politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If there is no General Election then Bassetlaw could be the ne

Polruan said:

nunuone said:

Theuniondivvie said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/nigeldoddsdup/status/1188082709215793158?s=21

Revoke it is.

I think that is what the DUP secretly want

I think it's what the Conservative party secretly wants too. Nothing could better than fighting the next election on a nationalist betrayal platform against the backdrop of an economic bounce. Far easier than the horrendous complexity of implementing a Brexit deal and being blamed for every negative impact that results.

That’s why I wonder if Boris Johnson has told Macron that if he delays the extension decision until the last moment, Parliament would revoke.

Election leaflet counts 1 "Brexiteer" newspaper and a leaflet with Farage's mug proclaiming Boris' deal "Isn't proper Brexit".

Nothing from anyone else.

I look forward to chatting to Labour if they come a canvassing

Noo said:

rottenborough said:

The Greens were right:

https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1187672149697400833

2000 of those 20MW all spinning at once would supply all the UK's electricity needs even at peak time.

But they have seabird carnage underneath them. Not that the industry will allow you to know that.

No such issue with tidal lagoons.

PClipp said:

DavidL said:

I fear that for political reasons teacher unions have sought to deprofessionalise their own profession. I do a fair bit of professional discipline work and for lawyers, accountants, dentists, nurses, doctors and others professional disciplinary boards hold their members to remarkably high standards, higher than the courts would in many cases. I am not sure that the teaching profession does. It seems to tolerate lazy and incompetent members in a way that many other professions wouldn't. That is unfortunate.

Do the members of the teaching profession have any say at all over who is admitted to their profession? I thought they did not.

They have a say about who remains in it through the GTC. Short of kiddy fiddling its not a say they use often enough.

Pulpstar said:

Barnesian said:

numbertwelve said:

MattW said:

I don't see a Labour Hold here.

The candidate shortlist includes a pair of refugees from Ashfield, and a previous losing candidate from somewhere in Leicestershire.

One of the Ashfield two - apparently the favourite - describes himself as "Deputy Leader of the Labour Group" on Ashfield Council, when there are exactly two Labour Councillors on the Council.

He is also the chap who appeared in the Daily Mail next to Ed Milliband wearing a "dance on Thatcher's Grave" teeshirt.

Will that play well in Bassetlaw?

Bassetlaw is exactly the sort of constituency the Tories need to be challenging in to get a majority government. Labour leave, with a resurgent Lib Dem vote splitting the remain alliance.

I actually think the Tories stand to do well in such seats. If they can’t do well here they’re going to have a disasterous election all in all, as they won’t be able to mitigate the potential damage the LDs could deal in the south and the SNP challenge in Scotland.

I hope the LibDems stand back in Bassetlaw. They don't have a hope. It's a waste of effort and money. It might split the Remain vote and let the Tories through. It would be a rehearsal for a more widespread similar strategy in the GE.

I expect Leon Duveen will run but the Lib Dem organisation up here is non existant. Much stronger across the border in Derbyshire. I'll let you know if I think there are footsoldiers in the mix.

Thanks

AndyJS said:

rottenborough said:

The Greens were right:

https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1187672149697400833

I've been saying this for years. The wind is always blowing somewhere in or around the UK.

There were points in the summer where wind production just collapsed. The key to wind (and indeed the next stage in our economy) is efficient energy storage. That would make it a source we could genuinely rely on.

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Chris said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Chris said:

SunnyJim said:

If the EU come back with a dual offer of:

1. 2 weeks to ratify the treaty as it stands

if unsuccessful followed by,

2. 3 months to hold a GE


How would that progress with parliament? Would parliament need to vote to accept the terms or would the Benn Act make it binding on all parties?

According to article 50, we can leave as soon as the withdrawal agreement is ratified. I suppose that applied to extensions as well, unless the EU specifies otherwise when granting the extension. So I don't understand what it would mean for the EU to offer an extension of two weeks to ratify the treaty, and if the treaty isn't ratified in two weeks a three month extension to hold a general election. It sounds like a three month extension to me.

As far as I can see, the Benn Act doesn't make any provision for conditions. I take it that means that wherever it forces Johnson to accept an extension, it forces him to accept any conditions attached to it.

Two separate extensions. Macron could reasonably say "I'm only happy for a 2 week extension to ratify the treaty. If Parliament votes for a General Election then I'd be happy to give a 3 month extension."

So the EU grants a 2 week extension as there's unanimity only on that much and it kicks the can 2 weeks down the road. Under the Benn Act Parliament must vote to accept or not a revised extension, presumably they will accept it to avoid No Deal on Hallowe'en.

