All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS should be ignored because you believe due to your inbuilt diehard Remainer bias there will be vast LD to Labour tactical voting against the Tories with very little evidence at all
'Your in built diehard Remainer bias' demonstrates your belief that insulting a poster helps win your argument. For your information it does not and tactical voting is a genuine discussion topic in this climate
Shadow rail minister her only qualification it would seem being MP for York and having visited the railway museum. I’m probably wrong and she will be a former rail union official.
She is not, alas, an ex train driver - probably could not drive a train if her life depended on it - but she did have a real job before politics.A physiotherapist in the NHS.
And how does that qualify her to spout nonsense on the railways
Well being a lying journalist and failed foreign secretary qualifies Johnson to be PM
It would be letting the law take effect, even if that is stupid it's not treacherous.
It just amazes me that not one of the 498 mps who voted for A50 did not understand at the time that each and everyone of them created no deal by default in both UK and EU law
If in doubt, they could have read it on pb.com at the time.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS sh
The evidence for the potential for widespread tactical voting is the 40% Labour got in 2017.
When Corbyn had a significantly higher favourable rating than he does now
His ratings improved during the campaign if I recall correctly. The Tories had a huge polling lead and lost it. Why? Because millions of voters wanted to stop the Tories winning. I would not rule that out happening again. I think it is less likely, but I would definitely not rule it out. In all the polls from all the companies anti-No Deal parties are on 50%+.
The Tories lost their poll lead because of the dementia tax, hunting restoration etc. There was little difference between Remainer tactical voting at the beginning or end of the campaign and Corbyn is still polling lower than he was at the beginning of the 2017 campaign.
In Opinium today Tories plus Brexit Party are more than Labour plus LDs plus Greens anyway
Do people really think Johnson would want to hold a general election exactly a week or exactly a fortnight after a No Deal Brexit? Even the loopiest Brexiteers admit there may be some short-term disruption immediately after such a Brexit. It would be incredibly risky to schedule an election for the time when that disruption was at its height, when people couldn't help noticing it, and when the opposition parties could so easily argue that it was the beginning of catastrophe.
Surely the date that would appeal is Brexit Day itself, 31 October?
Then again, it would be a brave man (which Johnson is not) who would bet against panic buying in the week or so before Brexit Day.
A general election with no food on the supermarket shelves?
The ram has touched the wall already - theres very little chance to pull it back even if they want to, and as oft noted a GE may occur whatever BoJo wants. Especially since now that Bogdanovic claim that a new parliament could retroactively say we never left, adding more fire to remainers not to fear a GE.
Either way any hardships will be blamed on the EU or called a price worth paying (do or die remember, any price is worth paying according to BoJo, except a backstop he already voted for). Damn risky as you say, but it keeps most of the Tory party together and that is the key when predicting what will happen. As United as possible they either mitigate the damage or they hope win. Any suffering is worth that.
Will a No Deal Brexit keep the Tory party together? I don't think so.
My qualifier was 'most of the Tory party'. Its the most popular option with Tories even as a sizable minority are against it, and probably blocks some leakage to BXP.
It safeguards as many MPs as it can and avoids a wipeout is my theory. Any kind of brexit delay or the WA deal splits the no deal backing base even worse and they get hammered.
So it may not see them win - I certainly dont think it will - but the loss may be less intense.
If they dont believe that I cannot explain giving no wiggle room.
Only if you are confident that the state can run a challenging transition and a general election simultaneously. It's a heck of a gamble. But yes- a GE before Brexit leaves him vulnerable to Farage, and one afterwards leaves him vulnerable to something going badly wrong.
Quick physics conclusion: there isn't a good time for a general election for the government.
In the spring of 2020 having just got a Brexit deal through. That would be perfect for Johnson. Can't see him losing that.
But can he pull it off? Can he avoid the phony crunch this autumn and buy himself the time he needs to have a serious crack at the negotiated Brexit which is surely what the national interest demands?
I do hope not.
If he were going for a deal I think we'd have seen some sign of it by now. Whatever activity there's been is consistent with going for No Deal while making token efforts to shift the blame elsewhere.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS should be ignored because you believe due to your inbuilt diehard Remainer bias there will be vast LD to Labour tactical voting against the Tories with very little evidence at all
'Your in built diehard Remainer bias' demonstrates your belief that insulting a poster helps win your argument. For your information it does not and tactical voting is a genuine discussion topic in this climate
On sheep, Maximinus Thrax was a roman emperor derided as a Thracian shepherd due to his humble upbringing.
Mind you, he was also a military usurper whose rise to power after the regicide of Alexander Severus kicked off the Crisis of the Third Century, so it's not like he didn't deserve some abuse.
Yes, it’s a good article, with perhaps two weaknesses. It doesn’t say anything about the changing drivers of voting =es as a straight swing (after all, in the LibDem’s case it didn’t depart as one).
An undercommented o seats across a broad swathe of the south.
A further the same as the one that always eluded the LibDems coming from below.
If Project Fear is even partly true, Bozo may get to explore that for himself.
The concentration i=onservative Remain seats.
Conservativese for the longer term.
Politics is more cultural now not class based so I suspect it will actually
Then the Tories are absolutely buggered. They have always relied on people becoming more economically self-interested as they got older. Cultural values are much less likely to change. And the cultural values that drive the current Tory vote are not those of the under 50s.
Which again is rubbish,ers and Labour had a clear lead with working class voters.
Now with the LDs winning more middle class voters, on 26% with them with Yougov and the Brexit_Trackers_w.pdf
In what way do people get culturally more conservative as they get older? The rest of your post doesn’t really add much to anything. The stories currently have the support of people of whatever class who support Brexit. The discussion is what happens post-Brexit.
More keen to preserve traditions and the way of life they know which is why the Tories have never won the votes of a majority of under 30s since 1983 and Labour have never won the votes of a majority of over 65s since 1997,
People who support Brexit tend to be culturally conservative, inevitably they will be more drawn to a conservative party than voters who are culturally liberal who tend to be Remainers, indeed the biggest problem may be for Labour who are losing their culturally conservative working class voters to the Brexit Party and a lesser extent the Boris led Tories and also losing their culturally liberal middle class voters to the LDs and to a lesser extent the Greens.
People who support Brexit tend to be older. And, yes, the cultural values of the over 50s now are generally conservative, but that just reflects the fact that they (we) grew up in different times. That is not the same as values becoming more conservative. If you are really relying on that you’re in trouble.
I just dont see how he can hold his coalition of support together to buy himself time. The EU are being stubborn, hes given himself no wriggle room and he cannot allow himself to appear forced into an extension without going for a GE.
I'd love to see if he could get a deal, but I just dont see how he gets there.
Million euro question is -
If he does say he wants an extension (6 months?) to get a deal, will the ERG hardliners bring him down or will they just make a hell of a racket but ultimately accept it for want of any feasible alternative?
I think it might be the latter, hence my view that 2019 will see neither Brexit nor an election.
Niche position now, I fully realize. Pretty much just me and Alastair Meeks.
