Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is a good moment to recall the MP stage of the 2001 Tory

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited June 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is a good moment to recall the MP stage of the 2001 Tory leadership election when Portillo missed the cut by just one vote

The very first time the CON leadership election procedure that we are seeing at the moment was used was in 2001 in the aftermath of Tony Blair’s second successive landslide general election victory.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    First like Boris
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    2001 not 2011!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Wow, IDS trounced Clarke.

    Quite a nasty story. If I were PM I don't think I'd want to have a humiliated senior colleague on the backbenches. It's not as though the Government was brimming with such obvious talent that they can afford to discard what they've got.
    They need to make room for Boris lickspittles, I mean supporters. Not all will actually believe in him, and of those that don't not all will be swayed by being junior minister at DfID, they need that 'The Rt Honourable' to their name.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Note the tie for last place on the first ballot, but no one was eliminated.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    I'm not sure Portillo would ever have done anything other than race Blair to the bottom in the popularity stakes. He wouldn't have been any different to Blair on Iraq, would he? Maybe even a little more gung ho.....
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    I'm not sure Portillo would ever have done anything other than race Blair to the bottom in the popularity stakes. He wouldn't have been any different to Blair on Iraq, would he? Maybe even a little more gung ho.....

    Was IDS any different to Blair on Iraq?
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    In 2001 even if Portillo had won I doubt the Tories could have done much better than reducing the Labour Majority in 2005 to say 20.

    Yes, Portillo could have projected a moderate Conservative alternative to Blair but the Labour Majority of 165 was too big for the Tories to overturn it. It has to be remembered the Tories only had 166 seats in the 2001 GE. The LD would also have been unlikely to assist the Tories in 2005 even in a hung parliament as the then leader Charles Kennedy was notoriously anti-Tory even in the Coalition years.

    I doubt Portillo would have opposed the Iraq war, unlike Ken Clarke who did!

    The other feature of this period was the economy was doing well with full employment and rising living standards/ average earnings. Tony Blair said of the 2005 election in a post PM interview that the 2005 GE was an election the Labour party could not lose. What he meant was the Tories could not possibly overturn the Labour majority given the number of Labour incumbents and the underlying fundamentals that were so strongly in Labour's favour. He was not being complacent or arrogant but knew the campaigning constraints the Tories or Labour have in targeting the rivals seats. The LD despite the Iraq war were only ever going to nibble at the edges and so could be practically ignored as a threat.


    I write the above as someone who Voted Tory in 1997, 2001 and 2005.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FPT
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    There is no candidate left who is prepared to work with the deal on the table. This makes both no deal Brexit and revoke more likely.

    Who is going to lead any kind of drive to compromise now?

    Oh I do hope we end up revoking. Just to teach the stupid malicious Brexiteers a lesson.
    In that way can I hope we end up no dealing? Just to teach the stupid malicious Remainers a lesson.

    The vast, vast majority of Leavers in Parliament backed the WA MV3. It failed because it was opposed by the vast, vast majority of Remainers. It is the Remainers who have thwarted the WA and it would be karmic justice if that leads to a harder Brexit.
    You’re someone who is willing to see people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere killed or maimed in order to get your precious Brexit. So it’s not surprising you are willing to impose economic harm as well.

    It was the ERG which trashed the WA and gave cover to Labour and others not to vote for it. Anyway, it is now dead. There will be no transition, despite Boris’s lies about this last night. A crash out of the EU will have damaging effects on industry and agriculture and NI and much else besides. It won’t be good for the Tories. Nor will it do much for democracy either, which will likely come under strain when people realise they have been sold a pup.

    But, hey, this is all an acceptable price to pay for those who’ve decided that the EU is some sort of evil being.
    I don't think the EU is evil, I've said I was torn on whether to leave or remain and I'd be happy either way.

    I do think disenfranchising people so they can't elect the people who set their laws is evil. That is the backstop.

    I don't want to see people get killed but lets swap the subject matter. If al'Qaeda said we have to implement Sharia law and ban women from voting and driving or they will implement a bombing campaign . . . would you be prepared to ban women from voting and driving etc?

    If you're not prepared to ban women from voting, how is that any different to me not being prepared to ban NI from voting?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited June 2019

    I'm not sure Portillo would ever have done anything other than race Blair to the bottom in the popularity stakes. He wouldn't have been any different to Blair on Iraq, would he? Maybe even a little more gung ho.....

    Was IDS any different to Blair on Iraq?
    No, because he made the big mistake, as many of us did, that a PM wouldn't lie to the House on such a grave matter.

    Seems naive now, of course. But that was before people understood how much New Labour had corrupted the body politic.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    edited June 2019
    Hammond's going to be whining about "No Deal" and about us having another referendum tomorrow apparently.

    Will we ever be rid of May and Hammond's doom and gloom?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    It seems pretty clear to me that Labour are edging (incredibly slowly) towards support for a 2nd Ref. I would be very surprised if it were not in their manifesto for any autumn GE.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    GIN1138 said:

    Hammond's going to be whining about "No Deal" and about us having another referendum tomorrow apparently.

    Will we ever be rid of May and Hammond's doom and gloom?

    Only when it's been shown to be right.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    edited June 2019

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    It seems pretty clear to me that Labour are edging (incredibly slowly) towards support for a 2nd Ref. I would be very surprised if it were not in their manifesto for any autumn GE.
    You have Stockholm Syndrome and Corbyn is your captor. This is delusional, and slightly sad. Jeremy C will only agree to a new vote when it is far too late to have a new vote. He might not agree, even then.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Portillo is a heavyweight figure but the polling evidence at the time was the Tories would have done even worse with him than with IDS v Blair with Clarke doing best.

    It could well be Hunt is Portillo this time and Gove will play the IDS and knock him out by the narrowest of margins after he was previously heading for the membership vote. Boris like Clarke should come top in the final round but this time is more in touch with the members' views than the former Chancellor so should win
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    It seems pretty clear to me that Labour are edging (incredibly slowly) towards support for a 2nd Ref. I would be very surprised if it were not in their manifesto for any autumn GE.
    Tom Watson on Peston now, 26 Labour MPs have signed a letter opposing EUref2
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,751

    I'm not sure Portillo would ever have done anything other than race Blair to the bottom in the popularity stakes. He wouldn't have been any different to Blair on Iraq, would he? Maybe even a little more gung ho.....

    Was IDS any different to Blair on Iraq?
    Yes, he was.
    IDS was warmongering with Cheney & Wolfowitz before the dodgy dossier was a twinkle in Campbell's eye.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited June 2019
    There's something to be said for getting your entertaining-yourself-in-a-gentleman's-manner phase out of the way quickly after you enter opposition. If Labour had picked Corbyn in 2010 he'd have rebuilt their membership then lost convincingly to Cameron, and by now they'd be looking like an alternative government again.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    I'm not sure Portillo would ever have done anything other than race Blair to the bottom in the popularity stakes. He wouldn't have been any different to Blair on Iraq, would he? Maybe even a little more gung ho.....

    Indeed, Portillo may even have done worse than Howard in 2005 as he would have lost more votes to UKIP while failing to win many more from Labour or the LDs.

    Clarke however might have got a hung parliament as lots of LDs would have 'lent' him their votes as he opposed the Iraq War unlike Blair. Labour would still have come first but it might have hastened the Brown premiership
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited June 2019
    I wasn't a member of the party in 2001, but I remember having a conversation about the selection of IDS with a friend of mine who was a senior district councillor and a dyed-in-the-wool Tory activist (she'd been PA to a cabinet minister). I asked her what on earth the party was doing choosing an obvious dud instead of Ken Clarke. The answer was very revealing: she accepted that IDS was going to be a dud, and that everyone in the party knew he was going to be a dud, but that they had no choice but to go for IDS because Ken Clarke would have split the party over Europe.

    I think we are seeing a similar dynamic now, but it's based on a more obviously false premise.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    GIN1138 said:

    Hammond's going to be whining about "No Deal" and about us having another referendum tomorrow apparently.

    Will we ever be rid of May and Hammond's doom and gloom?

    Only when it's been shown to be right.
    Then we'll be waiting a long time. As if a second referendum is going to produce less uncertainty? What an utter farce.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2019
    It's going to be very difficult to predict the ballot results tomorrow, with all the alleged tactical voting taking place.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited June 2019

    GIN1138 said:

    Hammond's going to be whining about "No Deal" and about us having another referendum tomorrow apparently.

    Will we ever be rid of May and Hammond's doom and gloom?