Then Parliament faces a dilemma. If Macron sticks to his guns either Parliament votes for the Deal - or revokes - or votes for a GE. As long as Macron is firm Parliament has no other way around Macron. Parliament can compel the PM to act, it has no right to compel the President of the French Republic.

Yes, if the EU grants a two week extension and says that's the end unless parliament has agreed a general election, that would change thigs. And I could see the virtue of that.

Maybe that's what Sunny Jim meant in the comment I was replying to, but if so it wasn't clear to me.

That forces the issue for sure. The EU gets an agreement on the Boris Argeement by 15th November from the existing Parliament - or a new Govt. formed that agrees the Boris Deal by 31st January. Thems your options, Remainers.....

Not quite; Revoke is still there. Always assuming of course that the rest of the EU could stand having Nigel 'the Rudest Man in Europe' Farage, and Ann 'Mad Witch' Widdecombe still in the Parliament.

The EU knows Revoke just further defers the issue. Someone will get into power pledged to "just leave". And before long. They currently have a deal they are happy with.

Richard_Nabavi said:

MarqueeMark said:

If we get into the FTA negotiations and the EU play ultra-hardball - and yet we cannot walk away. How does that work? No-one has given me an answer on this.

That is exactly why (along with the border in the Irish Sea) the Boris deal is so much, much worse than Theresa May's, and is why the EU accepted Boris's U-turn with such alacrity. They are not stupid, they could immediately see that it is miles better for them (which is unsurprising, given that it was essentially their opening offer to Theresa May).

The reason is, as you point out, that under the Boris deal we'll be left with nowhere to go in the FTA negotiations; no responsible government, not even this not-very-responsible one, is going to be able to view crashing out to WTO terms at the end of the transition period with any more equanimity than even Boris viewed crashing out next week. Under Theresa May's deal, we had a superb fallback position, which was to slide into the backstop. That would have given us no cliff-edge, and nearly all of the economic advantages of remaining EU members without having to pay a penny in fees and without the non-trade-related legal constraints, which the EU would have absolutely hated as it was the ultimate cherry-picking. It was a brilliant piece of negotiation by the UK team, and it's no wonder that several EU countries thought it was too generous to us.

Alas, now thrown away. I dare say we will continue the habit of repeatedly making bad decisions, which started with the rejection of Cameron's renegotiated terms and has been downhill from there.

Absolutely.
I’m a remainer, and would have agreed to it with reluctance, but I recognise its strengths, which seem almost completely absent from the Boris deal.

Whose only point in favour is that it’s better than no deal.

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/darranmarshall/status/1188093075572301824?s=21

Presumably the protester is smart enough to know that the Boris deal gives Northern Ireland the best of Brexit and EU membership and its electorate would keep NI in the Union forever as a result.

DavidL said:

stodge said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

That is exactly why (along with the border in the Irish Sea) the Boris deal is so much, much worse than Theresa May's, and is why the EU accepted Boris's U-turn with such alacrity. They are not stupid, they could immediately see that it is miles better for them (which is unsurprising, given that it was essentially their opening offer to Theresa May).



Alas, now thrown away. I dare say we will continue the habit of repeatedly making bad decisions, which started with the rejection of Cameron's renegotiated terms and has been downhill from there.

Excellent post, Richard.

I suspect Johnson came into office believing a WA based on the Brady Amendment was the only way forward and I think he thought he could carry a WA through the Commons which was broadly the same as the Brady Amendment.

Johnson's WA is now unravelling at speed and is, as you say, more detrimental to the interests of the UK than May's. I'm picking up plenty of commentary on commitments to workers' rights and environmental protection which, to her credit, May agreed to support but which Johnson's text has left ambiguous and is clearly paving the way for an assault on those protections and standards were he to get his majority.

The speed at which the EU acceded to Johnson told me immediately we had conceded on a huge range of issues notably the backstop. The irony of Johnson talking about "surrender" in the Commons when he and his negotiators have surrendered away Britain's future interests won't be lost on voters as the full details of the WA come out.

Those incompetent twats that we call MPs screwed up the chance of May's deal by voting it down 3x. The deal on the table now is Boris's and it is still better than no deal so we have to take it.

I assume we could still revert to May's deal if the Brexiters Against Brexit changed their mind and backed it. Democratically it's a problem though: voting in the economic interests of one's constituents means revoke or perhaps 2nd ref. Voting for their preferences means Boris's deal (I'm sure HYUFD can help with some polling about the relative popularity of the two deals). Backing May's deal means going for something really unpopular and pretty economically damaging - worst of both worlds?

ps - I agree, excellent post Richard

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1188100082400464897

DavidL said:

Those incompetent twats that we call MPs screwed up the chance of May's deal by voting it down 3x. The deal on the table now is Boris's and it is still better than no deal so we have to take it.

