politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the Brexit negotiations reach a critical point the latest Y

OK. The Libs have commissioned an opinion poll in one target seat in which they claim an apparently extraordinary swing towards them. However, in that seat, the Remain vote percentage (69%) is within the top decile in the country and Labour is probably harder hit by the consequences of its anti-semitism than anywhere else in the country. It's also in the part of the country where the Libs are anyway polling most strongly judging from cross breaks (eg. 29% today with YouGov in London compared to 14% in the North and Midlands/Wales.) They persuaded Survation to use a poll format that tends to help them (i.e. named candidate prompt which turned out to distort results in 2015) and one which was clearly not even handed given that Labour are without a named candidate after the resignation of the previous one. There may have been other designed push features they are not disclosing (eg. ordering the VI question to follow others say about Brexit in a Remain heavy seat, or about anti-semitism to prompt concerns with Labour). There may also have been polls in constituencies with results that don't suit the Libs and which they are thus keeping to themselves, and so we may only be seeing the outlier.

In summary, I don't think the Lib Dems can be trusted to commission unbiased constituency polls and regardless the results shouldn't be treated as being of relevance beyond that one constituency, other than reinforcing other evidence of a lot of voter churn.

What is of national relevance today in terms of the Lib Dems is the YouGov poll showing that them falling back again on the back of the Conservatives achieving another new polling high under Johnson. i.e. 18% today for the Libs compared to 22% in the last but one poll.

basicbridge said:

El_Capitano said:

Charles said:

noneoftheabove said:

Charles said:

OldKingCole said:

Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

The ones who believe the LibDems that you don’t need a popular mandate for radical change

The mandate for the most radical change, no deal, was 1.8% of the UK electorate at the last GE. If 1.8% is ok for no deal why isnt the 35%+ the LDs would need ok for revoke (which isnt radical change, at least yet)?

Parliamentary mandates are different to referendum mandates

The referendum instruction was to leave

The general election established a body of people who should have oversight on the executive’s negotiations on *how* we leave

They have taken it on themselves to try and ignore the referendum mandate instead

...is certainly one way of looking at it. Another way is that the advisory referendum was a request with no statutory force, not formally an instruction.

Not for me to pronounce on which is correct (if there is such a thing), but I don't think you can really accuse Parliament of "trying to ignore the referendum mandate", given that they've spent the last three years talking about little else.

"Advisory" referendum. In other words one you think you can ignore. Weasely.

Fortunately you seem to be well out of tune with the public.

Nope. Many who use advisory may indeed wish to ignore the referendum but that's not a given. Advisory is legal fact but it absolute needed to be considered and scred upon. People should not throw tantrums about the legal status point, since mps triggering A50 knowing what it could mean means the legal status does not matter.

Richard_Nabavi said:

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1184425557402030083
https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1184425560300277760

The whole thread is worth looking at.

I hope they dont say a longer extension is for that purpose. It would be so, but better to be clear it is so uk can consider all its options, and thus not appear to direct us.

basicbridge said:

Scott_P said:

basicbridge said:

We had a proper poll, Mike. It was called a "referendum". It was one where participants and politicians all promised to respect the outcome. Even though i didnt vote for that i respect it.

We have spent 3 years of blood an treasure on it.

How much more "respect" are you looking for?

Indeed. With much of that time spent in attempts to frustrate that vote by those who said they would, and then failed, to respect it.

The Labour Party manifesto was against a "Tory Deal"; the Tory Party manifesto was to leave with the best possible deal in an orderly manner; the LibDems? No idea.

So this is parliamentary democracy in action, don'tcha love it. We the people decided against giving anyone a clear mandate to do anything and this is the obvious result.

As you will know well because you worked this all out before you voted Leave.

Pulpstar said:

These are the same poll

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1184414037901221888

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1184425368758956033

Go on LibDems, share with us the polling in Totnes.....

OldKingCole said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

OldKingCole said:

Nigelb said:

Freggles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

Was the sample size really 400?

Yes, but it's not exactly a close result

There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...

Do Liberal Clubs now have a relationship with the LibDems?

I'm assured, on stacks of bibles, that the local Conservative (or Con) Club has nothing whatsoever to do with the political party of that name.
I'm very interested because they're about to hold a beer festival with all beers (and ciders) at £3 a pint. The poster says it it's open to non-members, but I'm a bit worried about being seen there.

