.

You are correct, and parochialism is a good description of Brexitism, but I was not indulging in exact opposites. Had the Leave campaign just pushed a parochial agenda, rather than a xenophobic one, it would have no doubt lost and we would not be in the mess we are in.

The Manichean duality that you are using only works with opposites.

You might as well argue that Labour is worse than wake boarding but better than turnips.

Hmm. Labour is a lot worse than wakeboarding. I think it's neck and neck with the turnips though so your argument falls down slightly.

timple said:

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

dixiedean said:

Lucas and Swinson both sounding positive on WATO.

It would be a bit strange if they didnt

Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.

They want a referendum that will either result in us leaving under May's WA or revoking A50. What is negative about that?

I cannot begin to imagine what might be negative about that.....

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1166284493004689408

AlastairMeeks said:

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'll put him down as a maybe:

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/08/27/why-no-deal-brexit-is-a-battle-for-the-soul-of-our-nation/

You would not really know from this that government policy is for an agreed deal and that the possibility of crashing out derives from Labour en masse not supporting a deal for purely party political motives + the EU drafting of Article 50.

If this ridiculous agitprop gets any worse I expect Mr Meeks will be switching sides.

If you think that the government's actual policy is for an agreed deal, I have a bridge to sell you.

I do think so, accept I may be wrong, and shall wait and see. With good negotiators you cannot ever know what their bottom line is until the doors of the court.

So far the negotiation has consisted of:

"We don't like what's on the table."

"OK, come up with something else but it has to meet our concerns, which the current agreement does (and we don't believe you can)."

"..."

You don't need to be Perry Mason to work out that the government isn't taking this seriously.

I interpret it as fumbling with the ball while hoping a fig leaf will emerge, as TMs deal is about a sensible as it gets. It is not elegant and it may not work. Boris of course is not deserving of sympathy, especially as he is one of the reasons for the current catastrophic position, but put all that one one side I think being where we are the government thinks that the only way out is try to get a deal by going for broke. I very much doubt if it really has a policy yet for what to do if that fails. He can't do much more than you describe because he wants something like TMs deal, but of course can't say so. Bit of a mix up really.

Theresa May's deal, and anything with a backstop in, is dead. Boris Johnson played a very large part in killing it.

PS your metaphor about fumbling with the ball while hoping a fig leaf will emerge is not the happiest of images. I'm sure Adam was better behaved before the fall of Eden.

Agree with nearly everything you say, especially about metaphors. But I think "TMs deal is dead, long live TMs deal" may be the Orwellian reality. No-one ever went broke overerstimating the cynicism of the Conservative party or politicians generally.

Well ...
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1166353810580791296?s=21

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'll put him down as a maybe:

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/08/27/why-no-deal-brexit-is-a-battle-for-the-soul-of-our-nation/

You would not really know from this that government policy is for an agreed deal and that the possibility of crashing out derives from Labour en masse not supporting a deal for purely party political motives + the EU drafting of Article 50.

If this ridiculous agitprop gets any worse I expect Mr Meeks will be switching sides.

If you think that the government's actual policy is for an agreed deal, I have a bridge to sell you.

I do think so, accept I may be wrong, and shall wait and see. With good negotiators you cannot ever know what their bottom line is until the doors of the court.

So far the negotiation has consisted of:

"We don't like what's on the table."

"OK, come up with something else but it has to meet our concerns, which the current agreement does (and we don't believe you can)."

"..."

You don't need to be Perry Mason to work out that the government isn't taking this seriously.

I interpret it as fumbling with the ball while hoping a fig leaf will emerge, as TMs deal is about a sensible as it gets. It is not elegant and it may not work. Boris of course is not deserving of sympathy, especially as he is one of the reasons for the current catastrophic position, but put all that one one side I think being where we are the government thinks that the only way out is try to get a deal by going for broke. I very much doubt if it really has a policy yet for what to do if that fails. He can't do much more than you describe because he wants something like TMs deal, but of course can't say so. Bit of a mix up really.

Some of the BBC news commentary was interesting: that the EU was taking the PM much more seriously.

