Pointless or not I would say Classics is a harder degree at Oxford than PPE (especially if you majored in the politics rather than economics bit of the latter as Cameron did)
Getting a First in Greats probably is tougher than getting a First in PPE. But - and I say this with personal experience - getting a lower class Greats degree is a doddle.
One of Britain's best kept secrets is how much of the Greats course is a rerun of A level Latin and Greek -or how relatively easy A level Latin is for those brought up as Catholics or educated (as Johnson was) in a multilingual school. So it's perfect for someone with a high IQ, a bent for languages, no interest in a First and a determination not to waste valuable student time on academic work.
Yes it worked for Boris on that front certainly as he became Union President etc but I agree had Cameron studied Greats rather than PPE I doubt he would have got a First either
I wonder whether Cameron would have managed a First in the 1950s or 60s. An interesting article in the Independent - written in 1999 - was titled ' What happened to the Oxbridge Third?'. It pointed out that back in 1960 30% of Oxbridge graduates came out with a Third class degree - but by 1999 a mere 5% did so. Doubtless the figure today is circa 3%. Rampant grade inflation has clearly affected all institutions
I rather think it's at least partly because Oxford is less of a social finishing school and networking centre for the upper classes than it used to be (along its role as an Anglican seminary). People are expected to work nowadays, lest their universities fail to meet the bureaucratic targets set, ironically, by the governments of the last couple of decades.
Perhaps some truth in that, but far more Oxbridge Firsts are being awarded nowadays and that itself doubtless reflects what has happened elsewhere. If other universities now give far more Firsts than 30 or 40 years ago, it must be difficult for Oxbridge to resist that trend. I do sometimes wonder whether back in the 1940s and 50s gaining a place at Oxbridge was as challenging as is the case today. Obviously far fewer would-be students were in the market anyway - at least as far as the state sector was concerned.
Do you feel that undergraduates were allowed to get away with the bare minimum (irrespective of their real abilities) in the 1970s and 1980s more than they would today? A friend of mine went there but did very little academic work as he was so busy with theatre - in which, however, he found his metier and career.
I do sometimes wonder whether back in the 1940s and 50s gaining a place at Oxbridge was as challenging as is the case today. Obviously far fewer would-be students were in the market anyway - at least as far as the state sector was concerned.
Dunno about the 50s, but since the late 60s Oxbridge undergraduate places - unlike elsewhere - have been virtually frozen (Oxbridge numbers have grown almost entirely through students for advance degrees). Roughly 1% of each year's 18 yo cohort got into Oxbridge 50 years ago - and that number's stayed more or less static. What's more, the proportion coming from state schools (if you accept that direct grants in the 60s were state schools) is about the same now as 50 years ago: it collapsed between the mid-70s and mid 2010s.
The key change is in gender. If 1% of 18 yo boys got in during the 60s, just 0.2% of 18 yo girls did - and the percentages are now roughly equal. Statistically, it's now less challenging for girls and more challenging for boys.
But talking to the (disturbingly few) Oxford improved access advocates, the commonest barrier to state school entrance isn't built by Oxford (where selectors are in favour of almost anything that'll drive up the average student IQ) or even ever-sharper private school coaching: it's teachers in the state sector, whose reasons for opposing more Oxford candidates range from outright bigotry to understandable beefs about pressures they themselves are under.
On topic, I can imagine a scenario where following an election, it is clear the sitting PM has been turfed out. So as the results come in, he goes to the Palace and prorogues Parliament for five years. That would clearly be an abuse of the right to prorogue. But equally, it is such an obvious abuse that you would feel the Monarch would be entirely within their powers to refuse that prorogation.
And therein lies my point - that prorogation already has an inbuilt mechanism to prevent abuse, without resorting to the courts. It is Her Majesty's Government - if it abuses power vested in it, Her Majesty could remedy that abuse. The Sovereign in this case might have had qualms about shutting down Parliament for six weeks over the conference period - but not enough to intervene to reduce it.
I think if prorogation had been until 1st November, with the obvious intent of ensuring that Brexit happened because any Parliamentary intervention was blocked, then HM the Q might well have intervened. But it wasn't, there is really nothing happening until after the EU summit for Parliament to get its teeth into -and so I would be seriously disquieted if the SC were to overturn the prorogation in this instance.