The traditional purpose of a Conservative Club was for Tory grandees to ply working men with free beer before voting. Selling expensive beer to OAPs is a radical change.

I don't know where you are but round here £3 a pint is inexpensive. If your local price is lower I'd be interested.

Beer festivals usually have a fee of about £2 for entrance, programme and glass. Of course if you stay there all night and getting utterly rat arsed on 10 pints that's only 20p to add to your £3.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1184444300706353152

I'm bored by Brexit but this guy seems to know his onions.

Charles said:

noneoftheabove said:

Charles said:

noneoftheabove said:

Charles said:

OldKingCole said:

Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

The ones who believe the LibDems that you don’t need a popular mandate for radical change

The mandate for the most radical change, no deal, was 1.8% of the UK electorate at the last GE. If 1.8% is ok for no deal why isnt the 35%+ the LDs would need ok for revoke (which isnt radical change, at least yet)?

Parliamentary mandates are different to referendum mandates

The referendum instruction was to leave

The general election established a body of people who should have oversight on the executive’s negotiations on *how* we leave

They have taken it on themselves to try and ignore the referendum mandate instead

Yes the PM has ignored the referendum mandate. He voted against and torpedoed the WA for his personal political gain. Having promised a deal he now threatens the country with no deal which has no mandate. What a shame.

Leaving with no deal is leaving. The referendum vote didn’t put any restrictions on how.

The referendum vote also didn’t put any restrictions on when.

Ishmael_Z said:

OldKingCole said:

Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

Surprised it's not 93%, most of the leavers on here now seem to be in the "It's the worst thing to happen to the country since the bubonic plague, but you have to respect therwilloftherpeople before you disrespect it, innit?" camp.

In total seriousness I've seen people argue that the bubonic plague was really good for workers, because it lead to a sharp increase in wages. After all, if a quarter of the labourers have died, farms have to pay well to get your to help with their harvest rather the farm just up the way.
Just goes to show that you can spin almost anything -- including a pandemic -- if you desperately care enough about showing it to be a good thing.

Alanbrooke said:

Carnyx said:

Alanbrooke said:

Carnyx said:

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.

Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling

Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...

everyone is fighting over NI, no-one is fighting over Scotland, quality earns a premium

In terms of different treatments, I'm actually wondering if Mr Johnson is quietly threatening the DUP with a referendum on leaving the UK if they don't play ball.

well its a good ploy. Ireland would be bankrupt as a consequence.

That would appeal to the DUP.

Brom said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1184433654057132033

It's rather worrying this guy was ever employed by the BBC. He appears to be a complete lunatic.

If you listen to the same people at the same dinner parties and follow the same people saying the same things on Twitter day in day out then yep, you will sadly go round the bend.

At least coming here you get informed and smart opinions from all sides, with pepperings from the odd village idiot, like me.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

OK. The Libs have commissioned an opinion poll in one target seat in which they claim an apparently extraordinary swing towards them. However, in that seat, the Remain vote percentage (69%) is within the top decile in the country and Labour is probably harder hit by the consequences of its anti-semitism than anywhere else in the country. It's also in the part of the country where the Libs are anyway polling most strongly judging from cross breaks (eg. 29% today with YouGov in London compared to 14% in the North and Midlands/Wales.) They persuaded Survation to use a poll format that tends to help them (i.e. named candidate prompt which turned out to distort results in 2015) and one which was clearly not even handed given that Labour are without a named candidate after the resignation of the previous one. There may have been other designed push features they are not disclosing (eg. ordering the VI question to follow others say about Brexit in a Remain heavy seat, or about anti-semitism to prompt concerns with Labour). There may also have been polls in constituencies with results that don't suit the Libs and which they are thus keeping to themselves, and so we may only be seeing the outlier.

In summary, I don't think the Lib Dems can be trusted to commission unbiased constituency polls and regardless the results shouldn't be treated as being of relevance beyond that one constituency, other than reinforcing other evidence of a lot of voter churn.

What is of national relevance today in terms of the Lib Dems is the YouGov poll showing that them falling back again on the back of the Conservatives achieving another new polling high under Johnson. i.e. 18% today for the Libs compared to 22% in the last but one poll.

ANY political party commissioned poll should be treated as such.
Do you think that the Tories, or any other party, "can be trusted to commission unbiased constituency polls".
On the other hand it could give an indication that Fichley is a possibility for Berger.

OldKingCole said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

OldKingCole said:

Nigelb said:

Freggles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

Was the sample size really 400?