On the topic of our American friends, I think that this kind of polling will have an important effect on the Democratic primary (Sanders, Biden lead Trump by 8):
What strikes me is that both of these people are well known national figures who have been subject to the GOP attack machine before and yet are STILL significantly more popular than the Orange Gorilla. I think that'll push Democratic electors towards one or the other, because their primary goal is defenestrating Trump.
It is Warren 46% Trump 42% though ie she does no better than Hillary v Trump and Harris 45% Trump 44% ie she does worse than Hillary v Trump.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
HYUFD is only interested in spinning for the Conservative Party, usually by bombarding us with often unconnected factoids as Ian says. He does not seem interested in engaging in debate. That's fair enough, plenty do that if not with quite the same zeal but it doesn't often make for an interesting discussion.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
sing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS should be ignored because you believe due to your inbuilt diehard Remainer bias there will be vast LD to Labour tactical voting against the Tories with very little evidence at all
I believe nothing of the sort. For crying out loud read what was written and not rely on your preconceived and wrong ideas about me.
a) I do not dismiss UNS
b) I have never said there will be LD to Labour tactical voting and what is more I do not believe that will happen so where you got that from I have no idea. Where did you get that from?
Let's try this just one more time:
An argument was put forward as to why UNS might not apply this time. I don't think anyone is suggesting it won't largely apply, but possibly not as much as before. Various arguments were put in support of this position. This was the discussion. Nothing else. Nobody knows who is right.
In all your replies you never responded to this arguemet one way or another. You neither said whether you agreed with this or disagreed with this although we can all guess you disagree with it.
So rather than post a load of stuff that has nothing to do with the issue let's hear why you agree or disagree with the proposition.
I have this sneaky feeling you are just not going to understand my post are you?
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS sh
The evidence for the potential for widespread tactical voting is the 40% Labour got in 2017.
When Corbyn had a significantly higher favourable rating than he does now
His ratings improved during the campaign if I recall correctly. The Tories had a huge polling lead and lost it. Why? Because millions of voters wanted to stop the Tories winning. I would not rule that out happening again. I think it is less likely, but I would definitely not rule it out. In all the polls from all the companies anti-No Deal parties are on 50%+.
The Tories lost their poll lead because of the dementia tax, hunting restoration etc. There was little difference between Remainer tactical voting at the beginning or end of the campaign and Corbyn is still polling lower than he was at the beginning of the 2017 campaign.
In Opinium today Tories plus Brexit Party are more than Labour plus LDs plus Greens anyway
Do people really think Johnson would want to hold a general election exactly a week or exactly a fortnight after a No Deal Brexit? Even the loopiest Brexiteers admit there may be some short-term disruption immediately after such a Brexit. It would be incredibly risky to schedule an election for the time when that disruption was at its height, when people couldn't help noticing it, and when the opposition parties could so easily argue that it was the beginning of catastrophe.
Surely the date that would appeal is Brexit Day itself, 31 October?
Then again, it would be a brave man (which Johnson is not) who would bet against panic buying in the week or so before Brexit Day.
A general election with no food on the supermarket shelves?
The ram has touched the wall already - theres very little chance to pull it back even if they want to, and as oft noted a GE may occur whatever BoJo wants. Especially since now that Bogdanovic claim that a new parliament could retroactively say we never left, adding more fire to remainers not to fear a GE.
Either way any hardships will be blamed on the EU or called a price worth paying (do or die remember, any price is worth paying according to BoJo, except a backstop he already voted for). Damn risky as you say, but it keeps most of the Tory party together and that is the key when predicting what will happen. As United as possible they either mitigate the damage or they hope win. Any suffering is worth that.
Will a No Deal Brexit keep the Tory party together? I don't think so.
My qualifier was 'most of the Tory party'. Its the most popular option with Tories even as a sizable minority are against it, and probably blocks some leakage to BXP.
It safeguards as many MPs as it can and avoids a wipeout is my theory. Any kind of brexit delay or the WA deal splits the no deal backing base even worse and they get hammered.
So it may not see them win - I certainly dont think it will - but the loss may be less intense.
If they dont believe that I cannot explain giving no wiggle room.
OK. I suppose it can still be "most of the Tory party" all the way down to 51%.
Do people really think Johnson would want to hold a general election exactly a week or exactly a fortnight after a No Deal Brexit? Even the loopiest Brexiteers admit there may be some short-term disruption immediately after such a Brexit. It would be incredibly risky to schedule an election for the time when that disruption was at its height, when people couldn't help noticing it, and when the opposition parties could so easily argue that it was the beginning of catastrophe.
Surely the date that would appeal is Brexit Day itself, 31 October?
Then again, it would be a brave man (which Johnson is not) who would bet against panic buying in the week or so before Brexit Day.
A general election with no food on the supermarket shelves?
The ram has touched the wall already - theres very little chance to pull it back even if they want to, and as oft noted a GE may occur whatever BoJo wants. Especially since now that Bogdanovic claim that a new parliament could retroactively say we never left, adding more fire to remainers not to fear a GE.
Either way any hardships will be blamed on the EU or called a price worth paying (do or die remember, any price is worth paying according to BoJo, except a backstop he already voted for). Damn risky as you say, but it keeps most of the Tory party together and that is the key when predicting what will happen. As United as possible they either mitigate the damage or they hope win. Any suffering is worth that.
Will a No Deal Brexit keep the Tory party together? I don't think so.
My qualifier was 'most of the Tory party'. Its the most popular option with Tories even as a sizable minority are against it, and probably blocks some leakage to BXP.
It safeguards as many MPs as it can and avoids a wipeout is my theory. Any kind of brexit delay or the WA deal splits the no deal backing base even worse and they get hammered.
So it may not see them win - I certainly dont think it will - but the loss may be less intense.
If they dont believe that I cannot explain giving no wiggle room.
OK. I suppose it can still be "most of the Tory party" all the way down to 51%.
This is just ballpark stuff but I assume they hope that it is more like 75%, otherwise the strategy does not work. All about preserving as large a core of MPs as possible to rebuild
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS sh
The evidence for the potential for widespread tactical voting is the 40% Labour got in 2017.
When Corbyn had a significantly higher favourable rating than he does now
His ratings improved during the campaign if I recall correctly. The Tories had a huge polling lead and lost it. Why? Because millions of voters wanted to stop the Tories winning. I would not rule that out happening again. I think it is less likely, but I would definitely not rule it out. In all the polls from all the companies anti-No Deal parties are on 50%+.
The Tories lost their poll lead because of the dementia tax, hunting restoration etc. There was little difference between Remainer tactical voting at the beginning or end of the campaign and Corbyn is still polling lower than he was at the beginning of the 2017 campaign.
In Opinium today Tories plus Brexit Party are more than Labour plus LDs plus Greens
Yes, people voted tactically to stop the Tories in 2017. And anti-No Deal parties are on over 50% in today’s Opinium.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
HYUFD is only interested in spinning for the Conservative Party, usually by bombarding us with often unconnected factoids as Ian says. He does not seem interested in engaging in debate. That's fair enough, plenty do that if not with quite the same zeal but it doesn't often make for an interesting discussion.
I know. I should give up but it is so frustrating. I find it frustrating that someone can't follow a logical argument and then respond with a counter argument. The bizarre thing is a counter argument can change opinions. Chucking out unrelated stuff hardens views against them so it is counter productive.