I'm uncomfortable giving the monarch that much power. I think David has it absolutely right: the government should not have the right to prorouge to avoid being No Confidenced, or the like. But at the same time, there will frequently be times when Parliament doesn't need to sit. I would have thought some formalisation of the maximum period of prorogation would be a sensible way forward.
The reductio ad absurdum or rather the dilatatio ad absurdum is that a PM prorogues parliament for its entire elected period.
Equally maximum periods may not work as there may be times when nothing needs to be debated so a longer 5 week prorogation could make sense
So I suspect were the Supreme Court to decide they had to make a decision I suspect they will decide that given that this prorogation is designed to get around the Miller case , the prorogation May be in breech
Aaaand the medication my partner needs is on there. Great. Thanks a lot, Brexiters.
My blood pressure pills too, though there are substitutes for that (though sudden switches of demand can cause secondary shortages).
The most problematic ones to me look to be Metformin, Prednisolone and Sodium Valproate. All are frequently prescribed and are not easily substituted.
I take Amlodipine, Ramipril , Metformin. I think all are produced in the UK..
And all three are available as generics.
Exactly. So why are they on the list ?
It does make you wonder about the reliability of the list if cheap generics are on it. Quite possibly more specialised drugs are more vulnerable - but it’s not as though they can’t be sent by airfreight. I wonder if people on the continent are worrying about being “cut off” from the supply of British pharma?
On topic. The whole header misses the whole point. It’s not a question of length. It’s a question of due process. If the process says you ask for it explaining what you want it for, and honestly explain what you want it for, it’s legal. If you mislead the head of state in what you want it for, it clearly breaks the law because that is not how the process is supposed to work. After it was granted evidence emerged that the reasoning for it was not the honest one. It was a lie....
The header does not miss the point at all. The issue the SC is going to have to decide is whether it may even look into the process of prorogation, and if it can, then what tests it may apply. It’s fairly clear that the government lied - one can argue about that, but as far as the particular legal issue is concerned, that is irrelevant.
Courts will simply not get involved in decisions they class as political; they do not concern themselves with lies told in the course of political conduct.
On this, it is worth pointing out that the courts would not uphold Manifestos as being any sort of contract with the voters - it was implicit that politicians just have the freedom to lie and not be held to account for that.....
You are all such switched on and intelligent people, I can’t believe how you have got this completely wrong. Shutting a Parliament isn’t politics, it’s a question of democracy and constitution.
Pointless or not I would say Classics is a harder degree at Oxford than PPE (especially if you majored in the politics rather than economics bit of the latter as Cameron did)
Getting a First in Greats probably is tougher thae valuable student time on academic work.
Yes it worked for Boris on that front certainly as he became Union President etc but I agree had Cameron studied Greats rather than PPE I doubt he would have got a First either
I wonder whether Cameron would have managed a First in the 1950s or 60s. An interesting article in the Independent - written in 1999 - was titled ' What happened to the Oxbridge Third?'. It pointed out that back in 1960 30% of Oxbridge graduates came out with a Third class degree - but by 1999 a mere 5% did so. Doubtless the figure today is circa 3%. Rampant grade inflation has clearly affected all institutions
I rather think it's at least partly because Oxford is less of a social finishing school and networking centre for the upper classes than it used to be (along its role as an Anglican seminary). People are expected to work nowadays, lest their universities fail to meet the bureaucratic targets set, ironically, by the governments of the last couple of decades.
Perhaps some truth in that, but far more Oxbridge Firsts are being awarded nowadays and that itself doubtless reflects what has happened elsewhere. If other universities now give far more Firsts than 30 or 40 years ago, it must be difficult for Oxbridge to resist that trend. I do sometimes wonder whether back in the 1940s and 50s gaining a place at Oxbridge was as challenging as is the case today. Obviously far fewer would-be students were in the market anyway - at least as far as the state sector was concerned.
Do you feel that undergraduates were allowed to get away with the bare minimum (irrespective of their real abilities) in the 1970s and 1980s more than they would today? A friend of mine went there but did very little academic work as he was so busy with theatre - in which, however, he found his metier and career.
I went there in the ‘70s and suspect academically it’s a lot tougher now - but they do seem to be giving out Firsts a lot more generously....in my day it was around 10%:
I suspect this will give Labour more ammunition with a “mini-me tories” campaign against the LDs
Lib Dems are slow learners. Children who play with fire get burnt.
(On the other hand, it is plausible that these “Scottish Tory sources” are lying through their teeth. Not like that’s a new phenomenon.)