Yes, but it's not exactly a close result

There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...

Do Liberal Clubs now have a relationship with the LibDems?

I'm assured, on stacks of bibles, that the local Conservative (or Con) Club has nothing whatsoever to do with the political party of that name.
I'm very interested because they're about to hold a beer festival with all beers (and ciders) at £3 a pint. The poster says it it's open to non-members, but I'm a bit worried about being seen there.

The traditional purpose of a Conservative Club was for Tory grandees to ply working men with free beer before voting. Selling expensive beer to OAPs is a radical change.

I don't know where you are but round here £3 a pint is inexpensive. If your local price is lower I'd be interested.

Waitrose £1.50. Sainsburys £1.25. Nicer ambience than a Conservative Club, too.

TGOHF2 said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyrte/status/1184444300706353152?s=21

Others are hearing this isn't the case.

Gonna be a long afternoon...

MikeSmithson said:

isam said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.

If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.

We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.

That’s a very dangerous philosophy

Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament

No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government

Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?

The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.

Didn't the vote to invoke A50 banish the desperate "advisory" comfort blanket?

148grss said:

FPT: You may disagree with their policy positions, but Warren and Sanders can actually string words together.

Yep. Biden's answer is verging on Trumpian in its incoherence.

Warren's answer is superb; Sanders' is good on the passion and moral angle but doesn't inspire much confidence that he's on top of the detail.

williamglenn said:

Alanbrooke said:

Carnyx said:

Alanbrooke said:

Carnyx said:

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.

Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling

Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...

everyone is fighting over NI, no-one is fighting over Scotland, quality earns a premium

In terms of different treatments, I'm actually wondering if Mr Johnson is quietly threatening the DUP with a referendum on leaving the UK if they don't play ball.

well its a good ploy. Ireland would be bankrupt as a consequence.

That would appeal to the DUP.

maybe yes maybe no lots of their voters earn their livelihood from intra Ireland trade.

On the other hand Varadkars positioning on no DUP veto is bizarre for a man who wants them to be 15% of his country's electorate. That would be like wishing for a permanent veto in place given the closeness of Irish elections.

Alphabet_Soup said:

OldKingCole said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

OldKingCole said:

Nigelb said:

Freggles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

Was the sample size really 400?

Yes, but it's not exactly a close result

There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...

Do Liberal Clubs now have a relationship with the LibDems?

I'm assured, on stacks of bibles, that the local Conservative (or Con) Club has nothing whatsoever to do with the political party of that name.
I'm very interested because they're about to hold a beer festival with all beers (and ciders) at £3 a pint. The poster says it it's open to non-members, but I'm a bit worried about being seen there.

The traditional purpose of a Conservative Club was for Tory grandees to ply working men with free beer before voting. Selling expensive beer to OAPs is a radical change.

I don't know where you are but round here £3 a pint is inexpensive. If your local price is lower I'd be interested.

Waitrose £1.50. Sainsburys £1.25. Nicer ambience than a Conservative Club, too.

I do like drinking in a social situation, and, at a festival, comparing notes, though. And I don't like bottled or canned beers. Lager's OK-ish, but only on a hot day!

AlastairMeeks said:

Brom said:

MikeSmithson said:

isam said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.

If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.

We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.

That’s a very dangerous philosophy

Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament

No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government

Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?

The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.

If the public don't respect or offer consent to an 'advisory referendum' then it's a pretty small leap in the minds of most that they might not respect or offer respect to a general election. At that point we no longer have a democracy.

The points about the referendum may have been more valid had both sides not put their heart and soul into the campaign and the turnout not been at unprecedented levels.

While formally advisory, the referendum was in practice politically binding.

Similarly, while Leavers might formally point to the question on the ballot paper, in practice the mandate needs to be understood in the context of the campaign fought.

Leavers are very ready to accept the first point but inexplicably strongly hostile to being brought back to the campaign fought.

That's because the first point is correct, and the second is nonsense

MarqueeMark said:

MikeSmithson said:

isam said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.

If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.

We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.

That’s a very dangerous philosophy

Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament

No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government

Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?

The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.

The Govt. spent £7m telling every household in the country that they would enact whatever we voted.

"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."

Fine, but that only binds the government. Backbench and opposition MPs are entitled (and indeed supposed) to take their own view.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

OldKingCole said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

OldKingCole said:

Nigelb said:

Freggles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Survation and constituency polling wasn’t a happy relationship in the past.