    Only when it's been shown to be right.
    Then we'll be waiting a long time. As if a second referendum is going to produce less uncertainty? What an utter farce.
    We may not have long to wait. If Boris keep to his promise (a gigantic 'if' admittedly), we'll know by the end of November.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979

    I wasn't a member of the party in 2001, but I remember having a conversation about the selection of IDS with a friend of mine who was a senior district councillor and a dyed-in-the-wool Tory activists (she'd been PA to a cabinet minister). I asked her what on earth the party was doing choosing an obvious dud instead of Ken Clarke. The answer was very revealing: she accepted that IDS was going to be a dud, and that everyone in the party knew he was going to be a dud, but that they had no choice but to go for IDS because Ken Clarke would have split the party over Europe.

    I think we are seeing a similar dynamic now, but it's based on a more obviously false premise.

    I voted for Ken Clarke in the leadership election in 2001.

    I can never understand the obsession (anti) with Europe.

    It is true if you are clever and want to get on in the Conservative party, the best thing to do is mention opposition to Europe and you will have them eating out of your hand!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Rory on Peston now
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited June 2019
    The first images from a trial of Emmanuel Macron’s compulsory national service for French teenagers have sparked criticism on the left that youngsters are made to wear uniforms, attend early morning flag ceremonies and repeatedly sing the national anthem.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/19/rollout-of-compulsory-civic-service-for-young-people-in-france-sparks-criticisms

    The horrors of wearing a polo t-shirt with a logo on it....outrageous.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    I wasn't a member of the party in 2001, but I remember having a conversation about the selection of IDS with a friend of mine who was a senior district councillor and a dyed-in-the-wool Tory activists (she'd been PA to a cabinet minister). I asked her what on earth the party was doing choosing an obvious dud instead of Ken Clarke. The answer was very revealing: she accepted that IDS was going to be a dud, and that everyone in the party knew he was going to be a dud, but that they had no choice but to go for IDS because Ken Clarke would have split the party over Europe.

    I think we are seeing a similar dynamic now, but it's based on a more obviously false premise.

    I voted for Ken Clarke in the leadership election in 2001.

    I can never understand the obsession (anti) with Europe.

    It is true if you are clever and want to get on in the Conservative party, the best thing to do is mention opposition to Europe and you will have them eating out of your hand!
    Until you have to deliver. By voting for Brexit.

    Then....um....ah....it's...complicated.....
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    Is it chaos? Or is Corbyn simply waiting for the Lib Dem and Tory leaderships to be settled before selecting the exact course to set the sails for.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    It seems pretty clear to me that Labour are edging (incredibly slowly) towards support for a 2nd Ref. I would be very surprised if it were not in their manifesto for any autumn GE.
    I really do not understand why they are moving so glacially on this. Whatever Corbyn's purported reluctance and the couple dozen whingers (who refused to leave when they had the chance, for the most part), things have clearly moved on and I just don't get what the point of stepping slowly on the matter is gaining them.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    HYUFD said:

    Rory on Peston now

    Thatcher Documentary (final part) on BBC2
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    GIN1138 said:

    Hammond's going to be whining about "No Deal" and about us having another referendum tomorrow apparently.

    Will we ever be rid of May and Hammond's doom and gloom?

    Doom and gloom can be perfectly appropriate, only time will tell. It's like dismissing something as scaremongering - it can be a legitimate thing, not purely a means to dismiss an opponent.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    kle4 said:

    Note the tie for last place on the first ballot, but no one was eliminated.

    It was re-run. Ancram came last, Davis withdrew.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    I refuse to belive they want an early election against Boris.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    Rory on Peston now

    Thatcher Documentary (final part) on BBC2
    Saw it on Monday
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    Note the tie for last place on the first ballot, but no one was eliminated.

    It was re-run. Ancram came last, Davis withdrew.
    Yes I know. I thought it interesting given the speculation abotu what would happen if 2 people tied now, and refused to step aside, and also given they deliberately avoided that with the general threshold level so that many people could go out at once. I don't know if they specificied in the rules what would happen if there was a tie, but I doubt they would do a re-run this time around.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2019
    Is it just a coincidence they're showing a series about Margaret Thatcher during the Tory leadership contest?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    I refuse to belive they want an early election against Boris.
    Sure, it might be a gamble, if he does a better job than many think, or at least boosts the Tory rating if he can regain some BXP support. But a GE in more chaotic circumstances than those most beneficial to Boris seems perfectly possible as well, and Labour have a great chance of holding out better than the Tories at least, given the Tories being at risk to LDs, Labour, SNP and BXP. Labour also have a far easier path to a governing coalition, even if not straightfoward or guaranteed.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    GIN1138 said:

    Hammond's going to be whining about "No Deal" and about us having another referendum tomorrow apparently.

    Will we ever be rid of May and Hammond's doom and gloom?

    Hammond is one of the few sane members of the cabinet .

    It’s astonishing the levels of denial amongst some Leavers . Do you seriously think you can leave a 45 year trade relationship and skip off into the sunset without a care in the world.

    Wil you be telling the farmer who goes out of business because of tariffs to stop whining .

    A simple question ? Please explain how a farmer can compete and sell his lamb into the EU with a 40% tariff ?

    And no believing in Brexit isn’t the answer !
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    nico67 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Hammond's going to be whining about "No Deal" and about us having another referendum tomorrow apparently.

    Will we ever be rid of May and Hammond's doom and gloom?

    And no believing in Brexit isn’t the answer!
    It's unkind to undermine the central pillar of peoples' religion like that. Brexit is so important the destruction of the UK, the Tories, peace, everything, must be sacrificed to it. Claiming not believing in it is not enough in itseld, well, words fail me. Heresy of the worst kind.

    Best not let Grand Brexit Inquisitor Farage hear you say that.

    Good night all.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    AndyJS said:

    Is it just a coincidence they're showing a series about Margaret Thatcher during the Tory leadership contest?

    I thought it was, but now I think about it it seems improbable.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,079

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    I refuse to belive they want an early election against Boris.
    No, they always want an election. Corbyn is a pisspoor LOTO, but the one thing that he loves doing is campaigning and speaking to crowds at rallies. He is quite good at it

    He takes the Martini approach to elections, any time, any place anywhere.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Foxy said:

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    I refuse to belive they want an early election against Boris.
    No, they always want an election. Corbyn is a pisspoor LOTO, but the one thing that he loves doing is campaigning and speaking to crowds at rallies. He is quite good at it

    He takes the Martini approach to elections, any time, any place anywhere.
    Its one advantage of having the same views and solutions to problems for over 40 years.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    nico67 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Hammond's going to be whining about "No Deal" and about us having another referendum tomorrow apparently.

    Will we ever be rid of May and Hammond's doom and gloom?

    Hammond is one of the few sane members of the cabinet .

    It’s astonishing the levels of denial amongst some Leavers . Do you seriously think you can leave a 45 year trade relationship and skip off into the sunset without a care in the world.

    Wil you be telling the farmer who goes out of business because of tariffs to stop whining .

    A simple question ? Please explain how a farmer can compete and sell his lamb into the EU with a 40% tariff ?

    And no believing in Brexit isn’t the answer !
    The government will pretend to renegotiate, act shocked when Bussels says no, check whether the farmer is in a Tory voting area, if he is then he will be subsidised out of tax money, if he isn't then he will be left to die, and PB will be full of Leavers saying "BAD EU" incessantly.

    I realise I've said this so often I've become a cliche, but that really is how they will handle it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,079
    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Is it just a coincidence they're showing a series about Margaret Thatcher during the Tory leadership contest?

    I thought it was, but now I think about it it seems improbable.
    To mark 10 years since her defenestration by her party perhaps? and 30 years since her election.

    All the Eighties backgrounds are interesting. People were certainly a lot thinner back then.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Possible scenario:

    If Hunt somehow gets knocked out in the next round, Javid could unexpectedly find himself in the final two if the Johnson team's determination to vote tactically against Gove continues to be their policy.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    There's something to be said for getting your entertaining-yourself-in-a-gentleman's-manner phase out of the way quickly after you enter opposition. If Labour had picked Corbyn in 2010 he'd have rebuilt their membership then lost convincingly to Cameron, and by now they'd be looking like an alternative government again.

    The Tories are taking it a bit far to enter that phase while still in government.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2019
    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Is it just a coincidence they're showing a series about Margaret Thatcher during the Tory leadership contest?

    I thought it was, but now I think about it it seems improbable.
    To mark 10 years since her defenestration by her party perhaps? and 30 years since her election.