Other poss is that the SCUP are signalling their willingness to dump Labour and mate with LDs in local gmt alliances - and maybe also constituency voting on the principle that it's not worth bothering with the SLAB vote any more.
I understand the LDs have a strong position on Brexit but using a swear word as, essentially, general party branding must give some otherwise supportive people to rethink. Maybe I am just being old fashioned
Except Boris got his upper second in Classics, not PPE like Cameron
Meaning what exactly? We're supposed to be impressed by one and not the other? Clearly it bothers Boris so it being in a different, presumably harder, subject has not mollofied him.
A plausible explanation of the Cummings "game theory". Presumably the EU will say, No. At that point we will either crash out with Johnson trying to win an election on a manifesto of "we did it and isn't as bad as the Black Death", Johnson caves into the EU and tries to push a sub-May Deal through parliament or there is further delay.
Except Boris got his upper second in Classics, not PPE like Cameron
Meaning what exactly? We're supposed to be impressed by one and not the other? Clearly it bothers Boris so it being in a different, presumably harder, subject has not mollofied him.
It certainly bothers HYUFD. Self-esteem crisis. More like master's self-esteem crisis.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
On topic. The whole header misses the whole point. It’s not a question of length. It’s a question of due process. If the process says you ask for it explaining what you want it for, and honestly explain what you want it for, it’s legal. If you mislead the head of state in what you want it for, it clearly breaks the law because that is not how the process is supposed to work. After it was granted evidence emerged that the reasoning for it was not the honest one. It was a lie....
The header does not miss the point at all. The issue the SC is going to have to decide is whether it may even look into the process of prorogation, and if it can, then what tests it may apply. It’s fairly clear that the government lied - one can argue about that, but as far as the particular legal issue is concerned, that is irrelevant.
Courts will simply not get involved in decisions they class as political; they do not concern themselves with lies told in the course of political conduct.
On this, it is worth pointing out that the courts would not uphold Manifestos as being any sort of contract with the voters - it was implicit that politicians just have the freedom to lie and not be held to account for that.....
You are all such switched on and intelligent people, I can’t believe how you have got this completely wrong. Shutting a Parliament isn’t politics, it’s a question of democracy and constitution.
Which is the basis for the Scottish ruling (and which, FWiW, I agree with). But the English court took a completely different view, and the SC will have to decide between the two views.
That is more or less the position David set out in his header.
Mr. 67, I agree. Pro-EU types who actually want to try and make that sustainable need to win the electorate's approval. And in a deal versus remain choice, I think they'd have a fantastically good chance of doing so.
I suspect this will give Labour more ammunition with a “mini-me tories” campaign against the LDs
Lib Dems are slow learners. Children who play with fire get burnt.
(On the other hand, it is plausible that these “Scottish Tory sources” are lying through their teeth. Not like that’s a new phenomenon.)
Other poss is that the SCUP are signalling their willingness to dump Labour and mate with LDs in local gmt alliances - and maybe also constituency voting on the principle that it's not worth bothering with the SLAB vote any more.
Indeed. We usually focus on Edinburgh, London and Brussels, for obvious reasons. But when politicians start flirting with each other, it is often for more mundane reasons than sovereignty or constitutional principles. Good old-fashioned back-scratching and power politics.
On topic. The whole header misses the whole point. It’s not a question of length. It’s a question of due process. If the process says you ask for it explaining what you want it for, and honestly explain what you want it for, it’s legal. If you mislead the head of state in what you want it for, it clearly breaks the law because that is not how the process is supposed to work. After it was granted evidence emerged that the reasoning for it was not the honest one. It was a lie....
The header does not miss the point at all. The issue the SC is going to have to decide is whether it may even look into the process of prorogation, and if it can, then what tests it may apply. It’s fairly clear that the government lied - one can argue about that, but as far as the particular legal issue is concerned, that is irrelevant.
Courts will simply not get involved in decisions they class as political; they do not concern themselves with lies told in the course of political conduct.
On this, it is worth pointing out that the courts would not uphold Manifestos as being any sort of contract with the voters - it was implicit that politicians just have the freedom to lie and not be held to account for that.....
You are all such switched on and intelligent people, I can’t believe how you have got this completely wrong. Shutting a Parliament isn’t politics, it’s a question of democracy and constitution.
