politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Tory MPs are really focussed on gaining northern LAB se

El_Capitano said:

Brom said:

https://twitter.com/anguswalkertalk/status/1191351967320289281

Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.

That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.

I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.

28th/29th October was a good time for them polling wise I suspect and maybe they realised they would get squeezed once the campaign started. By commissioning the polls then and drip feeding the public them it can help them stay in the debate.

nichomar said:

TBP would rather we remained in the EU than let this deal go through. They genuinely believe it is a sellout and will see no logic in standing aside as do a lot of their supporters. His decision to not fight a seat is actually quite canny being able to campaign without being tied down and removing the media circus from a single constituency.

I'm not so sure that TBP as a whole are supportive of Farage's stance.

From the push-back in the media it would appear many candidates are unhappy with what seems to have become a rather reckless approach from Farage which risks Brexit in its entirety.

And I don't believe for a moment that Farage will want to be despised by remainers AND the majority of leavers.

My guess would be nearer the time he decides 'reluctantly but for the greater good' to focus TBP candidates a little more selectively.

Brom said:

El_Capitano said:

Brom said:

https://twitter.com/anguswalkertalk/status/1191351967320289281

Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.

That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.

I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.

28th/29th October was a good time for them polling wise I suspect and maybe they realised they would get squeezed once the campaign started. By commissioning the polls then and drip feeding the public them it can help them stay in the debate.

They need to get the narrative that they can win out there to build momentum..this is part of that strategy

Looks like Farage is still after for a deal with the conservatives

And is this relevant

ERG Brokering Brexit Party Stand Down Terms with Downing Street https://t.co/8fbqh2KPjT https://t.co/XQ3Ob3BNL3

El_Capitano said:

Brom said:

https://twitter.com/anguswalkertalk/status/1191351967320289281

Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.

That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.

I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.

If you assume for the sake of argument that the vast majority of Liberal Democrat and Labour voters are primarily anti-Tory then the chief battle in lots of seats is establishing which of the two parties is ahead of the other - and therefore best able to defeat the Tory.

This isn't completely true, but it's not far off, and how else do you persuade voters you are ahead than with opinion polls and carefully curated presentations of previous election results?

RobD said:

El_Capitano said:

Brom said:

https://twitter.com/anguswalkertalk/status/1191351967320289281

Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.

That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.

I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.

Isn’t it only public because they decided to make it public?

Libdems need people to believe they can win.

Interesting when they decide to release the polls though. The Somerset North East one was released after some time

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

El_Capitano said:

Brom said:

https://twitter.com/anguswalkertalk/status/1191351967320289281

Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.

That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.

I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.

Isn’t it only public because they decided to make it public?

BPC rules are getting somewhat abused here.

Lib Dems commission a bunch of private polls, release those whose results say what they want them to say - because they've been released Survation under BPC rules have to release the poll themselves too thus confirming the figures for the LDs to use them on their materials.

BPC rules should be tightened up. If parties are going to poll a bunch of constituencies and release some of the figures then the pollster should release all comparable polls they've done at the same time and not just the cherrypicked ones that have the results the party wants to get out there.

I think that's worth an email to the BPC, at least.

Interesting, St Nic down in Dumfries.

I would have had Dumfreis and Galloway well down the list of SNP targets.

https://twitter.com/TomEden11/status/1191355266698272768?s=19

https://twitter.com/jrmaidment/status/1191324272385544192

Of course, the Prime Minister never goes back on his word on such deadlines.

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

El_Capitano said:

Brom said:

https://twitter.com/anguswalkertalk/status/1191351967320289281

Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.

That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.

I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.

Isn’t it only public because they decided to make it public?

BPC rules are getting somewhat abused here.

Lib Dems commission a bunch of private polls, release those whose results say what they want them to say - because they've been released Survation under BPC rules have to release the poll themselves too thus confirming the figures for the LDs to use them on their materials.

BPC rules should be tightened up. If parties are going to poll a bunch of constituencies and release some of the figures then the pollster should release all comparable polls they've done at the same time and not just the cherrypicked ones that have the results the party wants to get out there.

I don't see why. People commission private polls all the time and only release the ones that benefit them. That doesn't seem evil (or even wrong) to me.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigelb said:

Unanswered questions are at least now starting to be asked...
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/11/britain-and-europe-are-destined-be-rivals-after-brexit/601288/

Damn right we will be competitors after Brexit and too right too, that is the entire point.