It would be letting the law take effect, even if that is stupid it's not treacherous.
It just amazes me that not one of the 498 mps who voted for A50 did not understand at the time that each and everyone of them created no deal by default in both UK and EU law
She didn’t.
Fine, but that doesnt make the consequence of the law treacherous.....
That’s probably true and I have never been a fan of the ‘traitor’ rhetoric which gets deployed by both sides. There are better words to use to describe an irresponsible and unnecessary gamble with the future of the country.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS sh
The evidence for the potential for widespread tactical voting is the 40% Labour got in 2017.
When Corbyn had a significantly higher favourable rating than he does now
His ratings improved during the campaign if I recall correctly. The Tories had a huge polling lead and
The Tories lost their poll lead because of the dementia tax, hunting restoration etc. There was little difference between Remainer tactical voting at the beginning or end of the campaign and Corbyn is still polling lower than he was at the beginning of the 2017 campaign.
In Opinium today Tories plus Brexit Party are more than Labour plus LDs plus Greens
Yes, people voted tactically to stop the Tories in 2017. And anti-No Deal parties are on over 50% in today’s Opinium.
Tories plus Brexit Party on 47%, Labour plus LDs plus Greens on 46%
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
HYUFD is only interested in spinning for the Conservative Party, usually by bombarding us with often unconnected factoids as Ian says. He does not seem interested in engaging in debate. That's fair enough, plenty do that if not with quite the same zeal but it doesn't often make for an interesting discussion.
It's a shame because there are plenty of places for that; this site is special because, partisan though most of us are, there is enough maturity and enough interest in making money from betting, as well some intelligent less aligned regulars, to avoid our sinking to debates where people are just on transmit.
Best advice to HY would be to start actively betting. He could have made nicely on Bozo but would have been punished for JRM. I wonder what the site would be like were it restricted to punters only!
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS should be ignored because you believe due to your inbuilt diehard Remainer bias there will be vast LD to Labour tactical voting against the Tories with very little evidence at all
'Your in built diehard Remainer bias' demonstrates your belief that insulting a poster helps win your argument. For your information it does not and tactical voting is a genuine discussion topic in this climate
All very well and seat predictors will nters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you blittle evidence at all
I believe nothing of the sort. For crying out loud read what was written and not rely on your preconceived and wrong ideas about me.
a) I do not dismiss UNS
b) I have never said there will be LD to Labour tactical voting and what is more I do not believe that will happen so where you got that from I have no idea. Where did you get that from?
Let's try this just one more time:
An argument was put forward as to why UNS might not apply this time. I don't think anyone is suggesting it won't largely apply, but possibly not as much as before. Various arguments were put in support of this position. This was the discussion. Nothing else. Nobody knows who is right.
In all your replies you never responded to this arguemet one way or another. You neither said whether you agreed with this or disagreed with this although we can all guess you disagree with it.
So rather than post a load of stuff that has nothing to do with the issue let's hear why you agree or disagree with the proposition.
I have this sneaky feeling you are just not going to understand my post are you?
UNS apparently won't apply because there is a smaller voteshare for the 2 main parties, yet in reality it will in Labour v Tory marginals unless and until the LDs say overtook Labour as the main anti Tory party
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
HYUFD is only interested in spinning for the Conservative Party, usually by bombarding us with often unconnected factoids as Ian says. He does not seem interested in engaging in debate. That's fair enough, plenty do that if not with quite the same zeal but it doesn't often make for an interesting discussion.
I know. I should give up but it is so frustrating. I find it frustrating that someone can't follow a logical argument and then respond with a counter argument. The bizarre thing is a counter argument can change opinions. Chucking out unrelated stuff hardens views against them so it is counter productive.
HYUFD has adopted Boris as his guiding light. Taking the side of a reflexive liar rather inhibits one’s capacity to engage in reasoned argument.
BoZo. I refuse to talk to them until they remove the backstop
Ireland. Come to talk to us, without us removing the backstop.
BoZo. OK
You're far cleverer than that. How would they do anything to the backstop without meeting to discuss it.
If Varadkar has asked to meet Boris so he can re-emphasise the EU's current line it seems a bit pointless. If he's actually prepared to look at finding a way around the border question that avoids no deal and doesn't include the backstop (or at least an eternal backstop) good for Varadkar, and good for Boris.
Yes, it’s a good article, with perhaps two weaknesses. It doesn’t say anything about the changing drivers of voting =es as a straight swing (after all, in the LibDem’s case it didn’t depart as one).
An undercommented o seats across a broad swathe of the south.
A further the same as the one that always eluded the LibDems coming from below.
If Project Fear is even partly true, Bozo may get to explore that for himself.
The concentration i=onservative Remain seats.
Conservativese for the longer term.
Politics is more cultural now not class based so I suspect it will actually
Then the Tories are absolutely buggered. They have always relied on people becoming more economically self-interested as they got older. Cultural values are much less likely to change. And the cultural values that drive the current Tory vote are not those of the under 50s.
Which again is rubbish,ers and Labour had a clear lead with working class voters.
Now with the LDs winning more middle class voters, on 26% with them with Yougov and the Brexit_Trackers_w.pdf
In what way do people get culturally more conservative as they get older? The rest of your post doesn’t really add much to anything. The stories currently have the support of people of whatever class who support Brexit. The discussion is what happens post-Brexit.
More keen to preserve traditions and the way of life they know which is why the Tories have never won the votes of a majority of under 30s since 1983 and Labour have never won the votes of a majority of over 65s since 1997,
People who support Brexit tendr extent the Greens.
People who support Brexit tend to be older. And, yes, the cultural values of the over 50s now are generally conservative, but that just reflects the fact that they (we) grew up in different times. That is not the same as values becoming more conservative. If you are really relying on that you’re in trouble.
The Conservative Party always reflects, or should reflect, the values of the culturally more conservative parts of society, even if voters now accept gay marriage for example or divorce or abortion they are much less keen on legalising drugs (certainly beyond cannabis) or uncontrolled immigration or a liberal approach to crime and indeed it was a majority of voters as a whole who voted for Brexit even when the then leader of the Tory Party opposed it.
Malcolmmg, a tip for your well-being. When you have a disagreement with someone, esp over something trivial like your passionate dislike of Jo Swinson and my support of her, it's a good idea not to let it become cancerous in all other postings. Richard T and I once had a minor disagreement, but in agreeing to disagree I grew to respect him and his considered posts. I get it that you're an ardent nationalist, something I don't actually have a problem with. So drop the bile. It doesn't do you any favours and makes you look a bit of a schmuck.
SNP types keep their most extreme behaviour for wimmen that aren’t our Nicla - whether it be Swinson, “Ruthie” or employees at Edinburgh airport.
If he were going for a deal I think we'd have seen some sign of it by now. Whatever activity there's been is consistent with going for No Deal while making token efforts to shift the blame elsewhere.
You are probably right.
But the alternative -
He is seeking to engineer a cliff-edge binary choice between deal (or short extension to allow deal) and chaotic crash-out. And for this to work he needs enough MPs to believe (as you do) that he really would crash out - something TM never managed since it became clear that she would not, at the death, countenance it. Hence all this 'No Deal' drama.