Was the sample size really 400?

Yes, but it's not exactly a close result

There is that - but they might have conducted it in the Liberal Club...

Do Liberal Clubs now have a relationship with the LibDems?

I'm assured, on stacks of bibles, that the local Conservative (or Con) Club has nothing whatsoever to do with the political party of that name.
I'm very interested because they're about to hold a beer festival with all beers (and ciders) at £3 a pint. The poster says it it's open to non-members, but I'm a bit worried about being seen there.

The traditional purpose of a Conservative Club was for Tory grandees to ply working men with free beer before voting. Selling expensive beer to OAPs is a radical change.

I don't know where you are but round here £3 a pint is inexpensive. If your local price is lower I'd be interested.

Beer festivals usually have a fee of about £2 for entrance, programme and glass. Of course if you stay there all night and getting utterly rat arsed on 10 pints that's only 20p to add to your £3.

Yes; our summer one is something like that. This one appears to be free entry, though.

TGOHF2 said:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyrte/status/1184444300706353152?s=21

If Deal gets 7 out of 10 DUP, loses a few Spartans (up to 10), up to 10 Europhiles (Grieve, Rudd, Liddington, Boles) but gains at least 10 Lab/Indies (Hoey, Mann, Onn, Flint, Snell etc) then it should sneak through.

If it does look like getting passed it will be interesting to see if Rudd & Grieve's lot reluctantly support it or they end their Tory careers there and then as anti Brexit martyrs.

Alanbrooke said:

Carnyx said:

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.

Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling

Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...

everyone is fighting over NI, no-one is fighting over Scotland, quality earns a premium

The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

dyedwoolie said:

Arlene says no agreement yet

Every day we should curse Theresa May for landing us in this position where the unhinged DUP can hold us all to ransom.

https://twitter.com/DUPleader/status/1184447621106143234

Deleted.

MarqueeMark said:

MikeSmithson said:

isam said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.

If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.

We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.

That’s a very dangerous philosophy

Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament

No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government

Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?

The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.

The Govt. spent £7m telling every household in the country that they would enact whatever we voted.

"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."

I wasn't actually thinking about the referendum. But more generally. "Respect" is used a lot by lots of people. People demanding respect for whatever they say and do. Others saying that they respect stuff when they clearly don't.

And I don't buy it. It's just humbug. Respect needs to be earned not demanded. I'm not going to respect something which I don't think worthy of respect. And if that annoys the person demanding it, well, tough.

sarissa said:

Alanbrooke said:

Carnyx said:

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

Amazing that everything depends on a handful of rogues from NI. Boris and others grovelling and throwing cash at them. What a pathetic state this wretched union is in. They deserve all they are going to get.

Whereas you lot automatically get your cut via the Barnett formula without all this unseemly wrestling

Eh? The Barnett formula (now in any case much eroded) is what NI are getting, plus all this bribery ...

everyone is fighting over NI, no-one is fighting over Scotland, quality earns a premium

The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

none squeakier

TheValiant said:

Pulpstar said:

These are the same poll

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1184414037901221888

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1184425368758956033

Looking at that, you'd think she (Berger) would be a shoo-in, but I always think in a GE campaign, on the day a lot of people wobble in the voting booth (I know I have).

She certainly can win. I think she will struggle.

For the record, I can't stand the woman. She comes in here (Merseyside) and gets dumped in a nice safe Labour seat. When her politics change, she neither holds a by-election in her own seat, but then scuttles off to a more winnable seat just because she knows she'll get an absolute kicking.

I do hope she fails in her bid, despite probably going to vote LD myself at the next GE.

I get your sentiments. I think the Lib Dems might have done better to refuse to accept retreads from the other parties.

GIN1138 said:

God that fella yelling "Stop Brexit" outside Parliament all day every day is a bloody nuisance

He must be a Leaver in disguise.

MarqueeMark said:

MikeSmithson said:

isam said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.

If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.

We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.

That’s a very dangerous philosophy

Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament

No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government

Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?

The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.

The Govt. spent £7m telling every household in the country that they would enact whatever we voted.

"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."

That was, FWIW, a previous government.
The current one just spent £100m on an advertising campaign telling us to get ready to leave without a deal in two weeks' time...

Charles said:

noneoftheabove said:

Charles said:

noneoftheabove said:

Charles said:

OldKingCole said:

Who on earth are the 3% of Brexit Party voters who think we wrong to vote to Leave?