Competition is a good thing, competition makes us healthier and better.

That is all very fine as a general statement.

But how politically acceptable do you think the measures needed to make this competition effective will be to the sorts of voters the Tories are targeting?

I hope they would be very acceptable and they would only occur post-Brexit if the population is carried to agree with the changes overall.

That is the whole point of taking back control, if the voters dislike what is proposed done they can prevent or reverse it.

To get away from generalities, what specific measures do you think should be taken to increase “agility” and “flexibility” that can’t now be taken, which groups of voters would benefit and what would the cost be and for whom?

I think we discussed this a few weeks back and the main upside was freedom to feed chickens our leftovers.

Since about 2015 I have been asking those who advocate leave what actual benefits will result. The only thing they can ever come up with is "sovereignty", which is, of course, guff. Brexit is fool's gold, unless you are Tory politician at the right wing of the spectrum, a journalist or a hedge fund manager. Everyone else loses out.

A number of us have regularly pointed out benefits but you have always chosen to ignore them or deride them. There gets a point where it is no longer worth taking your questions at face value as clearly you have no interest in the answers.

I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.

nunu2 said:

RobD said:

El_Capitano said:

Brom said:

https://twitter.com/anguswalkertalk/status/1191351967320289281

Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.

That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.

I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.

Isn’t it only public because they decided to make it public?

Libdems need people to believe they can win.

Interesting when they decide to release the polls though. The Somerset North East one was released after some time

I would have thought they'll dribble them out between now and the beginning of December, only in the seats where they show something "encouraging", so as to maximize publicity.

I expect them to have minimal effect.

Stocky said:

nichomar said:

"TBP would rather we remained in the EU than let this deal go through. "

I don`t believe this is true. After all, the ERG accept that Boris`s deal qualifies as being Brexit - whereas May`s did not.

I think the truth is that Farage didn`t expect Boris to produce the deal that he did, and has now been forced to say things that he doesn`t truly believe - i.e. that the Boris deal is May`s deal re-heated.

For what it`s worth my in-laws (who are big leavers and fans of Farage), surprised me at the weekend by announcing that they would be voting for the Tory Party not the Brexit Party.

Myself and my wife voted BXP in the Euros. I wouldn't even consider doing that now since Boris has come back with this deal.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Looks like Farage is still after for a deal with the conservatives

And is this relevant

ERG Brokering Brexit Party Stand Down Terms with Downing Street https://t.co/8fbqh2KPjT https://t.co/XQ3Ob3BNL3

If he gets one it will be a further boost for the LDs. People might be able to hold their nose and vote Tory, but a toxic Tory/BXP alliance might be too much to swallow. I guess this has already been considered by the Tories.

Brom said:

Stocky said:

nichomar said:

"TBP would rather we remained in the EU than let this deal go through. "

I don`t believe this is true. After all, the ERG accept that Boris`s deal qualifies as being Brexit - whereas May`s did not.

I think the truth is that Farage didn`t expect Boris to produce the deal that he did, and has now been forced to say things that he doesn`t truly believe - i.e. that the Boris deal is May`s deal re-heated.

For what it`s worth my in-laws (who are big leavers and fans of Farage), surprised me at the weekend by announcing that they would be voting for the Tory Party not the Brexit Party.

Myself and my wife voted BXP in the Euros. I wouldn't even consider doing that now since Boris has come back with this deal.

Agreed.

Polruan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Polruan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigelb said:

Unanswered questions are at least now starting to be asked...
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/11/britain-and-europe-are-destined-be-rivals-after-brexit/601288/

Damn right we will be competitors after Brexit and too right too, that is the entire point.

Competition is a good thing, competition makes us healthier and better.

That is all very fine as a general statement.

But how politically acceptable do you think the measures needed to make this competition effective will be to the sorts of voters the Tories are targeting?

I hope they would be very acceptable and they would only occur post-Brexit if the population is carried to agree with the changes overall.

That is the whole point of taking back control, if the voters dislike what is proposed done they can prevent or reverse it.

But if the effect of taking back control, as you put it, is that voters then have a choice between significant economic damage on one hand, or accepting policies they don’t like in order to mitigate that damage on the other hand, doesn’t that suggest the cost of taking back control is too high? It looks a lot like an ideological benefit with no practical benefit at that point.