    All the Eighties backgrounds are interesting. People were certainly a lot thinner back then.
    I was looking at some photos of my family from the 80s the other day and we were all as thin as sticks. We didn't think of ourselves as thin at the time, though. Most people were like that.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    FPT
    I don't think the EU is evil, I've said I was torn on whether to leave or remain and I'd be happy either way.

    I do think disenfranchising people so they can't elect the people who set their laws is evil. That is the backstop.

    I don't want to see people get killed but lets swap the subject matter. If al'Qaeda said we have to implement Sharia law and ban women from voting and driving or they will implement a bombing campaign . . . would you be prepared to ban women from voting and driving etc?

    If you're not prepared to ban women from voting, how is that any different to me not being prepared to ban NI from voting?

    *crickets*

    I feel like everyone here acts so outraged that I'm not prepared to disenfranchise NI voters to avoid the risk of terrorism.

    But nobody ever answers the alternative as to whether they would disenfranchise women to avoid the risk of terrorism.

    Cancelling Brexit unless it is the will of the voters is disenfranchising the UK voters so that isn't an answer either.

    Either the risk of terrorism is so atrocious we must be prepared to sacrifice our fundamental human rights to avoid it ... or our hard fought liberties and human rights are more important than the threat of terrorism.

    When the threat is Islamic terrorism the refrain is globally that we must not sacrifice our liberties . . . There is no difference here. The right to elect the people who set your laws is the most fundamental of all liberties.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 3,703

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    It seems pretty clear to me that Labour are edging (incredibly slowly) towards support for a 2nd Ref. I would be very surprised if it were not in their manifesto for any autumn GE.
    Selling EUref2 and Remain when the proposal is a "nasty Tory Brexit" is one thing. Selling EUref2 and Remain on a "nice Labour Brexit" (even if virtually indistinguishable) is somewhat tricky.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    FPT
    I don't think the EU is evil, I've said I was torn on whether to leave or remain and I'd be happy either way.

    I do think disenfranchising people so they can't elect the people who set their laws is evil. That is the backstop.

    I don't want to see people get killed but lets swap the subject matter. If al'Qaeda said we have to implement Sharia law and ban women from voting and driving or they will implement a bombing campaign . . . would you be prepared to ban women from voting and driving etc?

    If you're not prepared to ban women from voting, how is that any different to me not being prepared to ban NI from voting?

    *crickets*

    I feel like everyone here acts so outraged that I'm not prepared to disenfranchise NI voters to avoid the risk of terrorism.

    But nobody ever answers the alternative as to whether they would disenfranchise women to avoid the risk of terrorism.

    Cancelling Brexit unless it is the will of the voters is disenfranchising the UK voters so that isn't an answer either.

    Either the risk of terrorism is so atrocious we must be prepared to sacrifice our fundamental human rights to avoid it ... or our hard fought liberties and human rights are more important than the threat of terrorism.

    When the threat is Islamic terrorism the refrain is globally that we must not sacrifice our liberties . . . There is no difference here. The right to elect the people who set your laws is the most fundamental of all liberties.

    The people of Northern Ireland - who understand better than anyone the issues involved and are the only UK citizens who will be affected - give every impression of wanting the backstop. Why is it democratic to deny them it?

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    edited June 2019
    AndyJS said:

    Possible scenario:

    If Hunt somehow gets knocked out in the next round, Javid could unexpectedly find himself in the final two if the Johnson team's determination to vote tactically against Gove continues to be their policy.

    I said many, many months ago that a Javid-Boris contest would be fascinating. Since then, Javid has somewhat underwhelmed, but it would still be a decision that would cause many members of the Party to consider their vote.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Is it just a coincidence they're showing a series about Margaret Thatcher during the Tory leadership contest?

    I thought it was, but now I think about it it seems improbable.
    To mark 10 years since her defenestration by her party perhaps? and 30 years since her election.

    All the Eighties backgrounds are interesting. People were certainly a lot thinner back then.
    With better cheekbones. But the teeth were horrendous. And the hairstyles were...elaborate? and the fashions were...well, stylized is the word. Everybody smoked and the Russians were trying to kill us....
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697

    AndyJS said:

    Possible scenario:

    If Hunt somehow gets knocked out in the next round, Javid could unexpectedly find himself in the final two if the Johnson team's determination to vote tactically against Gove continues to be their policy.

    I said many, many months ago that a Javid-Boris contest would be fascinating. Since then, Javid has somewhat underwhelmed, but it would still be a decision that would cause many members of the Party to consider their vote.
    Javid angling to be COTE in a Boris government apparently so if he is in the final two he could potentially be brought off... ;)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    kle4 said:

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    I refuse to belive they want an early election against Boris.
    Sure, it might be a gamble, if he does a better job than many think, or at least boosts the Tory rating if he can regain some BXP support. But a GE in more chaotic circumstances than those most beneficial to Boris seems perfectly possible as well, and Labour have a great chance of holding out better than the Tories at least, given the Tories being at risk to LDs, Labour, SNP and BXP. Labour also have a far easier path to a governing coalition, even if not straightfoward or guaranteed.

    If there is a GE before Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the Tory manifesto says. If there is a GE after a negotiated Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the agreement says. If there is a No Deal Brexit, then Labour will be standing in every constituency crying betrayal, as will the LibDems, the Greens, the SNP and Plaid, while BXP will also be standing and screaming that betrayal and surrender to Brussels is just around the corner. Good luck Tories.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    FPT
    I don't think the EU is evil, I've said I was torn on whether to leave or remain and I'd be happy either way.

    I do think disenfranchising people so they can't elect the people who set their laws is evil. That is the backstop.

    I don't want to see people get killed but lets swap the subject matter. If al'Qaeda said we have to implement Sharia law and ban women from voting and driving or they will implement a bombing campaign . . . would you be prepared to ban women from voting and driving etc?

    If you're not prepared to ban women from voting, how is that any different to me not being prepared to ban NI from voting?

    *crickets*

    I feel like everyone here acts so outraged that I'm not prepared to disenfranchise NI voters to avoid the risk of terrorism.

    But nobody ever answers the alternative as to whether they would disenfranchise women to avoid the risk of terrorism.

    Cancelling Brexit unless it is the will of the voters is disenfranchising the UK voters so that isn't an answer either.

    Either the risk of terrorism is so atrocious we must be prepared to sacrifice our fundamental human rights to avoid it ... or our hard fought liberties and human rights are more important than the threat of terrorism.

    When the threat is Islamic terrorism the refrain is globally that we must not sacrifice our liberties . . . There is no difference here. The right to elect the people who set your laws is the most fundamental of all liberties.

    The people of Northern Ireland - who understand better than anyone the issues involved and are the only UK citizens who will be affected - give every impression of wanting the backstop. Why is it democratic to deny them it?

    Because it is always democratic to allow people to elect their leaders. Voting to abolish democracy is not democratic.

    The backstop is literally denying the voters of NI the right fo elect their leaders.

    If a majority in this country voted to deny women the vote going forwards under threat of terrorism if we didn't would that be OK?

    IF the backstop is amended to allow NI the right to unilaterally exit OR give them full voting powers (including putting Arlene Foster on the European Council) then that would be democratic.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,079
    viewcode said:

    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Is it just a coincidence they're showing a series about Margaret Thatcher during the Tory leadership contest?

    I thought it was, but now I think about it it seems improbable.
    To mark 10 years since her defenestration by her party perhaps? and 30 years since her election.

    All the Eighties backgrounds are interesting. People were certainly a lot thinner back then.
    With better cheekbones. But the teeth were horrendous. And the hairstyles were...elaborate? and the fashions were...well, stylized is the word. Everybody smoked and the Russians were trying to kill us....
    Big hair and big suits. Apart from the obvious exception of MT, politics was very much a white man's business.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    FPT
    I don't think the EU is evil, I've said I was torn on whether to leave or remain and I'd be happy either way.

    I do think disenfranchising people so they can't elect the people who set their laws is evil. That is the backstop.

    I don't want to see people get killed but lets swap the subject matter. If al'Qaeda said we have to implement Sharia law and ban women from voting and driving or they will implement a bombing campaign . . . would you be prepared to ban women from voting and driving etc?

    If you're not prepared to ban women from voting, how is that any different to me not being prepared to ban NI from voting?

    *crickets*

    I feel like everyone here acts so outraged that I'm not prepared to disenfranchise NI voters to avoid the risk of terrorism.

    But nobody ever answers the alternative as to whether they would disenfranchise women to avoid the risk of terrorism.

    Cancelling Brexit unless it is the will of the voters is disenfranchising the UK voters so that isn't an answer either.

    Either the risk of terrorism is so atrocious we must be prepared to sacrifice our fundamental human rights to avoid it ... or our hard fought liberties and human rights are more important than the threat of terrorism.