Course, the best threats are those that are meant. So maybe he does mean it. But 'No Deal 31 Oct' is something I will believe when I see it and not before. It would be such a crazy outcome.
If Varadkar has asked to meet Boris so he can re-emphasise the EU's current line it seems a bit pointless. If he's actually prepared to look at finding a way around the border question that avoids no deal and doesn't include the backstop (or at least an eternal backstop) good for Varadkar, and good for Boris.
We will perhaps find out in due course, but I think it is more likely Varadkar wants to look BoZo in the eye and ask if he really wants to be the PM that breaks up the United Kingdom
He "accepts an offer," which means the other side has blinked first, surely?
It seems rather futile to try to guess who has blinked first since whatever comments were made about talking or not talking until x happens, if nothing arises from the talks neither will have blinked despite the talks. I wish them well, so long as they don't come out and say afterwards how tough but productive the talks were, the standard cliche for when nothing is agreed.
Yes, it’s a good article, with perhaps two weaknesses. It doesn’t say anything about the changing drivers of voting =es as a straight swing (after all, in the LibDem’s case it didn’t depart as one).
An undercommented o seats across a broad swathe of the south.
A further the same as the one that always eluded the LibDems coming from below.
If Project Fear is even partly true, Bozo may get to explore that for himself.
The concentration i=onservative Remain seats.
Conservativese for the longer term.
Politics is more cultural now not class based so I suspect it will actually
Then the Tories are absolutely buggered. They have always relied on people becoming more economically self-interested as they got older. Cultural values are much less likely to change. And the cultural values that drive the current Tory vote are not those of the under 50s.
Which again is rubbish,ers and Labour had a clear lead with working class voters.
Now with the LDs winning more middle class voters, on 26% with them with Yougov and the Brexit_Trackers_w.pdf
In what way do people get culturally more conservative as they get older? The rest of your post doesn’t really add much to anything. The stories currently have the support of people of whatever class who support Brexit. The discussion is what happens post-Brexit.
More keen to preserve traditions and the way of life they know which is why the Tories have never won the votes of a majority of under 30s since 1983 and Labour have never won the votes of a majority of over 65s since 1997,
People who support Brexit tendr extent the Greens.
People who support Brexit tendin trouble.
The Conservative Party always reflects, or should reflect, the values of the culturally more conservative parts of society, even if voters now accept gay marriage for example or divorce or abortion they are much less keen on legalising drugs (certainly beyond cannabis) or a liberal approach to crime and indeed it was a majority of voters as a whole who voted for Brexit even when the then leader of the Tory Party opposed it.
I am sure it always will. The problem is that the cultural conservatism is dying off.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS sh
The evidence for the potential for widespread tactical voting is the 40% Labour got in 2017.
When Corbyn had a significantly higher favourable rating than he does now
His ratings improved during the campaign if I recall correctly. The Tories had a huge polling lead and
The Tories lost their poll lead because of the dementia tax, hunting restoration etc. There was little difference between Remainer tactical voting at the beginning or end of the campaign and Corbyn is still polling lower than he was at the beginning of the 2017 campaign.
In Opinium today Tories plus Brexit Party are more than Labour plus LDs plus Greens
Yes, people voted tactically to stop the Tories in 2017. And anti-No Deal parties are on over 50% in today’s Opinium.
Tories plus Brexit Party on 47%, Labour plus LDs plus Greens on 46%
If Varadkar has asked to meet Boris so he can re-emphasise the EU's current line it seems a bit pointless. If he's actually prepared to look at finding a way around the border question that avoids no deal and doesn't include the backstop (or at least an eternal backstop) good for Varadkar, and good for Boris.
We will perhaps find out in due course, but I think it is more likely Varadkar wants to look BoZo in the eye and ask if he really wants to be the PM that breaks up the United Kingdom
IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
HYUFD is only interested in spinning for the Conservative Party, usually by bombarding us with often unconnected factoids as Ian says. He does not seem interested in engaging in debate. That's fair enough, plenty do that if not with quite the same zeal but it doesn't often make for an interesting discussion.
On the other hand, he can always back what he says using a very strong knowledge of the recent polling. And his perspective, even as a vociferous Conservative Party supporter, is valuable here because it is so rare, with other previous Conservative Party voices on the site currently having swooning fits over Brexit.
If Varadkar has asked to meet Boris so he can re-emphasise the EU's current line it seems a bit pointless. If he's actually prepared to look at finding a way around the border question that avoids no deal and doesn't include the backstop (or at least an eternal backstop) good for Varadkar, and good for Boris.
We will perhaps find out in due course, but I think it is more likely Varadkar wants to look BoZo in the eye and ask if he really wants to be the PM that breaks up the United Kingdom
Varadkar is much closer to being a silly petulant child than the wise elder statesman and master negotiater that you make him out to be.
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
ying.
Notat all
I believe nothing of the sort. For crying out loud read what was written and not rely on your preconceived and wrong ideas about me.
a) I do not dismiss UNS
b) I have never said there will be LD to Labour tactical voting and what is more I do not believe that will happen so where you got that from I have no idea. Where did you get that from?
Let's try this just one more time:
An argument was put forward as to why UNS might not apply this time. I don't think anyone is suggesting it won't largely apply, but possibly not as much as before. Various arguments were put in support of this position. This was the discussion. Nothing else. Nobody knows who is right.
In all your replies you never responded to this arguemet one way or another. You neither said whether you agreed with this or disagreed with this although we can all guess you disagree with it.
So rather than post a load of stuff that has nothing to do with the issue let's hear why you agree or disagree with the proposition.
I have this sneaky feeling you are just not going to understand my post are you?
UNS apparently won't apply because there is a smaller voteshare for the 2 main parties, yet in reality it will in Labour v Tory marginals unless and until the LDs say overtook Labour as the main anti Tory party
Yep, you didn't understand at all. Again ignored the discussion point. At no point did I mention the smaller vote share for the 2 main parties. Nothing to do with the points I made at all.
HYFUD I am giving up now, but it would be useful to know if this is deliberate or whether you really don't understand what is being said to you.
Have you not noticed how others comment on the fact that you ignore replies to you and that you respond with unrelated stuff. Do you not understand how a discussion works?
Take a look at the arguments I have with Philip. They are heated, but the responses back and forth relate to the previous posts. Occasionally we misunderstand each other, but with you there is nothing in common with the previous post.
All very well and seat predictors will nters will tactically vote
I prise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without eding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you blittle evidence at all
I believe nothing of the sort. For crying out loud read what was written and not rely on your preconceived and wrong ideas about me.
a) I do not dismiss UNS
b) I have never said there will be LD to Labour tactical voting and what is more I do not believe that will happen so where you got that from I have no idea. Where did you get that from?
Let's try this just one more time:
An argument was put forward as to why UNS might not apply this time. I don't think anyone is suggesting it won't largely apply, but possibly not as much as before. Various arguments were put in support of this position. This was the discussion. Nothing else. Nobody knows who is right.