There's a political dimension to all this of course. I'm sure I don't have to remind you May had a Parliamentary majority which she then threw away needlessly in 2017.

The second aspect was May's WA wasn't perfect - some thought it tied us too closely to the EU in terms of accepting some of the EU's environmental and other standards and others felt leaving the SM and the CU simply to be "Global Britain" wasn't the right path.

The third aspect is also political - achieving Brexit carries with it a substantial positive political dividend. In a sense, if you vote to support Johnson's or indeed May's WA there's a good chance you are handing the Conservatives the next GE and five years of untrammelled power.

We can all read polls - those showing huge Conservative leads if Brexit happens wouldn't have been lost on opposition parties. Yes you can of course argue opposition politicians have a higher duty to do what's bet for the country just as Jenkins and the pro-Common Market Labour MPs who backed Heath in 1971 and 1972 to take us into the EEC in the first place.

The problem is doing what's best for the country butters no parsnips if the Conservatives take the credit and romp home in a GE. I've never heard May or Johnson say for example "once Brexit has been achieved, the Conservative Party will stand aside from Government for ten years and allow other parties to implement Brexit". Could you imagine it?

Look at it the other way, turkeys don't vote for Christmas and opposition parties aren't going to provide the Conservatives with a big majority at a GE. There's been no attempt at a political quid pro quo, an offer of compromise or acceptance of a penance from the Conservative side.

Gabs2 said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/darranmarshall/status/1188093075572301824?s=21

Presumably the protester is smart enough to know that the Boris deal gives Northern Ireland the best of Brexit and EU membership and its electorate would keep NI in the Union forever as a result.

So GB has a worse deal?

Tory+SNP+DUP. Is it enough for:

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1188102700816392192

DavidL said:

Noo said:

rottenborough said:

The Greens were right:

https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1187672149697400833

2000 of those 20MW all spinning at once would supply all the UK's electricity needs even at peak time.

If the wind is blowing. And if it isn't?

Is used to ask this. I’ve recently been convinced that improvements in battery technology make storage of this sort of energy a goer. Add in a bit of background nuclear and we could go fossil fuel free.

Get this right and once again technology comes to the rescue and we kiss goodbye to the most damaging bits of climate change.

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

The EU knows Revoke just further defers the issue. Someone will get into power pledged to "just leave". And before long. They currently have a deal they are happy with.

Au contraire, I suspect that if we Revoke and then go forward with this or another hung Parliament that, apart from a few fanatics, the matter will slide into the background, where it was for 40+ years. I agree, though, that the present agreement is something with which the EU is 'happy'. After all, it protects the position of their threatened member (Ireland) and even gives that country a closer prospect of Reunion. What's not to like?

You could not be more wrong about it sliding into the background. "Brexit stolen" would be a massively potent issue.

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1188104868839510016

Noo said:

Gabs2 said:

I despair at how short sighted Remainers are being.

If your message to Remainers is that "the best way to achieve your goal is to leave the EU", then, uh, good luck with that.

The arch Eurofanatic Williamglenn has been preaching exactly this line for the last 3 years.

O/T

"What went wrong inside Boeing's cockpit?"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/boeing_two_deadly_crashes

rottenborough said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OldKingCole said:

Au contraire, I suspect that if we Revoke and then go forward with this or another hung Parliament that, apart from a few fanatics, the matter will slide into the background, where it was for 40+ years. I agree, though, that the present agreement is something with which the EU is 'happy'. After all, it protects the position of their threatened member (Ireland) and even gives that country a closer prospect of Reunion. What's not to like?

Sorry but this is just herds of Remainer unicorns. If you revoke you invite complete chaos. A massive increase in support for extremist parties and a fracturing of the existing parties. Brexit then stays as the foremost issue at every election for the foreseeable future and many people give up on democracy entirely and look for other means to achieve their aims.

It really is the very worst of any possible outcomes.

This. A 1000x.

I think the Liberal's new position is a mistake.

There's a GAPING Norwegian hole in the Brexit debate right now.

On topic, I've counted how many times a Conservative government has won a seat from the Labour opposition in a by-election since 1979.

I make 84 by-elections in Labour seats since 1979. Of those, 22 happened when Labour were in goverment, leaving 62 when they were in Opposition. Of those 84, the Conservatives have won four - Copeland, Crewe and Nantwich, Norwich North and Mitcham and Morden, though Crewe and Nantwich and Norwich North were when the Conservatives were in Opposition.

Noo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Noo said:

Gabs2 said:

I despair at how short sighted Remainers are being.

If your message to Remainers is that "the best way to achieve your goal is to leave the EU", then, uh, good luck with that.

The arch Eurofanatic Williamglenn has been preaching exactly this line for the last 3 years.