Originally they viewed him as a buffoon. They they view him as (a) serious and intelligent and (b) fully prepared to go for no deal if the backstop is not eliminated. This has apparently led to the hints of possible softening on their end.

(Of course the idiots in parliament are doing their best to snuff out this very weak and flickering glimmer of light in the darkness)

Pulpstar said:

AndyJS said:

algarkirk said:

williamglenn said:

algarkirk said:

williamglenn said:

algarkirk said:

Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.

This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?

Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.

No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?

It would be popular but I am not sure it would be right in principle. I think we would end up with something as ethnically racist as the EU at its worst. The Tanzanian computer scientist (see above) by the way is a real person, a friend of mine, now back in Tanzania because of the policy of the Home Office, with racist overtones, which has to be ludicrously tough on skilled people from outside the EU as so many EU unskilled people were coming into the UK.

I'd be in favour of free movement between the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

But would CANZ ?

The ultimate QTWTAIN.

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Charles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Alanbrooke said:

algarkirk said:

The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.

It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.

odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,

If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.

Internationalism is the opposite of parochialism not xenophobia.

You are correct, and parochialism is a good description of Brexitism, but I was not indulging in exact opposites. Had the Leave campaign just pushed a parochial agenda, rather than a xenophobic one, it would have no doubt lost and we would not be in the mess we are in.

The Manichean duality that you are using only works with opposites.

You might as well argue that Labour is worse than wake boarding but better than turnips.

Hmm. Labour is a lot worse than wakeboarding. I think it's neck and neck with the turnips though so your argument falls down slightly.

Better than estate agents?

viewcode said:

rpjs said:

tlg86 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Alanbrooke said:

algarkirk said:

The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.

It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.

odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,

If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.

I reckon Her Maj should tell him to keep his gob shut. One way the monarchy could be in danger is if the barbarians decide to disestablish the church.

There is no established church in two of the four countries of the UK, nor (I believe) in any of the Commonwealth realms and the monarchy seems to be doing fine there.

Quick question. I was under the impression that the Anglican Church was present in Wales but not the Established church of Wales: the Church In Wales, not the Church Of Wales. Happy to be corrected if wrong.

Yes. Wales disestablished 1914. Chesterton wrote a bad poem about it. Still exists. The great and saintly Rowan Williams is one of its fine sons. Cathedrals and many parish churches well worth visiting

justin124 said:

DavidL said:

justin124 said:

DavidL said:

I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.

The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.

Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.

To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.

Labour's polling in Scotland is not as low as back in April 2017. The Labour recovery which then occurred surprised - almost - everybody.At an election held today, I could see Labour polling circa 20% there - with the Tories at a similar level. The potential is still there ,however, for Labour to get to circa 30% with the SNP polling no more than 35%.

That will be the SNP Manifesto that boldly says it will implement Prohibition? Can't think of many other ways they drop to 35%.....

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1166284493004689408

"Everyone" would get my vote

Brexit has been headline news for the past 3 years, 5-6 weeks of an election campaign is nothing. it will be the only topic as everything else is so dependent on it.

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1166284493004689408

"Everyone" would get my vote

Well, 'everyone but me' would be the most honest option, but I doubt it would get many votes.

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Charles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Alanbrooke said:

algarkirk said:

The Archbishop of Canterbury - good and holy man that he is - is however joining the throng of voices organising for what they don't want (in his case 'No Deal') rather than for what they do. It's a crowded field already. Could he put his efforts into (1) getting together an affirmative majority for something positive not negative and (2) reminding us that government policy is unambiguously to leave with a deal and that but for parliament we would already have done so.

It's far too late for negative policies and campaigns to stop something - there is a majority for all of those already and they cancel each other out. They are the problem to solve, not the solution.

odd that Welby who ostensibly should be helping bring the two sides together in a spirit of reconciliation has so openly taken sides,

If one frames it as good (internationalism) versus evil (xenophobia) it is important to take a stand for the former, which I guess is right for a man of God to do. It is also called moral leadership.