I never put the choice as that and I don't agree with such a negative attitude. I don't agree that the damage will be significant and I think the point of takin back control is not to "mitigate that damage" it is to cease currently neglected opportunities outside.

It comes back to the basic point that decreasing alignment with our EU neighbours will be damaging - it makes trade with those countries less free. The benefit of that dealignment could be to allow us to trade more freely with other countries but that means, in detail, thinking about what kind of divergence we need to take to get trade deals that EU membership precludes, and then whether the electorate would knowingly choose that divergence. For example, which food or environmental standards might we lower, how might we increase labour market flexibility (to use the positive spin phrase), what additionally non-EU immigration might we permit?

Why would decreasng alignment with our EU neighbours be damaging? If you assume it will be damaging, then yes it will, but you haven't justified such an assumption.

We don't necessarily need to lower food or environmental standards, but we can lower tariffs and other non-tariff barriers.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Brom said:

Stocky said:

nichomar said:

"TBP would rather we remained in the EU than let this deal go through. "

I don`t believe this is true. After all, the ERG accept that Boris`s deal qualifies as being Brexit - whereas May`s did not.

I think the truth is that Farage didn`t expect Boris to produce the deal that he did, and has now been forced to say things that he doesn`t truly believe - i.e. that the Boris deal is May`s deal re-heated.

For what it`s worth my in-laws (who are big leavers and fans of Farage), surprised me at the weekend by announcing that they would be voting for the Tory Party not the Brexit Party.

Myself and my wife voted BXP in the Euros. I wouldn't even consider doing that now since Boris has come back with this deal.

Agreed.

+1

rottenborough said: "My 40/1 shot now speaking for the speakers job."

I got 40/1 too.

Was it you who put this up last night? If he wins - thanks. If he loses - damn you!

Brom said:

Myself and my wife voted BXP in the Euros. I wouldn't even consider doing that now since Boris has come back with this deal.

Our house is exactly the same.

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/jrmaidment/status/1191324272385544192

Of course, the Prime Minister never goes back on his word on such deadlines.

A few BXP should go back to tories.

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigelb said:

Unanswered questions are at least now starting to be asked...
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/11/britain-and-europe-are-destined-be-rivals-after-brexit/601288/

Damn right we will be competitors after Brexit and too right too, that is the entire point.

Competition is a good thing, competition makes us healthier and better.

That is all very fine as a general statement.

But how politically acceptable do you think the measures needed to make this competition effective will be to the sorts of voters the Tories are targeting?

I hope they would be very acceptable and they would only occur post-Brexit if the population is carried to agree with the changes overall.

That is the whole point of taking back control, if the voters dislike what is proposed done they can prevent or reverse it.

To get away from generalities, what specific measures do you think should be taken to increase “agility” and “flexibility” that can’t now be taken, which groups of voters would benefit and what would the cost be and for whom?

One specific example I have oft-quoted is that we should with an independent trade policy look to liberalise trade with the rest of the world. We can get a trade deal with countries like the USA [which is bigger than the entire Single Market combined] and many more which the EU don't have a trade deal with.

The biggest advantage of leaving the EU, to me, is that it restores accountability in our democratic system. No longer will politicians be able to blame someone else. No longer will voters feel like they have no say over many of the rules that affect them.

(And I seriously doubt that the UK will end up in a free trade deal with the US any time soon. Simply, the price we'd have to pay in areas such as agriculture and intellectual property would be too high.)

Well it is an argument I suppose, though not a very strong one. Not sure it will stop them still blaming the EU, or other foreigners or some other bogie man that voters might be gullible enough to accept are the root of our ills. We will be begging the US for a deal from a very weak position. That, of course, in the minds of the Brexiteers will be the fault of the EU.

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

The biggest advantage of leaving the EU, to me, is that it restores accountability in our democratic system. No longer will politicians be able to blame someone else. No longer will voters feel like they have no say over many of the rules that affect them.

Of course they'll be able to blame someone else. They'll blame immigrants, Jewish bankers, some vaguely-defined elite...

Quite how anyone can think that once Brexit has been done our politicians will accept blame or responsibility for any of their policy outcomes is, frankly, beyond belief.

Pulpstar said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Meanwhile, teasing us:

https://twitter.com/roger_scully/status/1191301446664433665

Labour doing better than expected...

Can you link ?

That was my (cynical) guess

Sorry didn’t mean to excite

Those Brexit dividends in full:

1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero.
2. Droit de Suite (you can google it).
3. Er...
4. That's it.

ps. We were always sovereign

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.