Anyone suggesting we leave the EU is not an "arch Eurofanatic"

Again showing your profound ignorance. Williamglenn believes the quickest way for us to end up fully subsumed into the EU including in the Euro and Schengen is by leaving and then having to come crawling back.

Fishing said:

On topic, I've counted how many times a Conservative government has won a seat from the Labour opposition in a by-election since 1979.

I make 84 by-elections in Labour seats since 1979. Of those, 22 happened when Labour were in goverment, leaving 62 when they were in Opposition. Of those 84, the Conservatives have won three - Copeland, Crewe and Nantwich and Mitcham and Morden, though Crewe and Nantwich was when the Conservatives were in Opposition.

In contrast, there have been 48 by-elections in Conservative held seats since 1979, of which Labour has won 8.

rottenborough said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OldKingCole said:

Au contraire, I suspect that if we Revoke and then go forward with this or another hung Parliament that, apart from a few fanatics, the matter will slide into the background, where it was for 40+ years. I agree, though, that the present agreement is something with which the EU is 'happy'. After all, it protects the position of their threatened member (Ireland) and even gives that country a closer prospect of Reunion. What's not to like?

Sorry but this is just herds of Remainer unicorns. If you revoke you invite complete chaos. A massive increase in support for extremist parties and a fracturing of the existing parties. Brexit then stays as the foremost issue at every election for the foreseeable future and many people give up on democracy entirely and look for other means to achieve their aims.

It really is the very worst of any possible outcomes.

This. A 1000x.

I think the Liberal's new position is a mistake.

The Liberal Party's position is Leave.

rottenborough said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OldKingCole said:

Au contraire, I suspect that if we Revoke and then go forward with this or another hung Parliament that, apart from a few fanatics, the matter will slide into the background, where it was for 40+ years. I agree, though, that the present agreement is something with which the EU is 'happy'. After all, it protects the position of their threatened member (Ireland) and even gives that country a closer prospect of Reunion. What's not to like?

Sorry but this is just herds of Remainer unicorns. If you revoke you invite complete chaos. A massive increase in support for extremist parties and a fracturing of the existing parties. Brexit then stays as the foremost issue at every election for the foreseeable future and many people give up on democracy entirely and look for other means to achieve their aims.

It really is the very worst of any possible outcomes.

This. A 1000x.

I think the Liberal's new position is a mistake.

Not at all - Revoke only happens IF the Liberal Democrats win a Parliamentary majority, that's all. Otherwise the Party line is to support a second referendum.

The Conservatives and Labour are both fractured on this (as in truth they have been for decades). Would the Conservatives leave with Johnson's WA if they won a majority? What would Labour do IF they won a majority?

Being blunt, the absence of a majority causes problems for adversarial politicians unused, unwilling or unable to compromise and form cross party groupings.

Johnson has made no serious effort (and apart from courting the DUP, May made no effort either) to talk to other parties and to work about a concensual approach to the negotiations or to getting a WA through Parliament.

Had the WA been unequivocally a collaborative exercise, it would have cleared the Commons comfortably - the Conservatives chose not to engage because they want solely to own the credit for achieving Brexit because that's their route back to governing with a majority which they much prefer.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Noo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Noo said:

Gabs2 said:

I despair at how short sighted Remainers are being.

If your message to Remainers is that "the best way to achieve your goal is to leave the EU", then, uh, good luck with that.

The arch Eurofanatic Williamglenn has been preaching exactly this line for the last 3 years.

Anyone suggesting we leave the EU is not an "arch Eurofanatic"

Again showing your profound ignorance. Williamglenn believes the quickest way for us to end up fully subsumed into the EU including in the Euro and Schengen is by leaving and then having to come crawling back.

So if someone wants to stay in the EU and join the Euro and Schengen, then you think that they are less a Eurofanatic?
Gaslighting nonsense from you.

Noo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Noo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OldKingCole said:

Au contraire, I suspect that if we Revoke and then go forward with this or another hung Parliament that, apart from a few fanatics, the matter will slide into the background, where it was for 40+ years. I agree, though, that the present agreement is something with which the EU is 'happy'. After all, it protects the position of their threatened member (Ireland) and even gives that country a closer prospect of Reunion. What's not to like?

Sorry but this is just herds of Remainer unicorns. If you revoke you invite complete chaos. A massive increase in support for extremist parties and a fracturing of the existing parties. Brexit then stays as the foremost issue at every election for the foreseeable future and many people give up on democracy entirely and look for other means to achieve their aims.

It really is the very worst of any possible outcomes.

Give us what we want or we vote fascist!
Anyone who makes that argument in earnest deserves to never get their way.