    When the threat is Islamic terrorism the refrain is globally that we must not sacrifice our liberties . . . There is no difference here. The right to elect the people who set your laws is the most fundamental of all liberties.

    The people of Northern Ireland - who understand better than anyone the issues involved and are the only UK citizens who will be affected - give every impression of wanting the backstop. Why is it democratic to deny them it?

    Because it is always democratic to allow people to elect their leaders. Voting to abolish democracy is not democratic.

    The backstop is literally denying the voters of NI the right fo elect their leaders.

    If a majority in this country voted to deny women the vote going forwards under threat of terrorism if we didn't would that be OK?

    IF the backstop is amended to allow NI the right to unilaterally exit OR give them full voting powers (including putting Arlene Foster on the European Council) then that would be democratic.

    So you know better than the people of Northern Ireland what is best for them?

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2019
    viewcode said:

    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Is it just a coincidence they're showing a series about Margaret Thatcher during the Tory leadership contest?

    I thought it was, but now I think about it it seems improbable.
    To mark 10 years since her defenestration by her party perhaps? and 30 years since her election.

    All the Eighties backgrounds are interesting. People were certainly a lot thinner back then.
    With better cheekbones. But the teeth were horrendous. And the hairstyles were...elaborate? and the fashions were...well, stylized is the word. Everybody smoked and the Russians were trying to kill us....
    Actually smoking went out of fashion in the late 70s/early 80s in a lot of middle-class areas. I grew up in that sort of neighbourhood in the 80s and very few people smoked; by the mid/late 80s smoking was already frowned upon by a lot of people from that sort of background.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    kle4 said:

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    I refuse to belive they want an early election against Boris.
    Sure, it might be a gamble, if he does a better job than many think, or at least boosts the Tory rating if he can regain some BXP support. But a GE in more chaotic circumstances than those most beneficial to Boris seems perfectly possible as well, and Labour have a great chance of holding out better than the Tories at least, given the Tories being at risk to LDs, Labour, SNP and BXP. Labour also have a far easier path to a governing coalition, even if not straightfoward or guaranteed.

    If there is a GE before Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the Tory manifesto says. If there is a GE after a negotiated Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the agreement says. If there is a No Deal Brexit, then Labour will be standing in every constituency crying betrayal, as will the LibDems, the Greens, the SNP and Plaid, while BXP will also be standing and screaming that betrayal and surrender to Brussels is just around the corner. Good luck Tories.

    Except Boris, unlike May, will be campaigning on leaving in October Deal or No Deal, so they can cry betrayal as much as they want but it will not work with May gone and a Leaver in charge.

    Labour itself is split with many of its Remainers now voting LD or Green
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    If Javid gets 90% of Stewart's supporters he'd be on around 60 votes tomorrow. Not impossible he could challenge Gove and Hunt.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    I refuse to belive they want an early election against Boris.
    Sure, it might be a gamble, if he does a better job than many think, or at least boosts the Tory rating if he can regain some BXP support. But a GE in more chaotic circumstances than those most beneficial to Boris seems perfectly possible as well, and Labour have a great chance of holding out better than the Tories at least, given the Tories being at risk to LDs, Labour, SNP and BXP. Labour also have a far easier path to a governing coalition, even if not straightfoward or guaranteed.

    If there is a GE before Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the Tory manifesto says. If there is a GE after a negotiated Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the agreement says. If there is a No Deal Brexit, then Labour will be standing in every constituency crying betrayal, as will the LibDems, the Greens, the SNP and Plaid, while BXP will also be standing and screaming that betrayal and surrender to Brussels is just around the corner. Good luck Tories.

    Except Boris, unlike May, will be campaigning on leaving in October Deal or No Deal, so they can cry betrayal as much as they want but it will not work with May gone and a Leaver in charge.

    Labour itself is split with many of its Remainers now voting LD or Green

    Johnson may be campaigning on that, to the extent that he will expose himself to any level of scrutiny, but what about all his MPs and other candidates? Every BXP candidate will make a solemn promise to ensure the UK leaves the EU by 31st October. Will every Tory one?

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited June 2019

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    I refuse to belive they want an early election against Boris.
    Sure, it might be a gamble, if he does a better job than many think, or at least boosts the Tory rating if he can regain some BXP support. But a GE in more chaotic circumstances than those most beneficial to Boris seems perfectly possible as well, and Labour have a great chance of holding out better than the Tories at least, given the Tories being at risk to LDs, Labour, SNP and BXP. Labour also have a far easier path to a governing coalition, even if not straightfoward or guaranteed.

    If there is a GE before Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the Tory manifesto says. If there is a GE after a negotiated Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the agreement says. If there is a No Deal Brexit, then Labour will be standing in every constituency crying betrayal, as will the LibDems, the Greens, the SNP and Plaid, while BXP will also be standing and screaming that betrayal and surrender to Brussels is just around the corner. Good luck Tories.

    Except Boris, unlike May, will be campaigning on leaving in October Deal or No Deal, so they can cry betrayal as much as they want but it will not work with May gone and a Leaver in charge.

    Labour itself is split with many of its Remainers now voting LD or Green

    Johnson may be campaigning on that, to the extent that he will expose himself to any level of scrutiny, but what about all his MPs and other candidates? Every BXP candidate will make a solemn promise to ensure the UK leaves the EU by 31st October. Will every Tory one?

    With Boris as leader making it a manifesto commitment of course bar a few dissenters like Grieve who have been deselected anyway or may well be if they refuse to endorse an October Brexit
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    Some fun bedtime listening - Gove was on Ian Dale's LBC programe tonight and got took to task by an elderly sounding Brexit voting lady on the East Coast...

    Ultimately descends into a debate about new kitchens... ;)

    (start from 33.33)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxashFApz28

    Night.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Because it is always democratic to allow people to elect their leaders. Voting to abolish democracy is not democratic.

    The backstop is literally denying the voters of NI the right fo elect their leaders.

    If a majority in this country voted to deny women the vote going forwards under threat of terrorism if we didn't would that be OK?

    IF the backstop is amended to allow NI the right to unilaterally exit OR give them full voting powers (including putting Arlene Foster on the European Council) then that would be democratic.

    So you know better than the people of Northern Ireland what is best for them?

    That eliminating democracy isn't acceptable? Yeah sure.

    Let us not forget that this is also a very sectarian matter. A large majority of Unionists oppose the backstop. An almost unanimous majority of Nationalists support it. So you are proposing that one sectarian group should be able to remove fundamental human rights from another sectarian group. You don't think that's dangerous?

    If Unionist sectarians wanted to remove the right to vote from Nationalists, while Nationalists opposed having their rights taken away, then would that ever be acceptable?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    I refuse to belive they want an early election against Boris.
    Sure, it might be a gamble, if he does a better job than many think, or at least boosts the Tory rating if he can regain some BXP support. But a GE in more chaotic circumstances than those most beneficial to Boris seems perfectly possible as well, and Labour have a great chance of holding out better than the Tories at least, given the Tories being at risk to LDs, Labour, SNP and BXP. Labour also have a far easier path to a governing coalition, even if not straightfoward or guaranteed.

    If there is a GE before Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the Tory manifesto says. If there is a GE after a negotiated Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the agreement says. If there is a No Deal Brexit, then Labour will be standing in every constituency crying betrayal, as will the LibDems, the Greens, the SNP and Plaid, while BXP will also be standing and screaming that betrayal and surrender to Brussels is just around the corner. Good luck Tories.

    Except Boris, unlike May, will be campaigning on leaving in October Deal or No Deal, so they can cry betrayal as much as they want but it will not work with May gone and a Leaver in charge.

    Labour itself is split with many of its Remainers now voting LD or Green

    Johnson may be campaigning on that, to the extent that he will expose himself to any level of scrutiny, but what about all his MPs and other candidates? Every BXP candidate will make a solemn promise to ensure the UK leaves the EU by 31st October. Will every Tory one?

    With Boris as leader making it a manifesto commitment of course bar a few dissenters like Grieve who have been deselected anyway or may well be if they refuse to endorse an October Brexit

    It only takes a few dissenters and you’ll get you cannot trust the Tories with Brexit narrative. As for deselections, good luck with those if there’s a snap election.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Because it is always democratic to allow people to elect their leaders. Voting to abolish democracy is not democratic.

    The backstop is literally denying the voters of NI the right fo elect their leaders.

    If a majority in this country voted to deny women the vote going forwards under threat of terrorism if we didn't would that be OK?

    IF the backstop is amended to allow NI the right to unilaterally exit OR give them full voting powers (including putting Arlene Foster on the European Council) then that would be democratic.