Internationalism is the opposite of parochialism not xenophobia.

You are correct, and parochialism is a good description of Brexitism, but I was not indulging in exact opposites. Had the Leave campaign just pushed a parochial agenda, rather than a xenophobic one, it would have no doubt lost and we would not be in the mess we are in.

The Manichean duality that you are using only works with opposites.

You might as well argue that Labour is worse than wake boarding but better than turnips.

Hmm. Labour is a lot worse than wakeboarding. I think it's neck and neck with the turnips though so your argument falls down slightly.

Better than estate agents?

Labour are not a necessary evil so no.

Currystardog said:

Brexit has been headline news for the past 3 years, 5-6 weeks of an election campaign is nothing. it will be the only topic as everything else is so dependent on it.

Like it was in 2017?

AndyJS said:

algarkirk said:

williamglenn said:

algarkirk said:

williamglenn said:

algarkirk said:

Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.

This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?

Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.

No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?

It would be popular but I am not sure it would be right in principle. I think we would end up with something as ethnically racist as the EU at its worst. The Tanzanian computer scientist (see above) by the way is a real person, a friend of mine, now back in Tanzania because of the policy of the Home Office, with racist overtones, which has to be ludicrously tough on skilled people from outside the EU as so many EU unskilled people were coming into the UK.

I'd be in favour of free movement between the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

The word "Racism" may not be written in the Act but it will be written all over it. In today's world, no Parlaiment will pass such an Act. This is not 1971.

justin124 said:

MarqueeMark said:

justin124 said:

DavidL said:

justin124 said:

DavidL said:

I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.

The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.

Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.

To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.

Labour's polling in Scotland is not as low as back in April 2017. The Labour recovery which then occurred surprised - almost - everybody.At an election held today, I could see Labour polling circa 20% there - with the Tories at a similar level. The potential is still there ,however, for Labour to get to circa 30% with the SNP polling no more than 35%.

That will be the SNP Manifesto that boldly says it will implement Prohibition? Can't think of many other ways they drop to 35%.....

Really? They only polled 37% in 2017 and the most recent poll gives them 38%. In a Westminster election, I expect their vote share to slip.

It does not look to me like Labour will get back to near 27% in Scotland let alone 30%. If the Tories get back half of the Brexit vote with the other half staying home then the "woodwork" remainers slip back to the SNP column, not Labour this time round.

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1166284493004689408

"Everyone" would get my vote

I think that's what 63% of people are saying in that poll.

AlastairMeeks said:

Currystardog said:

Brexit has been headline news for the past 3 years, 5-6 weeks of an election campaign is nothing. it will be the only topic as everything else is so dependent on it.

Like it was in 2017?

Well Boris isn't going to be stupid enough to introduce a death tax as May did.

surbiton19 said:

DavidL said:

Yorkcity said:

DavidL said:

algarkirk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

dixiedean said:

Lucas and Swinson both sounding positive on WATO.

It would be a bit strange if they didnt

Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.

A question along the lines of, "so do you regret voting against May's deal 3x then?" might not have gone amiss.

To be fair David , Swinson did not want Brexit Leave , under any circumstances.
So why would she vote for May's deal, or any deal.

Because she is opposed to no deal and that was the pragmatic way forward?

Of course not. A Remainer cannot vote for any Brexit. Full stop.

And that is the problem.

Streeter said:

AndyJS said:

algarkirk said:

williamglenn said:

algarkirk said:

williamglenn said:

algarkirk said:

Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.

This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?

Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.

No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?

It would be popular but I am not sure it would be right in principle. I think we would end up with something as ethnically racist as the EU at its worst. The Tanzanian computer scientist (see above) by the way is a real person, a friend of mine, now back in Tanzania because of the policy of the Home Office, with racist overtones, which has to be ludicrously tough on skilled people from outside the EU as so many EU unskilled people were coming into the UK.

I'd be in favour of free movement between the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

But not any Commonwealth countries where brown and black people live, I’ll wager.

Maori, Indigenous Australians?

Stark_Dawning said:

Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.

Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.