It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.

Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.

I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.

SunnyJim said:

Brom said:

Myself and my wife voted BXP in the Euros. I wouldn't even consider doing that now since Boris has come back with this deal.

Our house is exactly the same.

Presumably you both backed May's deal too ;-) ?

TOPPING said:

edmundintokyo said:

rcs1000 said:

The biggest advantage of leaving the EU, to me, is that it restores accountability in our democratic system. No longer will politicians be able to blame someone else. No longer will voters feel like they have no say over many of the rules that affect them.

Of course they'll be able to blame someone else. They'll blame immigrants, Jewish bankers, some vaguely-defined elite...

Quite how anyone can think that once Brexit has been done our politicians will accept blame or responsibility for any of their policy outcomes is, frankly, beyond belief.

Particularly those who were vociferously in favour of Brexit.

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.

It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.

Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.

Think bigger. Our land could be the whole of Europe.

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.

It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.

Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.

I hesitate to get involved in a private fight, since experience suggests that both original combatants will turn on an interloper, but one of the reasons for banding together in 'something like' the EU is because business organisations are becoming bigger than can be reasonably dealt with by nation states.

I don't share that concern but if that was the argument then presumably we should be seeking to share sovereignty with America? As the organisations that affect our lives are more American than European?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

This is the pre cursor to WTO exit and Farage pact

Johnson and Cummings would probably rather lose the election than go in to a pact with Farage that precipitated a WTO exit.

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

El_Capitano said:

Brom said:

https://twitter.com/anguswalkertalk/status/1191351967320289281

Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.

That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.

I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.

Isn’t it only public because they decided to make it public?

BPC rules are getting somewhat abused here.

Lib Dems commission a bunch of private polls, release those whose results say what they want them to say - because they've been released Survation under BPC rules have to release the poll themselves too thus confirming the figures for the LDs to use them on their materials.

BPC rules should be tightened up. If parties are going to poll a bunch of constituencies and release some of the figures then the pollster should release all comparable polls they've done at the same time and not just the cherrypicked ones that have the results the party wants to get out there.

I don't see why. People commission private polls all the time and only release the ones that benefit them. That doesn't seem evil (or even wrong) to me.

Do you not see anything wrong in running 10 different polls asking the same question in the same region/constituency and then publish just one, the one that has the best results for you?

I see quite a lot wrong in that, and for clinical trials there is a strong push by Ben Goldacre and many others to make this illegal

Beibheirli_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.

It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.

Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.

Think bigger. Our land could be the whole of Europe.

Why Europe, why not the whole world? A whole Empire?

Nah, I'm happy with my own country thanks.

TOPPING said:

Those Brexit dividends in full:

1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero.
2. Droit de Suite (you can google it).
3. Er...
4. That's it.

ps. We were always sovereign

If we want to be reducing household energy consumption, prices need to go up not down...

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1191354669286723585

Is that the Anglican Council meeting place near the Houses of Parliament? Looks a bit familiar.

AramintaMoonbeamQC said: "Most of the Speaker candidates laying into Bercow's tenure."

Good - I think that there should be some sort of legislation passed to make clear that Bercow`s antics do not set precedent for the future.

RobD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.

It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.

Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.

Think bigger. Our land could be the whole of Europe.

What’s wrong with having distinct countries?

The concept of "distinct" countries has caused a lot of populations a lot of grief. A notable one is the Kurdish population, but there are dozens of cases in Africa where the indiginous populations got cut off by colonialists drawing straight lines on maps.

TOPPING said:

Quite how anyone can think that once Brexit has been done our politicians will accept blame or responsibility for any of their policy outcomes is, frankly, beyond belief.

It will certainly be more difficult for them to avoid taking responsibility although in fairness I can't remember many PM's blaming the EU for domestic policy decisions gone wrong.

Even after we leave the EU will still play a huge part in our politics as parties wrestle with their approach to our future relationship.

Not so much for the Tories as the ratchet will only turn one way in terms of how we relate to the EU but for Labour it presents a huge problem with the party needing to make a decision on promoting rejoining or not.

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

Those Brexit dividends in full:

1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero.
2. Droit de Suite (you can google it).
3. Er...
4. That's it.

ps. We were always sovereign

Always sovereign de jure, perhaps. In reality laws and regulations were made in Brussels.