Which is the basis for the Scottish ruling (and which, FWiW, I agree with). But the English court took a completely different view, and the SC will have to decide between the two views.
That is more or less the position David set out in his header.
People are setting themselves up for a shock at Supreme Court ruling then. Because despite the howls, it’s not politics they will be meddling with.
On topic. The whole header misses the whole point. It’s not a question of length. It’s a question of due process. If the process says you ask for it explaining what you want it for, and honestly explain what you want it for, it’s legal. If you mislead the head of state in what you want it for, it clearly breaks the law because that is not how the process is supposed to work. After it was granted evidence emerged that the reasoning for it was not the honest one. It was a lie....
The header does not miss the point at all. The issue the SC is going to have to decide is whether it may even look into the process of prorogation, and if it can, then what tests it may apply. It’s fairly clear that the government lied - one can argue about that, but as far as the particular legal issue is concerned, that is irrelevant.
Courts will simply not get involved in decisions they class as political; they do not concern themselves with lies told in the course of political conduct.
On this, it is worth pointing out that the courts would not uphold Manifestos as being any sort of contract with the voters - it was implicit that politicians just have the freedom to lie and not be held to account for that.....
You are all such switched on and intelligent people, I can’t believe how you have got this completely wrong. Shutting a Parliament isn’t politics, it’s a question of democracy and constitution.
Which is the basis for the Scottish ruling (and which, FWiW, I agree with). But the English court took a completely different view, and the SC will have to decide between the two views.
That is more or less the position David set out in his header.
'Shutting a parliament' is just another term for prorogation, which has happened under all governments for centuries mostly without complaint. It is political considerations which makes this special and debatable. Nothing about prorogation is in principle undemocratic or unconstitutional.
t using a swear word as, essentially, general party branding must give some otherwise supportive people to rethink. Maybe I am just being old fashioned
Out of 200 or so canvassed voters since the slogan launched (all in non-LD wards), I've found "bollocks" confirmed one Leaver in her views, was a mild influence to switch to LD for about ten and slightly amused the few others who'd noticed at all.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
On topic. The whole header misses the whole point. It’s not a question of length. It’s a question of due process. If the process says you ask for it explaining what you want it for, and honestly explain what you want it for, it’s legal. If you mislead the head of state in what you want it for, it clearly breaks the law because that is not how the process is supposed to work. After it was granted evidence emerged that the reasoning for it was not the honest one. It was a lie....
The header does not miss the point at all. The issue the SC is going to have to decide is whether it may even look into the process of prorogation, and if it can, then what tests it may apply. It’s fairly clear that the government lied - one can argue about that, but as far as the particular legal issue is concerned, that is irrelevant.
Courts will simply not get involved in decisions they class as political; they do not concern themselves with lies told in the course of political conduct.
On this, it is worth pointing out that the courts would not uphold Manifestos as being any sort of contract with the voters - it was implicit that politicians just have the freedom to lie and not be held to account for that.....
You are all such switched on and intelligent people, I can’t believe how you have got this completely wrong. Shutting a Parliament isn’t politics, it’s a question of democracy and constitution.
Which is the basis for the Scottish ruling (and which, FWiW, I agree with). But the English court took a completely different view, and the SC will have to decide between the two views.
That is more or less the position David set out in his header.
'Shutting a parliament' is just another term for prorogation, which has happened under all governments for centuries mostly without complaint. It is political considerations which makes this special and debatable. Nothing about prorogation is in principle undemocratic or unconstitutional.
You are wrong with your spin. If you mislead the head of state in what you want it for, it clearly breaks the law because that is not how constitutional process is supposed to work.
Pointless or not I would say Classics is a harder degree at Oxford than PPE (especially if you majored in the politics rather than economics bit of the latter as Cameron did)
Getting a First in Greats probably is tougher than getting a First in PPE. But - and I say this with personal experience - getting a lower class Greats degree is a doddle.
.
Yes it worked for Boris on that front certainly as he became Union President etc but I agree had Cameron studied Greats rather than PPE I doubt he would have got a First either
I wonder whether Cameron would have managed a First in the 1950s or 60s. An interesting article in the Independent - written in 1999 - was titled ' What happened to the Oxbridge Third?'. It pointed out that back in 1960 30% of Oxbridge graduates came out with a Third class degree - but by 1999 a mere 5% did so. Doubtless the figure today is circa 3%. Rampant grade inflation has clearly affected all institutions
I rather think it's at least partly because Oxford is less of a social finishing school and networking centre for the upper classes than it used to be (along its role as an Anglican seminary). People are expected to work nowadays, lest their universities fail to meet the bureaucratic targets set, ironically, by the governments of the last couple of decades.