They will just as likely vote for extreme left wing parties. Anyway you are the last person to complain. It is already well established that you see democracy as nothing more than means to an end. Once again you only like democracy when you are winning.

What is "well-established" is that I see democracy as a process, not a frozen point in time. I've don't shy away from the view that we should remain in the EU through a referendum or an election. Last time I checked, those were part of the democratic process.

Not until you fulfil the instruction of the first referendum. Until then you are just making excuses and ignoring the democratic process.

Noo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Noo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OldKingCole said:

Au contraire, I suspect that if we Revoke and then go forward with this or another hung Parliament that, apart from a few fanatics, the matter will slide into the background, where it was for 40+ years. I agree, though, that the present agreement is something with which the EU is 'happy'. After all, it protects the position of their threatened member (Ireland) and even gives that country a closer prospect of Reunion. What's not to like?

Sorry but this is just herds of Remainer unicorns. If you revoke you invite complete chaos. A massive increase in support for extremist parties and a fracturing of the existing parties. Brexit then stays as the foremost issue at every election for the foreseeable future and many people give up on democracy entirely and look for other means to achieve their aims.

It really is the very worst of any possible outcomes.

Give us what we want or we vote fascist!
Anyone who makes that argument in earnest deserves to never get their way.

They will just as likely vote for extreme left wing parties. Anyway you are the last person to complain. It is already well established that you see democracy as nothing more than means to an end. Once again you only like democracy when you are winning.

What is "well-established" is that I see democracy as a process, not a frozen point in time. I've don't shy away from the view that we should remain in the EU through a referendum or an election. Last time I checked, those were part of the democratic process.

So after a referendum decides to stay in or rejoin, you think it is acceptable to leave on a General Election?

stodge said:

rottenborough said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OldKingCole said:

Au contraire, I suspect that if we Revoke and then go forward with this or another hung Parliament that, apart from a few fanatics, the matter will slide into the background, where it was for 40+ years. I agree, though, that the present agreement is something with which the EU is 'happy'. After all, it protects the position of their threatened member (Ireland) and even gives that country a closer prospect of Reunion. What's not to like?

Sorry but this is just herds of Remainer unicorns. If you revoke you invite complete chaos. A massive increase in support for extremist parties and a fracturing of the existing parties. Brexit then stays as the foremost issue at every election for the foreseeable future and many people give up on democracy entirely and look for other means to achieve their aims.

It really is the very worst of any possible outcomes.

This. A 1000x.

I think the Liberal's new position is a mistake.

Not at all - Revoke only happens IF the Liberal Democrats win a Parliamentary majority, that's all. Otherwise the Party line is to support a second referendum.

The Conservatives and Labour are both fractured on this (as in truth they have been for decades). Would the Conservatives leave with Johnson's WA if they won a majority? What would Labour do IF they won a majority?

Being blunt, the absence of a majority causes problems for adversarial politicians unused, unwilling or unable to compromise and form cross party groupings.

Johnson has made no serious effort (and apart from courting the DUP, May made no effort either) to talk to other parties and to work about a concensual approach to the negotiations or to getting a WA through Parliament.

Had the WA been unequivocally a collaborative exercise, it would have cleared the Commons comfortably - the Conservatives chose not to engage because they want solely to own the credit for achieving Brexit because that's their route back to governing with a majority which they much prefer.

May was under the curious and quite frankly offensive impression that ONLY the Conservative and Unionist party represented the 'True Interests of The British People' .
So she only talked to another overtly Unionist Party.
And everything went downhill from there.

Mr. Sandpit, seems weird. Would they just run one car?

A shame, as they look in decent shape.

Noo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Noo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Noo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OldKingCole said:

Au contraire, I suspect that if we Revoke and then go forward with this or another hung Parliament that, apart from a few fanatics, the matter will slide into the background, where it was for 40+ years. I agree, though, that the present agreement is something with which the EU is 'happy'. After all, it protects the position of their threatened member (Ireland) and even gives that country a closer prospect of Reunion. What's not to like?

Sorry but this is just herds of Remainer unicorns. If you revoke you invite complete chaos. A massive increase in support for extremist parties and a fracturing of the existing parties. Brexit then stays as the foremost issue at every election for the foreseeable future and many people give up on democracy entirely and look for other means to achieve their aims.

It really is the very worst of any possible outcomes.

Give us what we want or we vote fascist!
Anyone who makes that argument in earnest deserves to never get their way.

They will just as likely vote for extreme left wing parties. Anyway you are the last person to complain. It is already well established that you see democracy as nothing more than means to an end. Once again you only like democracy when you are winning.

What is "well-established" is that I see democracy as a process, not a frozen point in time. I've don't shy away from the view that we should remain in the EU through a referendum or an election. Last time I checked, those were part of the democratic process.