The ones who believe the LibDems that you don’t need a popular mandate for radical change

The mandate for the most radical change, no deal, was 1.8% of the UK electorate at the last GE. If 1.8% is ok for no deal why isnt the 35%+ the LDs would need ok for revoke (which isnt radical change, at least yet)?

Parliamentary mandates are different to referendum mandates

The referendum instruction was to leave

The general election established a body of people who should have oversight on the executive’s negotiations on *how* we leave

They have taken it on themselves to try and ignore the referendum mandate instead

Yes the PM has ignored the referendum mandate. He voted against and torpedoed the WA for his personal political gain. Having promised a deal he now threatens the country with no deal which has no mandate. What a shame.

Leaving with no deal is leaving. The referendum vote didn’t put any restrictions on how.

So it would be OK if the other parties ganged up and delivered a Norway-style deal? (Which is also leaving)

MarqueeMark said:

MikeSmithson said:

isam said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.

If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.

We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.

That’s a very dangerous philosophy

Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament

No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government

Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?

The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.

The Govt. spent £7m telling every household in the country that they would enact whatever we voted.

"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."

Take it up with the Conservative PM at the time, who buggered off the second the results were in. He and his Conservative Government are the people who must answer to that. The legislation that PARLIAMENT passed said no such thing.

dyedwoolie said:

https://twitter.com/DUPleader/status/1184447621106143234?s=19

No! No! No!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zSWlAHD29M&t=16s

GIN1138 said:

dyedwoolie said:

Arlene says no agreement yet

Every day we should curse Theresa May for landing us in this position where the unhinged DUP can hold us all to ransom.

I blame the voters.....

Yellow_Submarine said:

That Lib Dem polling is about herding cats. This election will see a huge out break of candidatitis as well as inexperienced #FBPE activists go8ng off in tangents as well as wasting their time in Uxbridge. Polling showing a possible gain against the Tories will help herd cats. It manufactures activist consent to a targeting strategy.

It’s about making clear Labour can’t win the seat - which they most probably can’t, given the nature of the seat and the unlikelihood of improving on the result last time with everything that has happened since. Labour being seen as out of the race is a precondition to setting up a head to head with the Tories.

Richard_Nabavi said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Take it up with the Conservative PM at the time, who buggered off the second the results were in. He and his Conservative Government are the people who must answer to that. The legislation that PARLIAMENT passed said no such thing.

@MarqueeMark is making the very reasonable point that what David Cameron said could be relied upon, but what Boris, Gove, Raab, Farage etc said was obvious froth which no-one should have taken seriously.

It's traditional in any kind of vote that only the losing side's promises are to be honoured.

GIN1138 said:

God that fella yelling "Stop Brexit" outside Parliament all day every day is a bloody nuisance

I agree with him but he is annoying! I was having a sleep earlier with the TV on and he woke me up! I find shouting men instigates a feeling of fear as well....

MarqueeMark said:

GIN1138 said:

dyedwoolie said:

Arlene says no agreement yet

Every day we should curse Theresa May for landing us in this position where the unhinged DUP can hold us all to ransom.

I blame the voters.....

When she decided to start threatening her own voters it was only ever going to end in tears...

Carnyx said:

Alanbrooke said:

Carnyx said:

GIN1138 said:

dyedwoolie said:

Arlene says no agreement yet

Every day we should curse Theresa May for landing us in this position where the unhinged DUP can hold us all to ransom.

https://twitter.com/DUPleader/status/1184447621106143234

Interesting to see Ms Foster's concern for the nationalists.

currently on abortion the DUP are the last line of defence for the Catholic Church

Surely only as an incidental effect of the fact that they are the l. l. of d. for the Presbyterian kirk there.

most proddy churches are more liberal bar a handful in the wee free mould. NI opinion is largely in favour of reform on abortion and gay marriage.

isam said:

MikeSmithson said:

isam said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?

The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.

Didn't the vote to invoke A50 banish the desperate "advisory" comfort blanket?

Yes it did. MPs were daft to vote for it if they didn't want the referendum result implemented. Ken Clarke was always more honest about this than others.

There were perhaps two explanations for why they acted as they did: (1) they were scared of their voters if they voted against Art. 50; (2) they thought there would be a reasonable deal and therefore didn't realise they might be impaled on their vote later. (Or, I suppose, they voted that way with never any intention to enact it when it came to it.)