Perhaps some truth in that, but far more Oxbridge Firsts are being awarded nowadays and that itself doubtless reflects what has happened elsewhere. If other universities now give far more Firsts than 30 or 40 years ago, it must be difficult for Oxbridge to resist that trend. I do sometimes wonder whether back in the 1940s and 50s gaining a place at Oxbridge was as challenging as is the case today. Obviously far fewer would-be students were in the market anyway - at least as far as the state sector was concerned.
Do you feel that undergraduates were allowed to get away with the bare minimum (irrespective of their real abilities) in the 1970s and 1980s more than they would today? A friend of mine went there but did very little academic work as he was so busy with theatre - in which, however, he found his metier and career.
I am not sure that was the case as late as the 1970s and 1980s Entry via the Entrance Exams was very competitive by that time - I know of people with straight As at A level - under the former Relative Marking system - who failed to gain a place.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
They could have ran a campaign which worked for both Labour and Tory voters thinking of supporting them .
A simple you can’t trust Corbyn to deliver a second vote . They seem to have looked at hypothetical polling on revoke . But this is a forced choice . Given a choice of no deal or revoke is a different matter .
Equally they’re narrowing their voter pool. I think it might hurt them with some Tory voters especially .
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
No it is not "against democracy". The essence of democracy is that people stand on whatever platform they like and everyone is free to vote for whichever candidates they like. You don't want a party who will revoke, don't vote for them. I do, I'll probably vote for them. We both have an equal say.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
No it is not "against democracy". The essence of democracy is that people stand on whatever platform they like and everyone is free to vote for whichever candidates they like. You don't want a party who will revoke, don't vote for them. I do, I'll probably vote for them. We both have an equal say.
Whoever steering libdem policy, rank amateurs. The sort who think if you wear a poppy all year not just 11 days it means you care more than anyone else. No, sorry love, it means you just look juvenile.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
No it is not "against democracy". The essence of democracy is that people stand on whatever platform they like and everyone is free to vote for whichever candidates they like. You don't want a party who will revoke, don't vote for them. I do, I'll probably vote for them. We both have an equal say.
I can understand that but I’m just observing how it could reduce their chances . I’m a staunch Remainer , you’d be hard pressed to find anyone more pro EU but I feel revoke should come after another vote .
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
It's actually the most sensible route out of the mess and what an individual or company would do if it found that it didn't have a good way of executing a decision. You would put it off indefinitely and maybe revisit if the circumstances change.
The priority isn't however a sensible solution. The priority is an outcome that overinvested factions can live with. Which means the Vassal State, I think.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
No it is not "against democracy". The essence of democracy is that people stand on whatever platform they like and everyone is free to vote for whichever candidates they like. You don't want a party who will revoke, don't vote for them. I do, I'll probably vote for them. We both have an equal say.
I can understand that but I’m just observing how it could reduce their chances . I’m a staunch Remainer , you’d be hard pressed to find anyone more pro EU but I feel revoke should come after another vote .
If you're confident that voting Labour will lead to Remaining then you could support them. If you're confident that the LibDems will not get an overall majority, then it makes more sense to vote for them as an unequivocal Remain vote. If you think that there's a possibility of a Labour minority win which would need LibDem Confidence and Supply then vote for the one most likely to win your constituency (provided the Labour candidate is a Remainer).
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
No it is not "against democracy". The essence of democracy is that people stand on whatever platform they like and everyone is free to vote for whichever candidates they like. You don't want a party who will revoke, don't vote for them. I do, I'll probably vote for them. We both have an equal say.
Nonsense - it is without doubt a step against democracy. However a completely understandable one if you try to run two democratic systems one versus the other.
Given there's a contradiction then they should probably have let the clearest view of the people decide, and yet they've chosen the opposite. Somehow they know best. It may even be true, but it's ugly.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
No it is not "against democracy". The essence of democracy is that people stand on whatever platform they like and everyone is free to vote for whichever candidates they like. You don't want a party who will revoke, don't vote for them. I do, I'll probably vote for them. We both have an equal say.
I can understand that but I’m just observing how it could reduce their chances . I’m a staunch Remainer , you’d be hard pressed to find anyone more pro EU but I feel revoke should come after another vote .