In all your replies you never responded to this arguemet one way or another. You neither said whether you agreed with this or disagreed with this although we can all guess you disagree with it.
So rather than post a load of stuff that has nothing to do with the issue let's hear why you agree or disagree with the proposition.
I have this sneaky feeling you are just not going to understand my post are you?
UNS apparently won't apply because there is a smaller voteshare for the 2 main parties, yet in reality it will in Labour v Tory marginals unless and until the LDs say overtook Labour as the main anti Tory party
How does that work, when you have been telling us yourself that the Tories are gaining working class support and losing middle class support, and there are different numbers of working and middle class people in each seat?
IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.
Revoking A50 is impossible in this climate and would make matters worse, much worse.
We need to brexit with a deal and that is where mps attention should be
If Varadkar has asked to meet Boris so he can re-emphasise the EU's current line it seems a bit pointless. If he's actually prepared to look at finding a way around the border question that avoids no deal and doesn't include the backstop (or at least an eternal backstop) good for Varadkar, and good for Boris.
We will perhaps find out in due course, but I think it is more likely Varadkar wants to look BoZo in the eye and ask if he really wants to be the PM that breaks up the United Kingdom
Well he could do that on Skype. I think domestic pressure will be on him to come up with a little more. He must be seen to have done everything he can, as support for his strategy is ebbing. As you say, we shall see.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
Nothing to ignore, you believe UNS sh
The evidence for the potential for widespread tactical voting is the 40% Labour got in 2017.
When Corbyn had a significantly higher favourable rating than he does now
His ratings improved during the campaign if I recall correctly. The Tories had a huge polling lead and
The Tories lost their poll lead because of the dementia tax, hunting restoration etc. There was little difference between Remainer tactical voting at the beginning or end of the campaign and Corbyn is still polling lower than he was at the beginning of the 2017 campaign.
In Opinium today Tories plus Brexit Party are more than Labour plus LDs plus Greens
Yes, people voted tactically to stop the Tories in 2017. And anti-No Deal parties are on over 50% in today’s Opinium.
Tories plus Brexit Party on 47%, Labour plus LDs plus Greens on 46%
Malcolmmg, a tip for your well-being. When you have a disagreement with someone, esp over something trivial like your passionate dislike of Jo Swinson and my support of her, it's a good idea not to let it become cancerous in all other postings. Richard T and I once had a minor disagreement, but in agreeing to disagree I grew to respect him and his considered posts. I get it that you're an ardent nationalist, something I don't actually have a problem with. So drop the bile. It doesn't do you any favours and makes you look a bit of a schmuck.
Maybe you should look in the mirror, trying to pretend you are all knowing and insulting other posters because you do not like their message and asking for them to be removed from the site says a lot about you and none of it nice. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if you are unable to discuss and argue against that then you should heed your own message. Pomposity is not a nice trait.
IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.
Revoking A50 is impossible in this climate and would make matters worse, much worse.
We need to brexit with a deal and that is where mps attention should be
I feel your sentiments and where you are coming from. However, I do seriously consider this may be the Cummings plan. If they can attempt to block off all other routes to stopping No Deal, so that Revoking becomes the only available option to avoid it, then I think they can present the case to the country of the nasty Remainer Parliament vs the People.
He "accepts an offer," which means the other side has blinked first, surely?
It seems rather futile to try to guess who has blinked first since whatever comments were made about talking or not talking until x happens, if nothing arises from the talks neither will have blinked despite the talks. I wish them well, so long as they don't come out and say afterwards how tough but productive the talks were, the standard cliche for when nothing is agreed.
Malcolmmg, a tip for your well-being. When you have a disagreement with someone, esp over something trivial like your passionate dislike of Jo Swinson and my support of her, it's a good idea not to let it become cancerous in all other postings. Richard T and I once had a minor disagreement, but in agreeing to disagree I grew to respect him and his considered posts. I get it that you're an ardent nationalist, something I don't actually have a problem with. So drop the bile. It doesn't do you any favours and makes you look a bit of a schmuck.
SNP types keep their most extreme behaviour for wimmen that aren’t our Nicla - whether it be Swinson, “Ruthie” or employees at Edinburgh airport.
Oh Dear , Harry making an idiot of himself again, get that chip off your shoulder , you don't need to pretend your Scottish and know anything about the SNP, just stick with your Little Englander Tory persona.
If Varadkar has asked to meet Boris so he can re-emphasise the EU's current line it seems a bit pointless. If he's actually prepared to look at finding a way around the border question that avoids no deal and doesn't include the backstop (or at least an eternal backstop) good for Varadkar, and good for Boris.
We will perhaps find out in due course, but I think it is more likely Varadkar wants to look BoZo in the eye and ask if he really wants to be the PM that breaks up the United Kingdom
Varadkar is much closer to being a silly petulant child than the wise elder statesman and master negotiater that you make him out to be.
Varadkar is a very worried man at present coming under pressure from inside Ireland to talk. Ireland will be decimated in a no deal as will many parts of Europe
If it happens it will be a failure of spectacular enormity by all politicians both in the UK and the EU.
Malcolmmg, a tip for your well-being. When you have a disagreement with someone, esp over something trivial like your passionate dislike of Jo Swinson and my support of her, it's a good idea not to let it become cancerous in all other postings. Richard T and I once had a minor disagreement, but in agreeing to disagree I grew to respect him and his considered posts. I get it that you're an ardent nationalist, something I don't actually have a problem with. So drop the bile. It doesn't do you any favours and makes you look a bit of a schmuck.
SNP types keep their most extreme behaviour for wimmen that aren’t our Nicla - whether it be Swinson, “Ruthie” or employees at Edinburgh airport.
Yep and I'm getting the same treatment, but I'll let it pass. I like the proper debating on here which can be so stimulating. It outranks all other sites by a long way because of it.
Yes, it’s a good article, with perhaps two weaknesses. It doesn’t say anything about the changing drivers of voting =es as a straight swing (after all, in the LibDem’s case it didn’t depart as one).
An undercommented o seats across a broad swathe of the south.
A further the same as the one that always eluded the LibDems coming from below.
If Project Fear is even partly true, Bozo may get to explore that for himself.
The concentration i=onservative Remain seats.
Conservativese
Politics is more cultural now not class based so I suspect it will actually
Then the Tories are absolutely buggered. They have always relied on people becoming more economically self-interested as they got older. Cultural values are much less likely to change. And the cultural values that drive the current Tory vote are not those of the under 50s.
Which again is rubbish,ers and Labour had a clear lead with working class voters.
Now with the LDs winning more middle class voters, on 26% with them with Yougov and the Brexit_Trackers_w.pdf
In what way do people get culturally more conservative as they get older? The rest of your post doesn’t really add much to anything. The stories currently have the support of people of whatever class who support Brexit. The discussion is what happens post-Brexit.
More keen to preserve traditions and the way of life they know which is why the Tories have never won the votes of a majority of under 30s since 1983 and Labour have never won the votes of a majority of over 65s since 1997,
People who support Brexit tend to be culturally conservative, inevitably they will be more drawn to a conservative party than voters who are culturally liberal who tend to be Remainers, indeed the biggest problem may be for Labour who are losing their culturally conservative working class voters to the Brexit Party and a lesser extent the Boris led Tories and also losing their culturally liberal middle class voters to the LDs and to a lesser extent the Greens.