Not until you fulfil the instruction of the first referendum. Until then you are just making excuses and ignoring the democratic process.

There we go. Your view of democracy is that a fixed point in time is holy. That it binds us to future actions even if the majority no longer want it. Consent given cannot be revoked.

Consent given cannot be revoked. That's a rapist's charter.

Ah, you take the EU's view? Keep asking until they say yes.

Gabs2 said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/darranmarshall/status/1188093075572301824?s=21

Presumably the protester is smart enough to know that the Boris deal gives Northern Ireland the best of Brexit and EU membership and its electorate would keep NI in the Union forever as a result.

In the European Union forever, or in the Union with GB?

AndyJS said:

Fishing said:

On topic, I've counted how many times a Conservative government has won a seat from the Labour opposition in a by-election since 1979.

I make 84 by-elections in Labour seats since 1979. Of those, 22 happened when Labour were in goverment, leaving 62 when they were in Opposition. Of those 84, the Conservatives have won four - Copeland, Crewe and Nantwich, Norwich North and Mitcham and Morden, though Crewe and Nantwich and Norwich North were when the Conservatives were in Opposition.

Copeland is the only one I think.

No - Mitcham and Morden - but it is odd because it was clearly the split between Labour and the SDP that cost the Socialists the seat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Mitcham_and_Morden_by-election

Not sure why the Conservatives are so terrible at by-elections and so great at general elections. Maybe because they have bad local machines but a slick national one, whereas with the Lib Dems it is the opposite?

Barnesian said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

AndyJS said:

rottenborough said:

The Greens were right:

https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1187672149697400833

I've been saying this for years. The wind is always blowing somewhere in or around the UK.

There were points in the summer where wind production just collapsed. The key to wind (and indeed the next stage in our economy) is efficient energy storage. That would make it a source we could genuinely rely on.

Take a look at Highview Power.
Their air liquification storage is good for a week or more, and quite a bit cheaper than battery storage.

Their is also the scheme that drops a 12,000 ton weight on a cable slowly down a mineshaft to generate power when needed, and uses surplus power to haul it back up again. There is a lot of creativity going on.

A 12,000 ton weight? That will need a very thick cable!

Richard_Tyndall said:

Noo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Noo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Noo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OldKingCole said:

Au contraire, I suspect that if we Revoke and then go forward with this or another hung Parliament that, apart from a few fanatics, the matter will slide into the background, where it was for 40+ years. I agree, though, that the present agreement is something with which the EU is 'happy'. After all, it protects the position of their threatened member (Ireland) and even gives that country a closer prospect of Reunion. What's not to like?

It really is the very worst of any possible outcomes.

Give us what we want or we vote fascist!
Anyone who makes that argument in earnest deserves to never get their way.

They will just as likely vote for extreme left wing parties. Anyway you are the last person to complain. It is already well established that you see democracy as nothing more than means to an end. Once again you only like democracy when you are winning.

What is "well-established" is that I see democracy as a process, not a frozen point in time. I've don't shy away from the view that we should remain in the EU through a referendum or an election. Last time I checked, those were part of the democratic process.

Not until you fulfil the instruction of the first referendum. Until then you are just making excuses and ignoring the democratic process.

There we go. Your view of democracy is that a fixed point in time is holy. That it binds us to future actions even if the majority no longer want it. Consent given cannot be revoked.

Consent given cannot be revoked. That's a rapist's charter.

Utter fucking bullshit from you. You really are a disgusting turd. Any argument you can make no matter how ludicrous to try and support your hatred of democracy. And all because you lost.

Yours is the truly fascist view that the democratic process is only there to help you achieve your aims and once it fails to do that it should be discarded. The view of tyrants and the sorts of scum that support them. You would clearly be happy in a black shirt.

Oooh, calm down dear.
... and you could answer the (implied) question .
Is your view of democracy that a fixed point in time is holy. That it binds us to future actions even if the majority no longer want it?

Noo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Noo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OldKingCole said:

Au contraire, I suspect that if we Revoke and then go forward with this or another hung Parliament that, apart from a few fanatics, the matter will slide into the background, where it was for 40+ years. I agree, though, that the present agreement is something with which the EU is 'happy'. After all, it protects the position of their threatened member (Ireland) and even gives that country a closer prospect of Reunion. What's not to like?

Sorry but this is just herds of Remainer unicorns. If you revoke you invite complete chaos. A massive increase in support for extremist parties and a fracturing of the existing parties. Brexit then stays as the foremost issue at every election for the foreseeable future and many people give up on democracy entirely and look for other means to achieve their aims.

It really is the very worst of any possible outcomes.

Give us what we want or we vote fascist!
Anyone who makes that argument in earnest deserves to never get their way.