We proved we were sovereign by voting to Leave. Oh you mean the laws and regulations that we, as part of the organisation, had a hand in devising, and thought on balance were better for the country than otherwise? Those laws and regulations?

I mean even though it doesn't seem right I do think that sometimes people should be denied the vote if they are too dim to understand how the modern world works.

Immediately with the condescending reply, thanks.

What the UK thinks is immaterial in a lot of areas now, and that list Is only growing with the desire to have everything decided under QMV. Of courses we had influence in those decisions, but not a right to ignore the decisions if we had wished to remain a member.

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

I think you and I have enough mutual respect for you to know that the question is a genuine one. We will almost certainly get Brexit in some shape or form, and I accept that is almost inevitable. However, I genuinely still have not heard an argument in favour for the principle of Brexit that cannot be shot down very easily. I can see an argument that it is now too late to go back, but not an argument that justifies the whole process from first principles; I.e. why it might have been a good idea to do it in the first place. I think it might be better if Brexit supporters just simply said it was a gut instinct or an article of faith, like those who believe in a religion.

It is a good idea because the laws of our land should be set by the people we elect - and if our laws are wrong the people should be able to elect a new government that can amend or reverse that law.

Go on shoot it down in a way that addresses my point and not yours please.

Think bigger. Our land could be the whole of Europe.

Why Europe, why not the whole world? A whole Empire?

Nah, I'm happy with my own country thanks.

You'll be agin that whole Anglosphere gubbins then...

nichomar said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

Those Brexit dividends in full:

1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero.
2. Droit de Suite (you can google it).
3. Er...
4. That's it.

ps. We were always sovereign

Always sovereign de jure, perhaps. In reality laws and regulations were made in Brussels.

To which we were about 87% in agreement iirc

It was higher than that, wasn't it?

OllyT said:

camel said:

Brom said:

https://twitter.com/anguswalkertalk/status/1191351967320289281

Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.

That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.

I'd be surprised if, by December, there are more than 50 'active' BXP candidates, possibly hurting lab more than con.

From a libdem perspective though, the more the merrier. From a betting perspective I have no idea, though I shall be trawling here for clues.

I suspect it's how many that are on the ballot paper that matters, not how active they are. BXP are simply going for a national campaign fronted by Farage.

Exactly they will use national newspapers for advertising, street stalls to create the impression of presence and limited canvassing.

eristdoof said:

AndyJS said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Talking of constituencies:

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1191341300001517568

Another drop in the Labour share of between 15% and 20%. Almost all the polls, whether national or constituency, point to that sort of decline.

The ones showing only a 2 %-point drop in Labour votes might be the polls not being published by the LDs.

Where would they be ?

Harman: vote for me cause I’m a woman.

Compelling.

SunnyJim said:

TOPPING said:

Quite how anyone can think that once Brexit has been done our politicians will accept blame or responsibility for any of their policy outcomes is, frankly, beyond belief.

It will certainly be more difficult for them to avoid taking responsibility although in fairness I can't remember many PM's blaming the EU for domestic policy decisions gone wrong.

Even after we leave the EU will still play a huge part in our politics as parties wrestle with their approach to our future relationship.

Not so much for the Tories as the ratchet will only turn one way in terms of how we relate to the EU but for Labour it presents a huge problem with the party needing to make a decision on promoting rejoining or not.

The irony is that whereas I agree with you that I can't recall any PM blaming the EU, from Brexit onwards, if things go badly for any reason then it will be because of the EU. Far from UK politicians accepting responsibility it will be a get out of jail free card for them to use the whole time. Analagously to the "there's no money left" note.

Bryant has just moved up to 2nd favorite with Lads at 8/1. He was 22/1 not ten minutes ago with Betfair (until I took it!).

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

Those Brexit dividends in full:

1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero.
2. Droit de Suite (you can google it).
3. Er...
4. That's it.

ps. We were always sovereign

Always sovereign de jure, perhaps. In reality laws and regulations were made in Brussels.

We proved we were sovereign by voting to Leave. Oh you mean the laws and regulations that we, as part of the organisation, had a hand in devising, and thought on balance were better for the country than otherwise? Those laws and regulations?

I mean even though it doesn't seem right I do think that sometimes people should be denied the vote if they are too dim to understand how the modern world works.

Immediately with the condescending reply, thanks.

What the UK thinks is immaterial in a lot of areas now, and that list Is only growing with the desire to have everything decided under QMV. Of courses shadbush influence in those decisions, but not a right to ignore the decisions if we had wished to remain a member.