People who support Brexit tend to be older. And, yes, the cultural values of the over 50s now are generally conservative, but that just reflects the fact that they (we) grew up in different times. That is not the same as values becoming more conservative. If you are really relying on that you’re in trouble.
I would dispute whether the generation who got off their faces on E and shagged anything that moved are culturally conservative.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
HYUFD is only interested in spinning for the Conservative Party, usually by bombarding us with often unconnected factoids as Ian says. He does not seem interested in engaging in debate. That's fair enough, plenty do that if not with quite the same zeal but it doesn't often make for an interesting discussion.
Advertising doesn't require giving equal weight to your competitor's product. It's hard enough finding a USP let alone one a day. I think HYUFD is making a good fist of selling a very testing product. Of course he'd prefer to be doing a sun lotion-wouldn't we all.
If he were going for a deal I think we'd have seen some sign of it by now. Whatever activity there's been is consistent with going for No Deal while making token efforts to shift the blame elsewhere.
You are probably right.
But the alternative -
He is seeking to engineer a cliff-edge binary choice between deal (or short extension to allow deal) and chaotic crash-out. And for this to work he needs enough MPs to believe (as you do) that he really would crash out - something TM never managed since it became clear that she would not, at the death, countenance it. Hence all this 'No Deal' drama.
Course, the best threats are those that are meant. So maybe he does mean it. But 'No Deal 31 Oct' is something I will believe when I see it and not before. It would be such a crazy outcome.
Boris is being mightily helped by the vast amout of bed-wetting going on over his No Deal 31 Oct stance.
It seems clear everybody here believes it. Hopefully that is transmitting to EU capitals. Good job, guys.
A more sanguine approach by his detractors might have been to point and laugh at his posturing...
IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.
Well there would have to be a few things happen before we get to revoke because only the executive can revoke, that means we need VONC then VOC which will only happen on a two step program 1 request extension 2 election (probably via 2/3 rd majority route) but Johnson could still fight the election as you say on a ‘people v parliament’ ticket. So not sure how the revoke comes about unless Johnson surprises us all.
One other comment, for now, on the current zeitgeist. I think it's really disturbing, tragic even, that MPs are being held up as anti-democratic. It's Trumpian, of course. It's Bannian, of course. It's Cummings-esque, of course. But, really, we can see the roots of this here further back. That appalling speech to the nation by Theresa May showed up the very worst of her character defects. Having attempted to ram through a non-consensual Brexit deal she then hectored Members of Parliament for doing their job: scrutinising government.
This whole Brexit saga has been divisive beyond belief. It will take years, probably decades, to heal the nation (whether a United Kingdom one or not) and I'm not sure we ever will. This seems to delight some people on both extremes. But it's not a happy place in which to find ourselves.
IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.
I think Johnson is trying to convince everyone that no deal is a serious prospect in the hope that the EU will blink. I don't think he really wants to fight an election on a no deal płatform, there is precious little evidence that he could win one on that basis.
IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.
Revoking A50 is impossible in this climate and would make matters worse, much worse.
We need to brexit with a deal and that is where mps attention should be
I feel your sentiments and where you are coming from. However, I do seriously consider this may be the Cummings plan. If they can attempt to block off all other routes to stopping No Deal, so that Revoking becomes the only available option to avoid it, then I think they can present the case to the country of the nasty Remainer Parliament vs the People.
Technically, too, Revoking is actually very easy.
I respect your view but also cannot agree that Boris/Cummings are trying to force a position that they could even suggest to the HOC they revoke. It would see the immediate end of the conservative party and the rise of Farage and TBP with dreadful consequences
Also revoking is not easy, it requires political concensus
Malcolmmg, a tip for your well-being. When you have a disagreement with someone, esp over something trivial like your passionate dislike of Jo Swinson and my support of her, it's a good idea not to let it become cancerous in all other postings. Richard T and I once had a minor disagreement, but in agreeing to disagree I grew to respect him and his considered posts. I get it that you're an ardent nationalist, something I don't actually have a problem with. So drop the bile. It doesn't do you any favours and makes you look a bit of a schmuck.
SNP types keep their most extreme behaviour for wimmen that aren’t our Nicla - whether it be Swinson, “Ruthie” or employees at Edinburgh airport.
Oh Dear , Harry making an idiot of himself again, get that chip off your shoulder , you don't need to pretend your Scottish and know anything about the SNP, just stick with your Little Englander Tory persona.
Touched a nerve malc ? Misogyny runs deep in the SNat psyche - see also Wings.
Salmonds trial should see more of that out I the public domain.
Shadow rail minister her only qualification it would seem being MP for York and having visited the railway museum. I’m probably wrong and she will be a former rail union official.
She is not, alas, an ex train driver - probably could not drive a train if her life depended on it - but she did have a real job before politics.A physiotherapist in the NHS.
IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.
Well there would have to be a few things happen before we get to revoke because only the executive can revoke, that means we need VONC then VOC which will only happen on a two step program 1 request extension 2 election (probably via 2/3 rd majority route) but Johnson could still fight the election as you say on a ‘people v parliament’ ticket. So not sure how the revoke comes about unless Johnson surprises us all.
I'm not sure that's true? This LSE post is very good, suggesting two other options for a Revocation:
3. The House of Commons, through the Speaker, notifies the European Council that article 50 is revoked
4. Parliament passes a fresh Act to revoke article 50. An Act may be desirable, but it’s not necessary.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
ying.
Notat all
I believe nothing of the sort. For crying out loud read what was written and not rely on your preconceived and wrong ideas about me.
a) I do not dismiss UNS
b) I have never said there will be LD to Labour tactical voting and what is more I do not believe that will happen so where you got that from I have no idea. Where did you get that from?
Let's try this just one more time:
An argument was put forward as to why UNS might not apply this time. I don't think anyone is suggesting it won't largely apply, but possibly not as much as before. Various arguments were put in support of this position. This was the discussion. Nothing else. Nobody knows who is right.
In all your replies you never responded to this arguemet one way or another. You neither said whether you agreed with this or disagreed with this although we can all guess you disagree with it.
So rather than post a load of stuff that has nothing to do with the issue let's hear why you agree or disagree with the proposition.
I have this sneaky feeling you are just not going to understand my post are you?
UNS apparently won't ape main anti Tory party
Yep, you didn't understand at all. Again ignored the discussion point. At no point did I mention the smaller vote share for the 2 main parties. Nothing to do with the points I made at all.
HYFUD I am giving up now, but it would be useful to know if this is deliberate or whether you really don't understand what is being said to you.
Have you not noticed how others comment on the fact that you ignore replies to you and that you respond with unrelated stuff. Do you not understand how a discussion works?
Take a look at the arguments I have with Philip. They are heated, but the responses back and forth relate to the previous posts. Occasionally we misunderstand each other, but with you there is nothing in common with the previous post.
The whole point of Alistair Meeks argument is largely to do with the smaller vote for the 2 main parties but off you go on your high horse being tedious and patronising again.