    So you know better than the people of Northern Ireland what is best for them?

    That eliminating democracy isn't acceptable? Yeah sure.

    Let us not forget that this is also a very sectarian matter. A large majority of Unionists oppose the backstop. An almost unanimous majority of Nationalists support it. So you are proposing that one sectarian group should be able to remove fundamental human rights from another sectarian group. You don't think that's dangerous?

    If Unionist sectarians wanted to remove the right to vote from Nationalists, while Nationalists opposed having their rights taken away, then would that ever be acceptable?
    Not sure about that, a number of moderate Unionists back the backstop and voted Alliance Party in the European elections who took the 3rd seat from the UUP
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    I refuse to belive they want an early election against Boris.
    Sure, it might be a gamble, if he does a better job than many think, or at least boosts the Tory rating if he can regain some BXP support. But a GE in more chaotic circumstances than those most beneficial to Boris seems perfectly possible as well, and Labour have a great chance of holding out better than the Tories at least, given the Tories being at risk to LDs, Labour, SNP and BXP. Labour also have a far easier path to a governing coalition, even if not straightfoward or guaranteed.

    If there is a GE before Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the Tory manifesto says. If there is a GE after a negotiated Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the agreement says. If there is a No Deal Brexit, then Labour will be standing in every constituency crying betrayal, as will the LibDems, the Greens, the SNP and Plaid, while BXP will also be standing and screaming that betrayal and surrender to Brussels is just around the corner. Good luck Tories.

    Except Boris, unlike May, will be campaigning on leaving in October Deal or No Deal, so they can cry betrayal as much as they want but it will not work with May gone and a Leaver in charge.

    Labour itself is split with many of its Remainers now voting LD or Green

    Johnson may be campaigning on that, to the extent that he will expose himself to any level of scrutiny, but what about all his MPs and other candidates? Every BXP candidate will make a solemn promise to ensure the UK leaves the EU by 31st October. Will every Tory one?

    With Boris as leader making it a manifesto commitment of course bar a few dissenters like Grieve who have been deselected anyway or may well be if they refuse to endorse an October Brexit

    It only takes a few dissenters and you’ll get you cannot trust the Tories with Brexit narrative. As for deselections, good luck with those if there’s a snap election.

    Lee, Grieve etc have already been deselected
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    HYUFD said:

    Because it is always democratic to allow people to elect their leaders. Voting to abolish democracy is not democratic.

    The backstop is literally denying the voters of NI the right fo elect their leaders.

    If a majority in this country voted to deny women the vote going forwards under threat of terrorism if we didn't would that be OK?

    IF the backstop is amended to allow NI the right to unilaterally exit OR give them full voting powers (including putting Arlene Foster on the European Council) then that would be democratic.

    So you know better than the people of Northern Ireland what is best for them?

    That eliminating democracy isn't acceptable? Yeah sure.

    Let us not forget that this is also a very sectarian matter. A large majority of Unionists oppose the backstop. An almost unanimous majority of Nationalists support it. So you are proposing that one sectarian group should be able to remove fundamental human rights from another sectarian group. You don't think that's dangerous?

    If Unionist sectarians wanted to remove the right to vote from Nationalists, while Nationalists opposed having their rights taken away, then would that ever be acceptable?
    Not sure about that, a number of moderate Unionists back the backstop and voted Alliance Party in the European elections who took the 3rd seat from the UUP
    A small minority, but whether it is a minority or majority is moot. Since when was tyranny of the majority acceptable? Human rights are either inviolable or they are not. Removing the right to vote from people is not OK even if that group are a minority in wanting to be able to vote.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    I refuse to belive they want an early election against Boris.
    Sure, it might be a gamble, if he does a better job than many think, or at least boosts the Tory rating if he can regain some BXP support. But a GE in more chaotic circumstances than those most beneficial to Boris seems perfectly possible as well, and Labour have a great chance of holding out better than the Tories at least, given the Tories being at risk to LDs, Labour, SNP and BXP. Labour also have a far easier path to a governing coalition, even if not straightfoward or guaranteed.

    If there is a GE before Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the Tory manifesto says. If there is a GE after a negotiated Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the agreement says. If there is a No Deal Brexit, then Labour will be standing in every constituency crying betrayal, as will the LibDems, the Greens, the SNP and Plaid, while BXP will also be standing and screaming that betrayal and surrender to Brussels is just around the corner. Good luck Tories.

    Except Boris, unlike May, will be campaigning on leaving in October Deal or No Deal, so they can cry betrayal as much as they want but it will not work with May gone and a Leaver in charge.

    Labour itself is split with many of its Remainers now voting LD or Green

    Johnson may be campaigning on that, to the extent that he will expose himself to any level of scrutiny, but what about all his MPs and other candidates? Every BXP candidate will make a solemn promise to ensure the UK leaves the EU by 31st October. Will every Tory one?

    With Boris as leader making it a manifesto commitment of course bar a few dissenters like Grieve who have been deselected anyway or may well be if they refuse to endorse an October Brexit

    It only takes a few dissenters and you’ll get you cannot trust the Tories with Brexit narrative. As for deselections, good luck with those if there’s a snap election.

    Lee, Grieve etc have already been deselected
    No they haven't.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Let us not forget the utter chaos Labour are in over 2nd vote tonight.

    I refuse to belive they want an early election against Boris.
    Sure, it might be a gamble, if he does a better job than many think, or at least boosts the Tory rating if he can regain some BXP support. But a GE in more chaotic circumstances than those most beneficial to Boris seems perfectly possible as well, and Labour have a great chance of holding out better than the Tories at least, given the Tories being at risk to LDs, Labour, SNP and BXP. Labour also have a far easier path to a governing coalition, even if not straightfoward or guaranteed.

    If there is a GE before Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the Tory manifesto says. If there is a GE after a negotiated Brexit then BXP will stand in every constituency crying betrayal no matter what the agreement says. If there is a No Deal Brexit, then Labour will be standing in every constituency crying betrayal, as will the LibDems, the Greens, the SNP and Plaid, while BXP will also be standing and screaming that betrayal and surrender to Brussels is just around the corner. Good luck Tories.

    Except Boris, unlike May, will be campaigning on leaving in October Deal or No Deal, so they can cry betrayal as much as they want but it will not work with May gone and a Leaver in charge.

    Labour itself is split with many of its Remainers now voting LD or Green

    Johnson may be campaigning on that, to the extent that he will expose himself to any level of scrutiny, but what about all his MPs and other candidates? Every BXP candidate will make a solemn promise to ensure the UK leaves the EU by 31st October. Will every Tory one?

    With Boris as leader making it a manifesto commitment of course bar a few dissenters like Grieve who have been deselected anyway or may well be if they refuse to endorse an October Brexit

    It only takes a few dissenters and you’ll get you cannot trust the Tories with Brexit narrative. As for deselections, good luck with those if there’s a snap election.

    Lee, Grieve etc have already been deselected
    No they haven't.
    They both lost confidence votes in their Associations so hard to see either being picked again when the official selection is made
  • PhukovPhukov Posts: 132
    HYUFD said:

    I'm not sure Portillo would ever have done anything other than race Blair to the bottom in the popularity stakes. He wouldn't have been any different to Blair on Iraq, would he? Maybe even a little more gung ho.....

    Indeed, Portillo may even have done worse than Howard in 2005 as he would have lost more votes to UKIP while failing to win many more from Labour or the LDs.

    Clarke however might have got a hung parliament as lots of LDs would have 'lent' him their votes as he opposed the Iraq War unlike Blair. Labour would still have come first but it might have hastened the Brown premiership
    Why do you keep on imagining hypothetical election results? You are no good at it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    Because it is always democratic to allow people to elect their leaders. Voting to abolish democracy is not democratic.

    The backstop is literally denying the voters of NI the right fo elect their leaders.

    If a majority in this country voted to deny women the vote going forwards under threat of terrorism if we didn't would that be OK?

    IF the backstop is amended to allow NI the right to unilaterally exit OR give them full voting powers (including putting Arlene Foster on the European Council) then that would be democratic.

    So you know better than the people of Northern Ireland what is best for them?

    That eliminating democracy isn't acceptable? Yeah sure.

    Let us not forget that this is also a very sectarian matter. A large majority of Unionists oppose the backstop. An almost unanimous majority of Nationalists support it. So you are proposing that one sectarian group should be able to remove fundamental human rights from another sectarian group. You don't think that's dangerous?