Yes, that's a view I understand (and I disgaree, but we can agree to disagree on that). The only thing I object to is the notion that democracy consists in a narrowly defined list of allowed policies that more or less conform to promises made by someone else. I can explain to you why I'm in favour of revoke but to be perfectly honest it doesn't matter. I want revoke (millions of us do). When any activist knocks on my door, that's the message they will get from me. What other people do is entirely their choice, but I vote for my beliefs, not theirs.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
No it is not "against democracy". The essence of democracy is that people stand on whatever platform they like and everyone is free to vote for whichever candidates they like. You don't want a party who will revoke, don't vote for them. I do, I'll probably vote for them. We both have an equal say.
I can understand that but I’m just observing how it could reduce their chances . I’m a staunch Remainer , you’d be hard pressed to find anyone more pro EU but I feel revoke should come after another vote .
Straight revoke seems very naive. It is the diametric opposite of no deal.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
A more pertinent response would be that a party called 'Conservative and Unionists' while run by nihilists trying to smash every union they can think of doesn't ring true either.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
No it is not "against democracy". The essence of democracy is that people stand on whatever platform they like and everyone is free to vote for whichever candidates they like. You don't want a party who will revoke, don't vote for them. I do, I'll probably vote for them. We both have an equal say.
I can understand that but I’m just observing how it could reduce their chances . I’m a staunch Remainer , you’d be hard pressed to find anyone more pro EU but I feel revoke should come after another vote .
Straight revoke seems very naive. It is the diametric opposite of no deal.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
A more pertinent response would be that a party called 'Conservative and Unionists' while run by nihilists trying to smash every union they can think of doesn't ring true either.
Yes, you get the feeling Boris would change the Tories' name to The Brexit Party if it wasn't already taken!
The big advantage of straight revoke is that it would allow us time to do the whole thing again but this time actually get it right.
The big disadvantage is that under such circumstances 'which part of Leave are you too thick to understand?' would be a question that Remain might have some trouble answering.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
A more pertinent response would be that a party called 'Conservative and Unionists' while run by nihilists trying to smash every union they can think of doesn't ring true either.
Yes, you get the feeling Boris would change the Tories' name to The Brexit Party if it wasn't already taken!
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
It is pretty much the only area I disagree with the Lib Dems on.
Surely that has to be the end of Bairstow's Test career. Foakes, Pope and Brown would all do better with the bat and at least two of them are better glovemen.
Let him open in the one day stuff and slog his heart out.
The big advantage of straight revoke is that it would allow us time to do the whole thing again but this time actually get it right.
The big disadvantage is that under such circumstances 'which part of Leave are you too thick to understand?' would be a question that Remain might have some trouble answering.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
No it is not "against democracy". The essence of democracy is that people stand on whatever platform they like and everyone is free to vote for whichever candidates they like. You don't want a party who will revoke, don't vote for them. I do, I'll probably vote for them. We both have an equal say.
I can understand that but I’m just observing how it could reduce their chances . I’m a staunch Remainer , you’d be hard pressed to find anyone more pro EU but I feel revoke should come after another vote .
Straight revoke seems very naive. It is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Exactly no compromise .
If the objective is to heal wounds and unite the nation it is not a good move.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
Why should an unelected Prime Minister who is yet to win a vote in the House of Commons have an election at his convenience? It is only two years since the last one was held.
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
Why should an unelected Prime Minister who is yet to win a vote in the House of Commons have an election at his convenience? It is only two years since the last one was held.
Because he's unelected and parliament disagrees with him on his main policy.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
Revoking would put us back where we were before Cameron's referendum. Anyone threatening violence following a democratically decided election would have to answer to the law.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
Why should an unelected Prime Minister who is yet to win a vote in the House of Commons have an election at his convenience? It is only two years since the last one was held.
He clearly doesn't have the confidence of the house. Isn't an election normal in those circumstances?
The other problem with the NI only approach is that it does nothing for mainland Britain. At least May's Deal came with the bare bones of EU UK customs arrangement. If May's Deal was a turd (Johnson's term) his own deal is two turds. How is he going to get that through?
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
Why should an unelected Prime Minister who is yet to win a vote in the House of Commons have an election at his convenience? It is only two years since the last one was held.
He clearly doesn't have the confidence of the house. Isn't an election normal in those circumstances?