They will just as likely vote for extreme left wing parties. Anyway you are the last person to complain. It is already well established that you see democracy as nothing more than means to an end. Once again you only like democracy when you are winning.

What is "well-established" is that I see democracy as a process, not a frozen point in time. I've don't shy away from the view that we should remain in the EU through a referendum or an election. Last time I checked, those were part of the democratic process.

If you take this view and hold to it consistently, long term at some point we'll be leaving the EU.

DavidL said:

Noo said:

rottenborough said:

The Greens were right:

https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1187672149697400833

2000 of those 20MW all spinning at once would supply all the UK's electricity needs even at peak time.

If the wind is blowing. And if it isn't?

I think the wind is always blowing somewhere around the coast of the UK.

Barnesian said:

Sandpit said:

Barnesian said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

AndyJS said:

rottenborough said:

The Greens were right:

https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1187672149697400833

I've been saying this for years. The wind is always blowing somewhere in or around the UK.

There were points in the summer where wind production just collapsed. The key to wind (and indeed the next stage in our economy) is efficient energy storage. That would make it a source we could genuinely rely on.

Take a look at Highview Power.
Their air liquification storage is good for a week or more, and quite a bit cheaper than battery storage.

Their is also the scheme that drops a 12,000 ton weight on a cable slowly down a mineshaft to generate power when needed, and uses surplus power to haul it back up again. There is a lot of creativity going on.

A 12,000 ton weight? That will need a very thick cable!

Yes indeed!

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/10/storing-renewable-energy-in-mineshaft-weights-is-cheaper-than-batteries-report-finds/

One thing I just thought of a few minutes ago would be to have turbines drive water to the top of an incline and then when it's still release so as to create pseudo hydro.

Barnesian said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

AndyJS said:

rottenborough said:

The Greens were right:

https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1187672149697400833

I've been saying this for years. The wind is always blowing somewhere in or around the UK.

There were points in the summer where wind production just collapsed. The key to wind (and indeed the next stage in our economy) is efficient energy storage. That would make it a source we could genuinely rely on.

Take a look at Highview Power.
Their air liquification storage is good for a week or more, and quite a bit cheaper than battery storage.

Their is also the scheme that drops a 12,000 ton weight on a cable slowly down a mineshaft to generate power when needed, and uses surplus power to haul it back up again. There is a lot of creativity going on.

This should be impressive
https://doggerbank.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank_Wind_Farm

AndyJS said:

DavidL said:

Noo said:

rottenborough said:

The Greens were right:

https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1187672149697400833

2000 of those 20MW all spinning at once would supply all the UK's electricity needs even at peak time.

If the wind is blowing. And if it isn't?

I think the wind is always blowing somewhere around the coast of the UK.

It doesn't have to be blowing somewhere, it has to be blowing where we have built these huge windmills.

I have been astonished at the rate that wind has become competitive and it appears that that trend can continue. If we can solve the storage problem it will be a major part of our future but we will always need a backup.

my colleague David Brooks posed a difficult and necessary question: If the choice is Trump or Warren, what then? David’s answer is that one would have to choose Warren, for the sake of democracy. Maybe he’s right. But voters tend to place their personal interests ahead of their political ideals. And, other than Bernie Sanders, no Democratic candidate would more richly tempt Americans to vote the former than Elizabeth Warren.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/opinion/elizabeth-warren-2020.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Pulpstar said:

Barnesian said:

Sandpit said:

Barnesian said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

AndyJS said:

rottenborough said:

The Greens were right:

https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1187672149697400833

I've been saying this for years. The wind is always blowing somewhere in or around the UK.

There were points in the summer where wind production just collapsed. The key to wind (and indeed the next stage in our economy) is efficient energy storage. That would make it a source we could genuinely rely on.

Take a look at Highview Power.
Their air liquification storage is good for a week or more, and quite a bit cheaper than battery storage.

Their is also the scheme that drops a 12,000 ton weight on a cable slowly down a mineshaft to generate power when needed, and uses surplus power to haul it back up again. There is a lot of creativity going on.

A 12,000 ton weight? That will need a very thick cable!

Yes indeed!

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/10/storing-renewable-energy-in-mineshaft-weights-is-cheaper-than-batteries-report-finds/

One thing I just thought of a few minutes ago would be to have turbines drive water to the top of an incline and then when it's still release so as to create pseudo hydro.

Don't they have that already?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

Theuniondivvie said:

Pulpstar said:

Barnesian said:

Sandpit said:

Barnesian said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

AndyJS said:

rottenborough said:

The Greens were right:

https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1187672149697400833

I've been saying this for years. The wind is always blowing somewhere in or around the UK.

There were points in the summer where wind production just collapsed. The key to wind (and indeed the next stage in our economy) is efficient energy storage. That would make it a source we could genuinely rely on.