    If Unionist sectarians wanted to remove the right to vote from Nationalists, while Nationalists opposed having their rights taken away, then would that ever be acceptable?
    Not sure about that, a number of moderate Unionists back the backstop and voted Alliance Party in the European elections who took the 3rd seat from the UUP
    A small minority, but whether it is a minority or majority is moot. Since when was tyranny of the majority acceptable? Human rights are either inviolable or they are not. Removing the right to vote from people is not OK even if that group are a minority in wanting to be able to vote.
    Enforcing a hard border in Northern Ireland against the will of the majority of the population is hardly a human right
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    FPT
    I don't think the EU is evil, I've said I was torn on whether to leave or remain and I'd be happy either way.

    I do think disenfranchising people so they can't elect the people who set their laws is evil. That is the backstop.

    I don't want to see people get killed but lets swap the subject matter. If al'Qaeda said we have to implement Sharia law and ban women from voting and driving or they will implement a bombing campaign . . . would you be prepared to ban women from voting and driving etc?

    If you're not prepared to ban women from voting, how is that any different to me not being prepared to ban NI from voting?

    *crickets*

    I feel like everyone here acts so outraged that I'm not prepared to disenfranchise NI voters to avoid the risk of terrorism.

    But nobody ever answers the alternative as to whether they would disenfranchise women to avoid the risk of terrorism.

    Cancelling Brexit unless it is the will of the voters is disenfranchising the UK voters so that isn't an answer either.

    Either the risk of terrorism is so atrocious we must be prepared to sacrifice our fundamental human rights to avoid it ... or our hard fought liberties and human rights are more important than the threat of terrorism.

    When the threat is Islamic terrorism the refrain is globally that we must not sacrifice our liberties . . . There is no difference here. The right to elect the people who set your laws is the most fundamental of all liberties.
    Yeah, but if that was your major concern you'd be lambasting the ERG and Mrs May's government for not asking the Northern Irish people.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Because it is always democratic to allow people to elect their leaders. Voting to abolish democracy is not democratic.

    The backstop is literally denying the voters of NI the right fo elect their leaders.

    If a majority in this country voted to deny women the vote going forwards under threat of terrorism if we didn't would that be OK?

    IF the backstop is amended to allow NI the right to unilaterally exit OR give them full voting powers (including putting Arlene Foster on the European Council) then that would be democratic.

    So you know better than the people of Northern Ireland what is best for them?

    That eliminating democracy isn't acceptable? Yeah sure.

    Let us not forget that this is also a very sectarian matter. A large majority of Unionists oppose the backstop. An almost unanimous majority of Nationalists support it. So you are proposing that one sectarian group should be able to remove fundamental human rights from another sectarian group. You don't think that's dangerous?

    If Unionist sectarians wanted to remove the right to vote from Nationalists, while Nationalists opposed having their rights taken away, then would that ever be acceptable?
    Not sure about that, a number of moderate Unionists back the backstop and voted Alliance Party in the European elections who took the 3rd seat from the UUP
    A small minority, but whether it is a minority or majority is moot. Since when was tyranny of the majority acceptable? Human rights are either inviolable or they are not. Removing the right to vote from people is not OK even if that group are a minority in wanting to be able to vote.
    Enforcing a hard border in Northern Ireland against the will of the majority of the population is hardly a human right
    The right to elect your leaders is a human right however. Case closed it is the most fundamental human right in a democracy.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    HYUFD said:

    Because it is always democratic to allow people to elect their leaders. Voting to abolish democracy is not democratic.

    The backstop is literally denying the voters of NI the right fo elect their leaders.

    If a majority in this country voted to deny women the vote going forwards under threat of terrorism if we didn't would that be OK?

    IF the backstop is amended to allow NI the right to unilaterally exit OR give them full voting powers (including putting Arlene Foster on the European Council) then that would be democratic.

    So you know better than the people of Northern Ireland what is best for them?

    That eliminating democracy isn't acceptable? Yeah sure.

    Let us not forget that this is also a very sectarian matter. A large majority of Unionists oppose the backstop. An almost unanimous majority of Nationalists support it. So you are proposing that one sectarian group should be able to remove fundamental human rights from another sectarian group. You don't think that's dangerous?

    If Unionist sectarians wanted to remove the right to vote from Nationalists, while Nationalists opposed having their rights taken away, then would that ever be acceptable?
    Not sure about that, a number of moderate Unionists back the backstop and voted Alliance Party in the European elections who took the 3rd seat from the UUP
    A small minority, but whether it is a minority or majority is moot. Since when was tyranny of the majority acceptable? Human rights are either inviolable or they are not. Removing the right to vote from people is not OK even if that group are a minority in wanting to be able to vote.

    They will still have the right to vote. No-one’s right to vote is being taken away. They will just be unable to vote in EU elections. Just as foreign nationals domiciled and paying tax in the UK are unable to vote in national UK elections.

    In any case, you are perfectly relaxed about a small majority taking away fundamental rights currently enjoyed by millions of UK citizens, so your opposition to the tyranny of the majority is clearly quite selective.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT
    I don't think the EU is evil, I've said I was torn on whether to leave or remain and I'd be happy either way.

    I do think disenfranchising people so they can't elect the people who set their laws is evil. That is the backstop.

    I don't want to see people get killed but lets swap the subject matter. If al'Qaeda said we have to implement Sharia law and ban women from voting and driving or they will implement a bombing campaign . . . would you be prepared to ban women from voting and driving etc?

    If you're not prepared to ban women from voting, how is that any different to me not being prepared to ban NI from voting?

    *crickets*

    I feel like everyone here acts so outraged that I'm not prepared to disenfranchise NI voters to avoid the risk of terrorism.

    But nobody ever answers the alternative as to whether they would disenfranchise women to avoid the risk of terrorism.

    Cancelling Brexit unless it is the will of the voters is disenfranchising the UK voters so that isn't an answer either.

    Either the risk of terrorism is so atrocious we must be prepared to sacrifice our fundamental human rights to avoid it ... or our hard fought liberties and human rights are more important than the threat of terrorism.

    When the threat is Islamic terrorism the refrain is globally that we must not sacrifice our liberties . . . There is no difference here. The right to elect the people who set your laws is the most fundamental of all liberties.
    Yeah, but if that was your major concern you'd be lambasting the ERG and Mrs May's government for not asking the Northern Irish people.
    Ask them what?

    You can't vote to abolish democracy. Just because one sectarian group ones to remove the rights of another sectarian group does not mean that tyranny of the majority is OK. One person, one vote.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Because it is always democratic to allow people to elect their leaders. Voting to abolish democracy is not democratic.

    The backstop is literally denying the voters of NI the right fo elect their leaders.

    If a majority in this country voted to deny women the vote going forwards under threat of terrorism if we didn't would that be OK?

    IF the backstop is amended to allow NI the right to unilaterally exit OR give them full voting powers (including putting Arlene Foster on the European Council) then that would be democratic.

    So you know better than the people of Northern Ireland what is best for them?

    That eliminating democracy isn't acceptable? Yeah sure.

    Let us not forget that this is also a very sectarian matter. A large majority of Unionists oppose the backstop. An almost unanimous majority of Nationalists support it. So you are proposing that one sectarian group should be able to remove fundamental human rights from another sectarian group. You don't think that's dangerous?

    If Unionist sectarians wanted to remove the right to vote from Nationalists, while Nationalists opposed having their rights taken away, then would that ever be acceptable?
    Not sure about that, a number of moderate Unionists back the backstop and voted Alliance Party in the European elections who took the 3rd seat from the UUP
    A small minority, but whether it is a minority or majority is moot. Since when was tyranny of the majority acceptable? Human rights are either inviolable or they are not. Removing the right to vote from people is not OK even if that group are a minority in wanting to be able to vote.
    Enforcing a hard border in Northern Ireland against the will of the majority of the population is hardly a human right
    The right to elect your leaders is a human right however. Case closed it is the most fundamental human right in a democracy.

    So you support the right of anyone living in the UK to vote in UK elections?

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "The Boris bubble that threatens Britain’s Conservatives

    A worrying number of MPs are backing Boris Johnson mainly because others are"

    (£)

    https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/06/19/the-boris-bubble-that-threatens-britains-conservatives
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    HYUFD said:

    Because it is always democratic to allow people to elect their leaders. Voting to abolish democracy is not democratic.

    The backstop is literally denying the voters of NI the right fo elect their leaders.

    If a majority in this country voted to deny women the vote going forwards under threat of terrorism if we didn't would that be OK?

    IF the backstop is amended to allow NI the right to unilaterally exit OR give them full voting powers (including putting Arlene Foster on the European Council) then that would be democratic.

    So you know better than the people of Northern Ireland what is best for them?