A prime minister without the confidence of the House should never have been appointed by Her Majesty.
The Tories are dragging the monarchy through the mud.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
Why should an unelected Prime Minister who is yet to win a vote in the House of Commons have an election at his convenience? It is only two years since the last one was held.
He clearly doesn't have the confidence of the house. Isn't an election normal in those circumstances?
A prime minister without the confidence of the House should never have been appointed by Her Majesty.
The Tories are dragging the monarchy through the mud.
The government had an effective majority when he was appointed. It no longer does.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
Why should an unelected Prime Minister who is yet to win a vote in the House of Commons have an election at his convenience? It is only two years since the last one was held.
Because he's unelected and parliament disagrees with him on his main policy.
So he shouldn’t have accepted the office. It’s not for his political opponents to help him out of his booby trap. They’re entitled to strip him of all dignity through the powers of Parliament and dispose of him when they think fit, not when he pleads to be allowed to go. Leavers wanted Parliamentary sovereignty but seem to hate the reality of the thing.
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
Revoking would put us back where we were before Cameron's referendum. Anyone threatening violence following a democratically decided election would have to answer to the law.
Good luck in putting that genie back in the bottle. We have had a referendum. The Prime Minister told us he would implelment the decision of the voters. Yet the elected politicians/Establishment class will have conspired to prevent its implementation. You think that has no consequence?
The other problem with the NI only approach is that it does nothing for mainland Britain. At least May's Deal came with the bare bones of EU UK customs arrangement. If May's Deal was a turd (Johnson's term) his own deal is two turds. How is he going to get that through?
That’s an interesting strategy . I’m beginning to like Bozo . As a way of self soothing to get over the Brexit trauma the DUP getting screwed would give me immense pleasure.
The fact they supported Leave having lived with the troubles for so long was disgusting.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
There's not a lot "conservative" about the "Conservative and Unionist Party these days.......
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
If you're saying I should support a policy because other people will get violent if I don't, my answer is a calm but clear "fuck off". I don't attack people and property when things don't go my way, and I don't yield to people who do. So tell them, if you know anyone who truly will turn to violence, tell them from me. Tell them I said for them to fuck off.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
Why should an unelected Prime Minister who is yet to win a vote in the House of Commons have an election at his convenience? It is only two years since the last one was held.
He clearly doesn't have the confidence of the house. Isn't an election normal in those circumstances?
A prime minister without the confidence of the House should never have been appointed by Her Majesty.
The Tories are dragging the monarchy through the mud.
It's an outrage. I thought that was the monarchy's job.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
Why should an unelected Prime Minister who is yet to win a vote in the House of Commons have an election at his convenience? It is only two years since the last one was held.
He clearly doesn't have the confidence of the house. Isn't an election normal in those circumstances?
A prime minister without the confidence of the House should never have been appointed by Her Majesty.
The Tories are dragging the monarchy through the mud.
It's an outrage. I thought that was the monarchy's job.
Appointing the leader of a party that had an effective majority in the Commons is an outrage? OK.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
Why should an unelected Prime Minister who is yet to win a vote in the House of Commons have an election at his convenience? It is only two years since the last one was held.
because the country deserves better than a minority government that can't win any votes?
'As it sands, the umpires have kept their fingers down.'
It's very nice of Tim Paine to show mercy on us and not review any of the LBWs
I think you missed the unfortunate typo...
Highest run chase at the oval was 263-9 - 117 years ago when Gilbert Jessop went berserk - so in theory England should already have enough. But with Steve Smith in such incredible form they will want well over 400 and they are not going to get it now.
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
Revoking would put us back where we were before Cameron's referendum. Anyone threatening violence following a democratically decided election would have to answer to the law.
Good luck in putting that genie back in the bottle. We have had a referendum. The Prime Minister told us he would implelment the decision of the voters. Yet the elected politicians/Establishment class will have conspired to prevent its implementation. You think that has no consequence?
The ERG as much as anybody have stopped us leaving already. We have had two more Prime Ministers since then. An election in which a Revoke party won would certainly supercede the close referendum three years ago. But, lets face it, it is very unlikely that the LibDems will get a majority. However they are free to choose to campaign on Revoke if they want to and people are free to vote for them. That's democracy.
The other problem with the NI only approach is that it does nothing for mainland Britain. At least May's Deal came with the bare bones of EU UK customs arrangement. If May's Deal was a turd (Johnson's term) his own deal is two turds. How is he going to get that through?