If Philip Thompson wishes to spend half his day nitpicking with you fine, I have better things to do
Malcolmmg, a tip for your well-being. When you have a disagreement with someone, esp over something trivial like your passionate dislike of Jo Swinson and my support of her, it's a good idea not to let it become cancerous in all other postings. Richard T and I once had a minor disagreement, but in agreeing to disagree I grew to respect him and his considered posts. I get it that you're an ardent nationalist, something I don't actually have a problem with. So drop the bile. It doesn't do you any favours and makes you look a bit of a schmuck.
SNP types keep their most extreme behaviour for wimmen that aren’t our Nicla - whether it be Swinson, “Ruthie” or employees at Edinburgh airport.
Oh Dear , Harry making an idiot of himself again, get that chip off your shoulder , you don't need to pretend your Scottish and know anything about the SNP, just stick with your Little Englander Tory persona.
Touched a nerve malc ? Misogyny runs deep in the SNat psyche - see also Wings.
Salmonds trial should see more of that out I the public domain.
Harry, don't make yourself look any more stupid than normal.
IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.
Revoking A50 is impossible in this climate and would make matters worse, much worse.
We need to brexit with a deal and that is where mps attention should be
I feel your sentiments and where you are coming from. However, I do seriously consider this may be the Cummings plan. If they can attempt to block off all other routes to stopping No Deal, so that Revoking becomes the only available option to avoid it, then I think they can present the case to the country of the nasty Remainer Parliament vs the People.
Technically, too, Revoking is actually very easy.
I respect your view but also cannot agree that Boris/Cummings are trying to force a position that they could even suggest to the HOC they revoke. It would see the immediate end of the conservative party and the rise of Farage and TBP with dreadful consequences
Also revoking is not easy, it requires political concensus
Jacob Rees-Mogg has dared Remainers to do it, and said it's their only option.
That's the point I'm wondering here: that they want to goad Remainers into doing it, shutting off all other escape routes from No Deal.
For the record, I think they're wrong. Parliament will find a way to stop No Deal. And, also for the record, I am not in favour of Revoking Article 50 at this stage, despite myself being a Remainer.
If he were going for a deal I think we'd have seen some sign of it by now. Whatever activity there's been is consistent with going for No Deal while making token efforts to shift the blame elsewhere.
You are probably right.
But the alternative -
He is seeking to engineer a cliff-edge binary choice between deal (or short extension to allow deal) and chaotic crash-out. And for this to work he needs enough MPs to believe (as you do) that he really would crash out - something TM never managed since it became clear that she would not, at the death, countenance it. Hence all this 'No Deal' drama.
Course, the best threats are those that are meant. So maybe he does mean it. But 'No Deal 31 Oct' is something I will believe when I see it and not before. It would be such a crazy outcome.
Boris is being mightily helped by the vast amout of bed-wetting going on over his No Deal 31 Oct stance.
It seems clear everybody here believes it. Hopefully that is transmitting to EU capitals. Good job, guys.
A more sanguine approach by his detractors might have been to point and laugh at his posturing...
I'm an analyst who works in the banking/insurance industries. I have absolutely no power whatsoever. But thank you for thinking that I am so powerful Governments change their behavior when they hear me speak. I shall of course use my power for good...
IanB2 and I have recently remarked on the apparently deliberate goading by Cummings & BJ’s crew. I’ve been reflecting for a few days on what they’re hoping to achieve by this goading. Is it just the Joy of Anarchy (Cummings) or something more planned?
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.
Well there would have to be a few things happen before we get to revoke because only the executive can revoke, that means we need VONC then VOC which will only happen on a two step program 1 request extension 2 election (probably via 2/3 rd majority route) but Johnson could still fight the election as you say on a ‘people v parliament’ ticket. So not sure how the revoke comes about unless Johnson surprises us all.
I'm not sure that's true. This LSE post is very good, suggesting two other options for a Revocation:
3. The House of Commons, through the Speaker, notifies the European Council that article 50 is revoked
4. Parliament passes a fresh Act to revoke article 50. An Act may be desirable, but it’s not necessary.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
ying.
Notat all
I believe nothing of the sort. For crying out loud read what was written and not rely on your preconceived and wrong ideas about me.
a) I do not dismiss UNS
b) I have never said there will be LD to Labour tactical voting and what is more I do not believe that will happen so where you got that from I have no idea. Where did you get that from?
Let's try this just one more time:
An argument was put forward as to why UNS might not apply this time. I don't think anyone is suggesting it won't largely apply, but possibly not as much as before. Various arguments were put in support of this position. This was the discussion. Nothing else. Nobody knows who is right.
In all your replies you never responded to this arguemet one way or another. You neither said whether you agreed with this or disagreed
So rather than post a load of stuff that has nothing to do with the issue let's hear why you agree or disagree with the proposition.
I have this sneaky feeling you are just not going to understand my post are you?
UNS apparently won't ape main anti Tory party
Yep, you didn't understand at all. Again ignored the discussion point. At no point did I mention the smaller vote share for the 2 main parties. Nothing to do with the points I made at all.
HYFUD I am giving up now, but it would be useful to know if this is deliberate or whether you really don't understand what is being said to you.
Have you not noticed how others comment on the fact that you ignore replies to you and that you respond with unrelated stuff. Do you not understand how a discussion works?
Take a look at the arguments I have with Philip. They are heated, but the responses back and forth relate to the previous posts. Occasionally we misunderstand each other, but with you there is nothing in common with the previous post.
The whole point of Alistair Meeks argument is largely to do with the smaller vote for the 2 main parties but off you go on your high horse being tedious and patronising again.
If Philip Thompson wishes to spend half his day nitpicking with you fine, I have better things to do
Please. They need doing urgently. Really, they do.
UNS apparently won't apply because there is a smaller voteshare for the 2 main parties, yet in reality it will in Labour v Tory marginals unless and until the LDs say overtook Labour as the main anti Tory party
Yep, you didn't understand at all. Again ignored the discussion point. At no point did I mention the smaller vote share for the 2 main parties. Nothing to do with the points I made at all.
HYFUD I am giving up now, but it would be useful to know if this is deliberate or whether you really don't understand what is being said to you.
Have you not noticed how others comment on the fact that you ignore replies to you and that you respond with unrelated stuff. Do you not understand how a discussion works?
Take a look at the arguments I have with Philip. They are heated, but the responses back and forth relate to the previous posts. Occasionally we misunderstand each other, but with you there is nothing in common with the previous post.
To be fair to HYUFD the point about UNS remaining important in Lab/Tory marginals is a lot more pertinent than the obviously false claim that "only" tactical voting can make UNS wrong. Has anyone looked at this? I would try to identify "definite Lab/Tory 2-horse races" rather than "marginals" (which sounds too much like the result was already close last time), but maybe even this is getting hard to do, and definite ones might be a much smaller percentage of total seats than in the past.
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
The point is HYFUD that is exactly what you have done. Your response was to apply UNS once again. Now you may be right and that maybe is what is going to happen, BUT that wasn't the point of the article or what Ian or I were discussing.
You just ignored the whole point of the discussion. You didn't respond to it in anyway at all. You didn't even argue against it.