    That eliminating democracy isn't acceptable? Yeah sure.

    Let us not forget that this is also a very sectarian matter. A large majority of Unionists oppose the backstop. An almost unanimous majority of Nationalists support it. So you are proposing that one sectarian group should be able to remove fundamental human rights from another sectarian group. You don't think that's dangerous?

    If Unionist sectarians wanted to remove the right to vote from Nationalists, while Nationalists opposed having their rights taken away, then would that ever be acceptable?
    Not sure about that, a number of moderate Unionists back the backstop and voted Alliance Party in the European elections who took the 3rd seat from the UUP
    A small minority, but whether it is a minority or majority is moot. Since when was tyranny of the majority acceptable? Human rights are either inviolable or they are not. Removing the right to vote from people is not OK even if that group are a minority in wanting to be able to vote.

    They will still have the right to vote. No-one’s right to vote is being taken away. They will just be unable to vote in EU elections. Just as foreign nationals domiciled and paying tax in the UK are unable to vote in national UK elections.

    In any case, you are perfectly relaxed about a small majority taking away fundamental rights currently enjoyed by millions of UK citizens, so your opposition to the tyranny of the majority is clearly quite selective.

    They won't have the right to elect people who set their laws. EU elections are fundamental since EU laws will apply.

    People who emigrate and choose to live in a foreign country and haven't gained citizenship aren't able to vote, but that was their choice. Nobody else took that right away from them. That's not the same as UK nationals living in the UK being unable to vote in UK elections.

    No fundamental human rights currently being enjoyed will be removed.
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613
    In the event that Sajid Javid became Prime MInister, would the Pakistani background community continue to vote solidly Labour ? I suspect it would but is there an electability case he could make that certain previously safeish Labour seats could be in play in a future GE ?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Because it is always democratic to allow people to elect their leaders. Voting to abolish democracy is not democratic.

    The backstop is literally denying the voters of NI the right fo elect their leaders.

    If a majority in this country voted to deny women the vote going forwards under threat of terrorism if we didn't would that be OK?

    IF the backstop is amended to allow NI the right to unilaterally exit OR give them full voting powers (including putting Arlene Foster on the European Council) then that would be democratic.

    So you know better than the people of Northern Ireland what is best for them?

    That eliminating democracy isn't acceptable? Yeah sure.

    Let us not forget that this is also a very sectarian matter. A large majority of Unionists oppose the backstop. An almost unanimous majority of Nationalists support it. So you are proposing that one sectarian group should be able to remove fundamental human rights from another sectarian group. You don't think that's dangerous?

    If Unionist sectarians wanted to remove the right to vote from Nationalists, while Nationalists opposed having their rights taken away, then would that ever be acceptable?
    Not sure about that, a number of moderate Unionists back the backstop and voted Alliance Party in the European elections who took the 3rd seat from the UUP
    A small minority, but whether it is a minority or majority is moot. Since when was tyranny of the majority acceptable? Human rights are either inviolable or they are not. Removing the right to vote from people is not OK even if that group are a minority in wanting to be able to vote.
    Enforcing a hard border in Northern Ireland against the will of the majority of the population is hardly a human right
    The right to elect your leaders is a human right however. Case closed it is the most fundamental human right in a democracy.

    So you support the right of anyone living in the UK to vote in UK elections?

    Any UK citizen living in the UK should vote in UK elections that set UK laws yes. Just as I want NI citizens who live in NI to vote on who sets NI laws.

    Foreign nationals who have voluntarily migrated and not taken citizenship are different.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    PaulM said:

    In the event that Sajid Javid became Prime MInister, would the Pakistani background community continue to vote solidly Labour ? I suspect it would but is there an electability case he could make that certain previously safeish Labour seats could be in play in a future GE ?

    Middle-class Pakistanis would probably gravitate more towards the Tories but most of them already live in safe Tory seats. I can't see Pakistanis in Bradford and Birmingham being impressed by Javid.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Because it is always democratic to allow people to elect their leaders. Voting to abolish democracy is not democratic.

    The backstop is literally denying the voters of NI the right fo elect their leaders.

    If a majority in this country voted to deny women the vote going forwards under threat of terrorism if we didn't would that be OK?

    IF the backstop is amended to allow NI the right to unilaterally exit OR give them full voting powers (including putting Arlene Foster on the European Council) then that would be democratic.

    So you know better than the people of Northern Ireland what is best for them?

    That eliminating democracy isn't acceptable? Yeah sure.

    Let us not forget that this is also a very sectarian matter. A large majority of Unionists oppose the backstop. An almost unanimous majority of Nationalists support it. So you are proposing that one sectarian group should be able to remove fundamental human rights from another sectarian group. You don't think that's dangerous?

    If Unionist sectarians wanted to remove the right to vote from Nationalists, while Nationalists opposed having their rights taken away, then would that ever be acceptable?
    Not sure about that, a number of moderate Unionists back the backstop and voted Alliance Party in the European elections who took the 3rd seat from the UUP
    A small minority, but whether it is a minority or majority is moot. Since when was tyranny of the majority acceptable? Human rights are either inviolable or they are not. Removing the right to vote from people is not OK even if that group are a minority in wanting to be able to vote.
    Enforcing a hard border in Northern Ireland against the will of the majority of the population is hardly a human right
    The right to elect your leaders is a human right however. Case closed it is the most fundamental human right in a democracy.

    So you support the right of anyone living in the UK to vote in UK elections?

    Any UK citizen living in the UK should vote in UK elections that set UK laws yes. Just as I want NI citizens who live in NI to vote on who sets NI laws.

    Foreign nationals who have voluntarily migrated and not taken citizenship are different.

    So voting in a democracy is not a fundamental human right?

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    HYUFD said:

    Because it is always democratic to allow people to elect their leaders. Voting to abolish democracy is not democratic.

    The backstop is literally denying the voters of NI the right fo elect their leaders.

    If a majority in this country voted to deny women the vote going forwards under threat of terrorism if we didn't would that be OK?

    IF the backstop is amended to allow NI the right to unilaterally exit OR give them full voting powers (including putting Arlene Foster on the European Council) then that would be democratic.

    So you know better than the people of Northern Ireland what is best for them?

    That eliminating democracy isn't acceptable? Yeah sure.

    Let us not forget that this is also a very sectarian matter. A large majority of Unionists oppose the backstop. An almost unanimous majority of Nationalists support it. So you are proposing that one sectarian group should be able to remove fundamental human rights from another sectarian group. You don't think that's dangerous?

    If Unionist sectarians wanted to remove the right to vote from Nationalists, while Nationalists opposed having their rights taken away, then would that ever be acceptable?
    Not sure about that, a number of moderate Unionists back the backstop and voted Alliance Party in the European elections who took the 3rd seat from the UUP
    A small minority, but whether it is a minority or majority is moot. Since when was tyranny of the majority acceptable? Human rights are either inviolable or they are not. Removing the right to vote from people is not OK even if that group are a minority in wanting to be able to vote.

    They will still have the right to vote. Noin national UK elections.

    In any case, you are perfectly relaxed about a small majority taking away fundamental rights currently enjoyed by millions of UK citizens, so your opposition to the tyranny of the majority is clearly quite selective.

    They won't have the right to elect people who set their laws. EU elections are fundamental since EU laws will apply.

    People who emigrate and choose to live in a foreign country and haven't gained citizenship aren't able to vote, but that was their choice. Nobody else took that right away from them. That's not the same as UK nationals living in the UK being unable to vote in UK elections.

    No fundamental human rights currently being enjoyed will be removed.

    If voting is a fundamental human right then emigration does not come into it.

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    AndyJS said:

    viewcode said:

    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Is it just a coincidence they're showing a series about Margaret Thatcher during the Tory leadership contest?

    I thought it was, but now I think about it it seems improbable.
    To mark 10 years since her defenestration by her party perhaps? and 30 years since her election.

    All the Eighties backgrounds are interesting. People were certainly a lot thinner back then.
    With better cheekbones. But the teeth were horrendous. And the hairstyles were...elaborate? and the fashions were...well, stylized is the word. Everybody smoked and the Russians were trying to kill us....
    Actually smoking went out of fashion in the late 70s/early 80s in a lot of middle-class areas. I grew up in that sort of neighbourhood in the 80s and very few people smoked; by the mid/late 80s smoking was already frowned upon by a lot of people from that sort of background.
    At the risk of belaboring the obvious, I didn't grow up in a middle-class neighbourhood. It gets a bit four yorkshiremen... :)
    (Plus, that might be a southern England thing? I know behavior varies from place to place)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    If voting is a fundamental human right then emigration does not come into it.