That’s an interesting strategy . I’m beginning to like Bozo . As a way of self soothing to get over the Brexit trauma the DUP getting screwed would give me immense pleasure.
The fact they supported Leave having lived with the troubles for so long was disgusting.
I think the DUP have been rather good, rather than 'disgusting' in all this. They've been clear, consistent and reasonable.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Comments
1 ex Tory to LD this evening (not Heidi Allen, possibly Sam Gyimah)
1 Lab to LD now being rumoured (no name guesses yet)
Equally maximum periods may not work as there may be times when nothing needs to be debated so a longer 5 week prorogation could make sense
So I suspect were the Supreme Court to decide they had to make a decision I suspect they will decide that given that this prorogation is designed to get around the Miller case , the prorogation May be in breech
https://gazette.web.ox.ac.uk/files/finalhonourschoolsbacheloroffineart2018-1tono5248pdf
(On the other hand, it is plausible that these “Scottish Tory sources” are lying through their teeth. Not like that’s a new phenomenon.)
Maybe I am just being old fashioned
Since it is widely ignored why is this silly still on the statute books ?
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Here-Stay-Mark-Edwards/dp/1721367926/ref=nodl_
Tremendous fun. Very highly recommended
But the English court took a completely different view, and the SC will have to decide between the two views.
That is more or less the position David set out in his header.
The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign.
If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look.
I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads.
Remain by all means but with a referendum.
A simple you can’t trust Corbyn to deliver a second vote . They seem to have looked at hypothetical polling on revoke . But this is a forced choice . Given a choice of no deal or revoke is a different matter .
Equally they’re narrowing their voter pool. I think it might hurt them with some Tory voters especially .
You don't want a party who will revoke, don't vote for them. I do, I'll probably vote for them. We both have an equal say.
Almost as annoying as a bride who arrives 30 minutes late.
The priority isn't however a sensible solution. The priority is an outcome that overinvested factions can live with. Which means the Vassal State, I think.
If you're confident that the LibDems will not get an overall majority, then it makes more sense to vote for them as an unequivocal Remain vote.
If you think that there's a possibility of a Labour minority win which would need LibDem Confidence and Supply then vote for the one most likely to win your constituency (provided the Labour candidate is a Remainer).
Given there's a contradiction then they should probably have let the clearest view of the people decide, and yet they've chosen the opposite. Somehow they know best. It may even be true, but it's ugly.
The only thing I object to is the notion that democracy consists in a narrowly defined list of allowed policies that more or less conform to promises made by someone else. I can explain to you why I'm in favour of revoke but to be perfectly honest it doesn't matter. I want revoke (millions of us do). When any activist knocks on my door, that's the message they will get from me. What other people do is entirely their choice, but I vote for my beliefs, not theirs.
As for Nelson, it's rendered England's batting totally armless. We'll be lucky to get a lead of 350 here.
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
The big disadvantage is that under such circumstances 'which part of Leave are you too thick to understand?' would be a question that Remain might have some trouble answering.
I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
Let him open in the one day stuff and slog his heart out.
Anyway if the Lib Dems do adopt this policy it will be interesting to see what their polling does .
I would have thought that they might have done some focus groups and their own polling before moving to this policy .
Anyone threatening violence following a democratically decided election would have to answer to the law.
https://twitter.com/DPhinnemore/status/1172838975158939648
The Tories are dragging the monarchy through the mud.
The fact they supported Leave having lived with the troubles for so long was disgusting.
'As it sands, the umpires have kept their fingers down.'
There's not a lot "conservative" about the "Conservative and Unionist Party these days.......
I’d be far more impressed with your foresight if you could identify a competent, honest, likeable Tory.
I don't attack people and property when things don't go my way, and I don't yield to people who do. So tell them, if you know anyone who truly will turn to violence, tell them from me. Tell them I said for them to fuck off.
Highest run chase at the oval was 263-9 - 117 years ago when Gilbert Jessop went berserk - so in theory England should already have enough. But with Steve Smith in such incredible form they will want well over 400 and they are not going to get it now.
An election in which a Revoke party won would certainly supercede the close referendum three years ago.
But, lets face it, it is very unlikely that the LibDems will get a majority. However they are free to choose to campaign on Revoke if they want to and people are free to vote for them. That's democracy.
Other Irish politicians have done less well.
As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)