You just ignored it as if it wasn't there.
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
HYUFD is only interested in spinning for the Conservative Party, usually by bombarding us with often unconnected factoids as Ian says. He does not seem interested in engaging in debate. That's fair enough, plenty do that if not with quite the same zeal but it doesn't often make for an interesting discussion.
On the other hand, he can always back what he says using a very strong knowledge of the recent polling. And his perspective, even as a vociferous Conservative Party supporter, is valuable here because it is so rare, with other previous Conservative Party voices on the site currently having swooning fits over Brexit.
If Varadkar has asked to meet Boris so he can re-emphasise the EU's current line it seems a bit pointless. If he's actually prepared to look at finding a way around the border question that avoids no deal and doesn't include the backstop (or at least an eternal backstop) good for Varadkar, and good for Boris.
We will perhaps find out in due course, but I think it is more likely Varadkar wants to look BoZo in the eye and ask if he really wants to be the PM that breaks up the United Kingdom
Varadkar is much closer to being a silly petulant child than the wise elder statesman and master negotiater that you make him out to be.
Varadkar is a very worried man at present coming under pressure from inside Ireland to talk. Ireland will be decimated in a no deal as will many parts of Europe
If it happens it will be a failure of spectacular enormity by all politicians both in the UK and the EU.
I think decimated in many parts of Europe is over done. Ireland will be badly effected,but not as bad as the financial crash of 2008.
Comments
https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1160480483760889862
In Opinium today Tories plus Brexit Party are more than Labour plus LDs plus Greens anyway
It safeguards as many MPs as it can and avoids a wipeout is my theory. Any kind of brexit delay or the WA deal splits the no deal backing base even worse and they get hammered.
So it may not see them win - I certainly dont think it will - but the loss may be less intense.
If they dont believe that I cannot explain giving no wiggle room.
Mind you, he was also a military usurper whose rise to power after the regicide of Alexander Severus kicked off the Crisis of the Third Century, so it's not like he didn't deserve some abuse.
BoZo. I refuse to talk to them until they remove the backstop
Ireland. Come to talk to us, without us removing the backstop.
BoZo. OK
If he does say he wants an extension (6 months?) to get a deal, will the ERG hardliners bring him down or will they just make a hell of a racket but ultimately accept it for want of any feasible alternative?
I think it might be the latter, hence my view that 2019 will see neither Brexit nor an election.
Niche position now, I fully realize. Pretty much just me and Alastair Meeks.
Trump leads Buttigieg 44% to 42%
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollPrint.aspx?g=e05bf5ae-982d-4f96-b0ae-671cdfe56aab&d=0
a) I do not dismiss UNS
b) I have never said there will be LD to Labour tactical voting and what is more I do not believe that will happen so where you got that from I have no idea. Where did you get that from?
Let's try this just one more time:
An argument was put forward as to why UNS might not apply this time. I don't think anyone is suggesting it won't largely apply, but possibly not as much as before. Various arguments were put in support of this position. This was the discussion. Nothing else. Nobody knows who is right.
In all your replies you never responded to this arguemet one way or another. You neither said whether you agreed with this or disagreed with this although we can all guess you disagree with it.
So rather than post a load of stuff that has nothing to do with the issue let's hear why you agree or disagree with the proposition.
I have this sneaky feeling you are just not going to understand my post are you?
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1160482457113825280?s=20
There are better words to use to describe an irresponsible and unnecessary gamble with the future of the country.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1160277874626183170?s=20
Best advice to HY would be to start actively betting. He could have made nicely on Bozo but would have been punished for JRM. I wonder what the site would be like were it restricted to punters only!
If Varadkar has asked to meet Boris so he can re-emphasise the EU's current line it seems a bit pointless. If he's actually prepared to look at finding a way around the border question that avoids no deal and doesn't include the backstop (or at least an eternal backstop) good for Varadkar, and good for Boris.
But the alternative -
He is seeking to engineer a cliff-edge binary choice between deal (or short extension to allow deal) and chaotic crash-out. And for this to work he needs enough MPs to believe (as you do) that he really would crash out - something TM never managed since it became clear that she would not, at the death, countenance it. Hence all this 'No Deal' drama.
Course, the best threats are those that are meant. So maybe he does mean it. But 'No Deal 31 Oct' is something I will believe when I see it and not before. It would be such a crazy outcome.
Imagine this sort of thing during the run up to the election if he were selected as the nominee:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/joe-biden-gaffe-vice-president-parkland-shooting.html
And now he has accepted the offer.
Ben Swain couldn't have done it better.
Or were you just messing with them ?
But thanks for explaining the "5% of SNP voters think Boris is great" headline that will drop out of the survey results.
This may well be obvious to most of you, but it increasingly seems to me that they’re trying to goad remainer MP’s into revoking Article 50. That’s what they really want. Then they can go to the country with a presentation of The People vs Parliament and hope to win a thumping Boris victory.
Revoking Article 50 is possibly their last good prospect.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=31&LAB=28&LIB=13&Brexit=16&Green=5&UKIP=1&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017base
HYFUD I am giving up now, but it would be useful to know if this is deliberate or whether you really don't understand what is being said to you.
Have you not noticed how others comment on the fact that you ignore replies to you and that you respond with unrelated stuff. Do you not understand how a discussion works?
Take a look at the arguments I have with Philip. They are heated, but the responses back and forth relate to the previous posts. Occasionally we misunderstand each other, but with you there is nothing in common with the previous post.
(last try with a logical debating point)
Direction of travel.
We need to brexit with a deal and that is where mps attention should be
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if you are unable to discuss and argue against that then you should heed your own message.
Pomposity is not a nice trait.
Technically, too, Revoking is actually very easy.
If it happens it will be a failure of spectacular enormity by all politicians both in the UK and the EU.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1160320950468009984
It seems clear everybody here believes it. Hopefully that is transmitting to EU capitals. Good job, guys.
A more sanguine approach by his detractors might have been to point and laugh at his posturing...
This whole Brexit saga has been divisive beyond belief. It will take years, probably decades, to heal the nation (whether a United Kingdom one or not) and I'm not sure we ever will. This seems to delight some people on both extremes. But it's not a happy place in which to find ourselves.
Also revoking is not easy, it requires political concensus
Salmonds trial should see more of that out I the public domain.
3. The House of Commons, through the Speaker, notifies the European Council that article 50 is revoked
4. Parliament passes a fresh Act to revoke article 50. An Act may be desirable, but it’s not necessary.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/03/26/we-can-and-should-revoke-article-50-heres-how-to-do-it/
If Philip Thompson wishes to spend half his day nitpicking with you fine, I have better things to do
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/26/jacob-rees-mogg-dares-remainer-rebels-revoke-article-50-way/
Jacob Rees-Mogg has dared Remainers to do it, and said it's their only option.
That's the point I'm wondering here: that they want to goad Remainers into doing it, shutting off all other escape routes from No Deal.
For the record, I think they're wrong. Parliament will find a way to stop No Deal. And, also for the record, I am not in favour of Revoking Article 50 at this stage, despite myself being a Remainer.
Ireland will be badly effected,but not as bad as the financial crash of 2008.