    Yes it does. Expats don't have the same fundamental human rights as nationals do, that is universal.

    Though are you seriously now desperately trying to argue that voting is not a fundamental human right?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Because it is always democratic to allow people to elect their leaders. Voting to abolish democracy is not democratic.

    The backstop is literally denying the voters of NI the right fo elect their leaders.

    If a majority in this country voted to deny women the vote going forwards under threat of terrorism if we didn't would that be OK?

    IF the backstop is amended to allow NI the right to unilaterally exit OR give them full voting powers (including putting Arlene Foster on the European Council) then that would be democratic.

    So you know better than the people of Northern Ireland what is best for them?

    That eliminating democracy isn't acceptable? Yeah sure.

    Let us not forget that this is also a very sectarian matter. A large majority of Unionists oppose the backstop. An almost unanimous majority of Nationalists support it. So you are proposing that one sectarian group should be able to remove fundamental human rights from another sectarian group. You don't think that's dangerous?

    If Unionist sectarians wanted to remove the right to vote from Nationalists, while Nationalists opposed having their rights taken away, then would that ever be acceptable?
    Not sure about that, a number of moderate Unionists back the backstop and voted Alliance Party in the European elections who took the 3rd seat from the UUP
    A small minority, but whether it is a minority or majority is moot. Since when was tyranny of the majority acceptable? Human rights are either inviolable or they are not. Removing the right to vote from people is not OK even if that group are a minority in wanting to be able to vote.
    Enforcing a hard border in Northern Ireland against the will of the majority of the population is hardly a human right
    The right to elect your leaders is a human right however. Case closed it is the most fundamental human right in a democracy.

    So you support the right of anyone living in the UK to vote in UK elections?

    Any UK citizen living in the UK should vote in UK elections that set UK laws yes. Just as I want NI citizens who live in NI to vote on who sets NI laws.

    Foreign nationals who have voluntarily migrated and not taken citizenship are different.
    Irish nationals who live in the UK can vote in UK elections. UK nationals who live in the Irish Republic can vote in Irish elections (except Presidential ones?)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT
    I don't think the EU is evil, I've said I was torn on whether to leave or remain and I'd be happy either way.

    I do think disenfranchising people so they can't elect the people who set their laws is evil. That is the backstop.

    I don't want to see people get killed but lets swap the subject matter. If al'Qaeda said we have to implement Sharia law and ban women from voting and driving or they will implement a bombing campaign . . . would you be prepared to ban women from voting and driving etc?

    If you're not prepared to ban women from voting, how is that any different to me not being prepared to ban NI from voting?

    *crickets*

    I feel like everyone here acts so outraged that I'm not prepared to disenfranchise NI voters to avoid the risk of terrorism.

    But nobody ever answers the alternative as to whether they would disenfranchise women to avoid the risk of terrorism.

    Cancelling Brexit unless it is the will of the voters is disenfranchising the UK voters so that isn't an answer either.

    Either the risk of terrorism is so atrocious we must be prepared to sacrifice our fundamental human rights to avoid it ... or our hard fought liberties and human rights are more important than the threat of terrorism.

    When the threat is Islamic terrorism the refrain is globally that we must not sacrifice our liberties . . . There is no difference here. The right to elect the people who set your laws is the most fundamental of all liberties.
    Yeah, but if that was your major concern you'd be lambasting the ERG and Mrs May's government for not asking the Northern Irish people.
    Ask them what?

    You can't vote to abolish democracy. Just because one sectarian group ones to remove the rights of another sectarian group does not mean that tyranny of the majority is OK. One person, one vote.
    But you can vote to join another country, surely?
  • PhukovPhukov Posts: 132

    If voting is a fundamental human right then emigration does not come into it.

    Yes it does. Expats don't have the same fundamental human rights as nationals do, that is universal.

    Though are you seriously now desperately trying to argue that voting is not a fundamental human right?
    You might need to look up the word "fundamental".
    Hint: if it's contingent on citizenship, it's not fundamental.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    viewcode said:

    Irish nationals who live in the UK can vote in UK elections. UK nationals who live in the Irish Republic can vote in Irish elections (except Presidential ones?)

    Indeed.

    However under the backstop EU laws will be NI laws. NI nationals living in NI will not be able to vote in EU elections which are setting NI laws.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT
    I don't think the EU is evil, I've said I was torn on whether to leave or remain and I'd be happy either way.

    I do think disenfranchising people so they can't elect the people who set their laws is evil. That is the backstop.

    I don't want to see people get killed but lets swap the subject matter. If al'Qaeda said we have to implement Sharia law and ban women from voting and driving or they will implement a bombing campaign . . . would you be prepared to ban women from voting and driving etc?

    If you're not prepared to ban women from voting, how is that any different to me not being prepared to ban NI from voting?

    *crickets*

    I feel like everyone here acts so outraged that I'm not prepared to disenfranchise NI voters to avoid the risk of terrorism.

    But nobody ever answers the alternative as to whether they would disenfranchise women to avoid the risk of terrorism.

    Cancelling Brexit unless it is the will of the voters is disenfranchising the UK voters so that isn't an answer either.

    Either the risk of terrorism is so atrocious we must be prepared to sacrifice our fundamental human rights to avoid it ... or our hard fought liberties and human rights are more important than the threat of terrorism.

    When the threat is Islamic terrorism the refrain is globally that we must not sacrifice our liberties . . . There is no difference here. The right to elect the people who set your laws is the most fundamental of all liberties.
    Yeah, but if that was your major concern you'd be lambasting the ERG and Mrs May's government for not asking the Northern Irish people.
    Ask them what?

    You can't vote to abolish democracy. Just because one sectarian group ones to remove the rights of another sectarian group does not mean that tyranny of the majority is OK. One person, one vote.
    But you can vote to join another country, surely?
    If a majority votes to join another country and everyone then gets rights to vote in that countries elections then yes of course.

    However that isn't the proposal.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    AndyJS said:

    "The Boris bubble that threatens Britain’s Conservatives

    A worrying number of MPs are backing Boris Johnson mainly because others are"

    (£)

    https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/06/19/the-boris-bubble-that-threatens-britains-conservatives

    Pretty much my opinion. A worrying number of posters seem to consider a Boris majority as inevitable.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    If voting is a fundamental human right then emigration does not come into it.

    Yes it does. Expats don't have the same fundamental human rights as nationals do, that is universal.

    Though are you seriously now desperately trying to argue that voting is not a fundamental human right?

    Well, it clearly isn't if foreign nationals who live, work and pay tax in the UK cannot vote in UK-wide elections.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    viewcode said:

    Irish nationals who live in the UK can vote in UK elections. UK nationals who live in the Irish Republic can vote in Irish elections (except Presidential ones?)

    Indeed.

    However under the backstop EU laws will be NI laws. NI nationals living in NI will not be able to vote in EU elections which are setting NI laws.

    So, the EU is a democracy then?

  • PhukovPhukov Posts: 132

    viewcode said:

    Irish nationals who live in the UK can vote in UK elections. UK nationals who live in the Irish Republic can vote in Irish elections (except Presidential ones?)

    Indeed.

    However under the backstop EU laws will be NI laws. NI nationals living in NI will not be able to vote in EU elections which are setting NI laws.
    Is that true? Will the laws have "direct effect", or will it be the result of the UK passing laws in accordance with a treaty obligation?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Phukov said:

    If voting is a fundamental human right then emigration does not come into it.

    Yes it does. Expats don't have the same fundamental human rights as nationals do, that is universal.

    Though are you seriously now desperately trying to argue that voting is not a fundamental human right?
    You might need to look up the word "fundamental".
    Hint: if it's contingent on citizenship, it's not fundamental.
    You're wrong
    https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

    Article 21.

    (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
    (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
    (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.


    Everyone has a right to vote in the government of their own country, not other countries. If you're not a citizen it is not your nation.

    The backstop violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. NI's government will be the EU but NI voters won't get to take part in the government as they won't be able to freely choose representatives.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Phukov said:

    viewcode said:

    Irish nationals who live in the UK can vote in UK elections. UK nationals who live in the Irish Republic can vote in Irish elections (except Presidential ones?)

    Indeed.

    However under the backstop EU laws will be NI laws. NI nationals living in NI will not be able to vote in EU elections which are setting NI laws.
    Is that true? Will the laws have "direct effect", or will it be the result of the UK passing laws in accordance with a treaty obligation?
    The laws will have direct effect and NI voters won't be able to amend that. There will be no way to elect a government who can terminate the obligation.
This discussion has been closed.