Take a look at Highview Power.
Their air liquification storage is good for a week or more, and quite a bit cheaper than battery storage.

Their is also the scheme that drops a 12,000 ton weight on a cable slowly down a mineshaft to generate power when needed, and uses surplus power to haul it back up again. There is a lot of creativity going on.

A 12,000 ton weight? That will need a very thick cable!

Yes indeed!

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/10/storing-renewable-energy-in-mineshaft-weights-is-cheaper-than-batteries-report-finds/

One thing I just thought of a few minutes ago would be to have turbines drive water to the top of an incline and then when it's still release so as to create pseudo hydro.

Don't they have that already?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

Yes, 'electric mountain' - you can visit it as a tourist.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Not until you fulfil the instruction of the first referendum. Until then you are just making excuses and ignoring the democratic process.

Okay, Richard, I'll play. Just how much should Conservatives want the result of the referendum to be respected?

If I could, I would get the opposition together and go to the PM and say this:

"We are prepared to support the WA and allow the UK to move into transition as part of leaving the EU but we are not prepared to allow this to happen under a Conservative Government.

If your Government were to resign and your Party to withdraw from Government and not contest the next General Election, we will undertake not to make any attempt to rejoin the EU. Indeed, we will endeavour to negotiate a favourable trade deal with the EU and once accomplished begin the process of negotiating open trade deals with all our global trading partners".

That would be honouring and respecting the result of the 2016 referendum, wouldn't it?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Barnesian, maybe. If we end up having a second referendum with a Remain option then pro-EU types will 'win' with a 1-1 referendum draw.

But it would be more up to date and would pit Remain versus just ONE option for Leave. If that had been done in 2016 Remain would have won by a mile. Leave was interpreted as a whole spectrum of possibilities.

logical_song said:

Barnesian said:

Sandpit said:

Barnesian said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

AndyJS said:

rottenborough said:

The Greens were right:

https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1187672149697400833

I've been saying this for years. The wind is always blowing somewhere in or around the UK.

There were points in the summer where wind production just collapsed. The key to wind (and indeed the next stage in our economy) is efficient energy storage. That would make it a source we could genuinely rely on.

Take a look at Highview Power.
Their air liquification storage is good for a week or more, and quite a bit cheaper than battery storage.

Their is also the scheme that drops a 12,000 ton weight on a cable slowly down a mineshaft to generate power when needed, and uses surplus power to haul it back up again. There is a lot of creativity going on.

A 12,000 ton weight? That will need a very thick cable!

Yes indeed!

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/10/storing-renewable-energy-in-mineshaft-weights-is-cheaper-than-batteries-report-finds/

"24 weights totalling 12,000 tonnes", so 500 tonnes each.

That's more manageable. A 12,000 tonne weight would be a biggy!

stodge said:

rottenborough said:

This. A 1000x.

I think the Liberal's new position is a mistake.

Not at all - Revoke only happens IF the Liberal Democrats win a Parliamentary majority, that's all. Otherwise the Party line is to support a second referendum.

Mmm, but that's a subtle position which I don't think most people notice - for better or worse, people see them as a Revoke party. Arguably that's why they've slipped back a bit in the polls> People whose first choice is a referendum (and there are still a good many) find it only offered as a first choice by Labour. Which is somewhat ironical as we only came round to it gradually and the LibDems were there first before they moved on.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1188103919211335681

He might be right, although funny how the DUP regard it as an unacceptable outrage for Boris to suggest they don't understand what was negotiated, but it's ok for them to say he does not understand what was negotited.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Barnesian, maybe. If we end up having a second referendum with a Remain option then pro-EU types will 'win' with a 1-1 referendum draw.

Although in favour of remaining it is undeniable that just as a second referendum is acceptable it cannot be felt that a third is unacceptable. Final Say is just as much branding nonsense as people's vote is.

NickPalmer said:

stodge said:

rottenborough said:

This. A 1000x.

I think the Liberal's new position is a mistake.

Not at all - Revoke only happens IF the Liberal Democrats win a Parliamentary majority, that's all. Otherwise the Party line is to support a second referendum.

Mmm, but that's a subtle position which I don't think most people notice - for better or worse, people see them as a Revoke party. Arguably that's why they've slipped back a bit in the polls> People whose first choice is a referendum (and there are still a good many) find it only offered as a first choice by Labour. Which is somewhat ironical as we only came round to it gradually and the LibDems were there first before they moved on.

I think the LDs have probably lost a bit of support due to their support for Revoke without a referendum. Having said that, it may have improved their potential in target seats in areas like SW London and the Home Counties. The places where it's lost them support are most likely areas where they weren't going to win any seats.