Fundamentally the problem always has been that having referenda in a system which is essentially based around Parliamentary democracy rather than direct democracy - as in the Swiss model - has created tensions which the government and MPs have been trying - and failing - to resolve ever since. The Swiss seem to manage referenda but they've had time to think about how to do it and their system of governance is different to ours. Little thought was given to how to bolt on a referendum on such an important question in our system and it has been showing the strain ever since.

It is a mess and if we do end up with a deal it will be agreed to out of exhaustion rather than any genuine belief that it is any good. Even Steve Barclay, the current Brexit Secretary, said in the last day, that the reason the proposed new deal is better than May's is because it can get the votes in Parliament. A quite extraordinary statement if you think about it. A deal is good not because of its own objective qualities or the benefits it brings to the citizens of this country but simply because some MPs can now be persuaded to vote for it.

How such a deal is meant to bring about a lasting settlement on Britain's relationship with the EU I don't know. But no-one seems to care about that. It is a plant with the shallowest of roots and, if you'll excuse the gardening metaphor, will be unlikely to survive any sort of adverse conditions.

Yellow_Submarine said:

MarqueeMark said:

MikeSmithson said:

isam said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

This may sound controversial but I don't see why we should respect something if we think it unworthy of respect.

If X says or does something stupid, they're free to do so. It's possible to accept that they have the freedom to do so while still thinking that what they're doing or saying is irredeemably foolish. This idea that you should be entitled to have your decisions (as opposed to your right to take decisions) respected seems to me to be twaddle.

We'd do far better as a society to call things out for what they are than have all this pious humbug about respecting what we consider to be other people's stupidity, even if that means that our own nonsense is also called out by others.

That’s a very dangerous philosophy

Let’s say that the electorate votes in a Corbyn majority to Parliament

No matter how stupid they have been the have the right to have their decision respected and for Corbyn to form the next government

Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?

The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.

The Govt. spent £7m telling every household in the country that they would enact whatever we voted.

"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."

" The Government " - but that Government ceased to exist when Cameron resigned. The party that made that promise no longer exists so the promise is void. It was also an ultra vires promise as the Supreme Court found invoking A50 was a prerogative power. So " Government " can't keep that promise only Parliament can. Then no Parliament can bind it's sucessor and this is a sucessor parliament. The promise in that leaflet is constitutionally and legally worthless.

There would certainly be a stronger argument for that school of thought if an anti Brexit party had won the 2017 GE or the 2019 Euro elections. It's certainly a stretch to determine from these results that the public have reversed their views on the 2016 referendum. I presume though if parliament does vote for a Boris deal then you would respect us leaving.

OldKingCole said:

GIN1138 said:

dyedwoolie said:

https://twitter.com/DUPleader/status/1184447621106143234?s=19

No! No! No!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zSWlAHD29M&t=16s

Hmm. The Secret History of the Troubles suggests different. And that his lot were, if anything, worse.

Iain Paisley was an evil man. Revolting that he should be given credit for helping to bring to an end the violence and harm that he was so instrumental in creating. The same applies to Martin McGuinness too.

Yellow_Submarine said:

If EUCO is only giving a political " Yes " then the vote on Super Saturday can't be a MV. Clearly the Commons giving a political " Yes " to EUCO's political " Yes " would be a huge moment but the legal timetable has slipped.

I think you’re right, but the Commons political “yes” might come with a Benn amendment I suppose.

Cyclefree said:

isam said:

MikeSmithson said:

isam said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?

The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.

Didn't the vote to invoke A50 banish the desperate "advisory" comfort blanket?

Yes it did. MPs were daft to vote for it if they didn't want the referendum result implemented. Ken Clarke was always more honest about this than others.

There were perhaps two explanations for why they acted as they did: (1) they were scared of their voters if they voted against Art. 50; (2) they thought there would be a reasonable deal and therefore didn't realise they might be impaled on their vote later. (Or, I suppose, they voted that way with never any intention to enact it when it came to it.)

Fundamentally the problem always has been that having referenda in a system which is essentially based around Parliamentary democracy rather than direct democracy - as in the Swiss model - has created tensions which the government and MPs have been trying - and failing - to resolve ever since. The Swiss seem to manage referenda but they've had time to think about how to do it and their system of governance is different to ours. Little thought was given to how to bolt on a referendum on such an important question in our system and it has been showing the strain ever since.