What in your mind is the primary example of where we have had a decision go against us which cemented your views that we were better off out?

I don’t think any were particularly critical in cementing my view. The obvious example of a decision is that of the VAT rules. Yes, we may have agreed with a lot of things before, but that was in the era of the veto, so we had to agree.

NickPalmer said:

Sinn Fein standing down to help Sylvia Hermon is quite startling, and a very good move in terms of getting Northern Irish politics a little more like our normal, sober political system (well...). Seriously, it's great.

https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/status/1191342263219171330?s=21

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

El_Capitano said:

Brom said:

https://twitter.com/anguswalkertalk/status/1191351967320289281

Think there will be quite a lot of this. Plenty of candidates will stand aside so you would think it's better Farage makes the decision himself rather than have the candidates for him. Heard the original Portsmouth South candidate is no longer standing too.

That Portsmouth South poll could be the best thing that happened to the Tories.

I'm surprised that the Lib Dems are commissioning public rather than private polling.

Isn’t it only public because they decided to make it public?

BPC rules are getting somewhat abused here.

Lib Dems commission a bunch of private polls, release those whose results say what they want them to say - because they've been released Survation under BPC rules have to release the poll themselves too thus confirming the figures for the LDs to use them on their materials.

BPC rules should be tightened up. If parties are going to poll a bunch of constituencies and release some of the figures then the pollster should release all comparable polls they've done at the same time and not just the cherrypicked ones that have the results the party wants to get out there.

I don't see why. People commission private polls all the time and only release the ones that benefit them. That doesn't seem evil (or even wrong) to me.

It's because you introduce a selection bias if you only publish the polls that look good to you. It's like the xkcd cartoon on jelly beans causing acne.

Suppose the Lib Dems have conducted opinion polls in 100 constituencies. Five of these, entirely randomly, will give the Lib Dems really good results. Because of the small sample size of these opinion polls, really, *really* good results.

If they then only publish those five opinion polls, and shred the other 95, they present a completely false picture of their electoral prospects. It's the sort of statistical dishonesty that BPC rules are meant to prevent.

On the other hand, if the Lib Dems conduct constituency polls in 100 constituencies and publish all of them, then you get to see the full range of random sample bias, in all its absurd glory. Also, if it turns out that the Lib Dems genuinely only conduct five constituency opinion polls, publish them all, and they *all* look good for the Lib Dems, that gives you greater confidence in their collective result.

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

Those Brexit dividends in full:

1. We can lower VAT on home energy costs to zero.
2. Droit de Suite (you can google it).
3. Er...
4. That's it.

ps. We were always sovereign

Always sovereign de jure, perhaps. In reality laws and regulations were made in Brussels.

We proved we were sovereign by voting to Leave. Oh you mean the laws and regulations that we, as part of the organisation, had a hand in devising, and thought on balance were better for the country than otherwise? Those laws and regulations?

I mean even though it doesn't seem right I do think that sometimes people should be denied the vote if they are too dim to understand how the modern world works.

Immediately with the condescending reply, thanks.

What the UK thinks is immaterial in a lot of areas now, and that list Is only growing with the desire to have everything decided under QMV. Of courses shadbush influence in those decisions, but not a right to ignore the decisions if we had wished to remain a member.

What in your mind is the primary example of where we have had a decision go against us which cemented your views that we were better off out?

I don’t think any were particularly critical in cementing my view. The obvious example of a decision is that of the VAT rules. Yes, we may have agreed with a lot of things before, but that was in the era of the veto, so we had to agree.

So you voted to leave the EU because the UK couldn't reduce VAT on home energy supplies from 5% to zero? In which party's manifesto was that commitment? Cons presumably? The Cons, of course, who put it up from zero all those years ago.

Tell me also, if you would, why our standard rate of VAT is 20% when we are able to reduce it to 15% if we wanted?

RobD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Harriet Harman: An extra deputy speaker from the minority parties.

If that happened it would increase the government's majority wouldn't it? Speaker and deputy speakers don't vote but they are balanced between government and opposition - if the minority parties got a deputy then unless that was offset by another government deputy speaker then if the deputies continue to not vote that would affect the votes. Has she thought that one through?

I viewed it as an appeal to the SNP. They have an absolute majority of minority seats, I think.

Who aren't in the Commons today to vote. They're off campaigning.