It is a mess and if we do end up with a deal it will be agreed to out of exhaustion rather than any genuine belief that it is any good. Even Steve Barclay, the current Brexit Secretary, said in the last day, that the reason the proposed new deal is better than May's is because it can get the votes in Parliament. A quite extraordinary statement if you think about it. A deal is good not because of its own objective qualities or the benefits it brings to the citizens of this country but simply because some MPs can now be persuaded to vote for it.

How such a deal is meant to bring about a lasting settlement on Britain's relationship with the EU I don't know. But no-one seems to care about that. It is a plant with the shallowest of roots and, if you'll excuse the gardening metaphor, will be unlikely to survive any sort of adverse conditions.

BJ said before June 2016, if a deal was worse than staying in the EU, then we should stay in the EU...

The next purpose of that Lib Dem polling is to target SW1 journos laziness. They are already compiling a list of " seats to watch " for campaign coverage and that poll vaults it onto the list. The fact it's a good story and in London so cutting travel time adds to appeal for lazy journos. Whatever that poll cost has just bought the Lib Dem campaign vast quantities of free media. A value investment.

The_Taxman said:

Cyclefree said:

isam said:

MikeSmithson said:

isam said:

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Who is it that decides which decisions to respect?

The Act of Parliament that set up the referendum. In this case it was advisory as opposed to the 2011 AV referendum which laid down that this would be brought into being if passed.

Didn't the vote to invoke A50 banish the desperate "advisory" comfort blanket?

Yes it did. MPs were daft to vote for it if they didn't want the referendum result implemented. Ken Clarke was always more honest about this than others.

There were perhaps two explanations for why they acted as they did: (1) they were scared of their voters if they voted against Art. 50; (2) they thought there would be a reasonable deal and therefore didn't realise they might be impaled on their vote later. (Or, I suppose, they voted that way with never any intention to enact it when it came to it.)

Fundamentally the problem always has been that having referenda in a system which is essentially based around Parliamentary democracy rather than direct democracy - as in the Swiss model - has created tensions which the government and MPs have been trying - and failing - to resolve ever since. The Swiss seem to manage referenda but they've had time to think about how to do it and their system of governance is different to ours. Little thought was given to how to bolt on a referendum on such an important question in our system and it has been showing the strain ever since.

It is a mess and if we do end up with a deal it will be agreed to out of exhaustion rather than any genuine belief that it is any good. Even Steve Barclay, the current Brexit Secretary, said in the last day, that the reason the proposed new deal is better than May's is because it can get the votes in Parliament. A quite extraordinary statement if you think about it. A deal is good not because of its own objective qualities or the benefits it brings to the citizens of this country but simply because some MPs can now be persuaded to vote for it.

How such a deal is meant to bring about a lasting settlement on Britain's relationship with the EU I don't know. But no-one seems to care about that. It is a plant with the shallowest of roots and, if you'll excuse the gardening metaphor, will be unlikely to survive any sort of adverse conditions.

BJ said before June 2016, if a deal was worse than staying in the EU, then we should stay in the EU...

BJ has said a lot of things that could now be thrown back in his face. But people seem to want him. So the rest of us will just have to put up with him. And wait.

Cyclefree said:

Alanbrooke said:

OldKingCole said:

GIN1138 said:

dyedwoolie said:

https://twitter.com/DUPleader/status/1184447621106143234?s=19

No! No! No!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zSWlAHD29M&t=16s

Hmm. The Secret History of the Troubles suggests different. And that his lot were, if anything, worse.

Unlikely the highest killer of Irish people was PIRA

Paisley posed as a man of religion while funding and backing terrorists, according to the first episode of that series. A total bloody hypocrite whose understanding of Jesus's message was about as great as my understanding of quantum physics.

Quantum physics is real and provable.

Cyclefree said:

Alanbrooke said:

OldKingCole said:

GIN1138 said:

dyedwoolie said:

https://twitter.com/DUPleader/status/1184447621106143234?s=19

No! No! No!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zSWlAHD29M&t=16s

Hmm. The Secret History of the Troubles suggests different. And that his lot were, if anything, worse.

Unlikely the highest killer of Irish people was PIRA

Paisley posed as a man of religion while funding and backing terrorists, according to the first episode of that series. A total bloody hypocrite whose understanding of Jesus's message was about as great as my understanding of quantum physics.

Ive watched the series too, primarily since I lived through a lot of it. Pointng put that PIRA killed most people isnt the same as condoing loyalist paramilitaries, its simply statistics.

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html