Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Going long. Why a 2019 election is a lot less likely than gamb

1356

Comments

  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited October 2019
    If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.

    Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,717

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
    I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS

    Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    The remain solution to 'nobody knew what they were voting for' seems to be to offer a vote between a discredited deal that has been rejected 3 times and leaves us locked in a backstop indefinitely or what they want. Genius.

    Well it’s the only deal that has been agreed.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    isam said:

    If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.

    Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful

    So what are you afraid of?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,717
    edited October 2019

    @HYUFD the Lib Dems are appealing to Remainers and those who feel they were lied to by the Cummings disinformation campaign. They don’t care about your frothers.

    Well North Norfolk at least will be a Tory gain next time from the LDs and most of the Tory seats in the Southwest Tory holds if the LDs do not care about Leavers, even if the LDs gain a few London, South East and university Remain seats
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
    I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS

    Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
    You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    The remain solution to 'nobody knew what they were voting for' seems to be to offer a vote between a discredited deal that has been rejected 3 times and leaves us locked in a backstop indefinitely or what they want. Genius.

    Well it’s the only deal that has been agreed.
    Then any referendum should be that deal or no deal. The decision to leave has been taken.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    HYUFD said:

    @HYUFD the Lib Dems are appealing to Remainers and those who feel they were lied to by the Cummings disinformation campaign. They don’t care about your frothers.

    Well North Norfolk at least will be a Tory gain next time from the LDs and most of the Tory seats in the Southwest Tory holds if the LDs do not care about Leavers, even if the LDs gain a few London, South East and university Remain seats
    They care about leavers. Just not the racist and xenophobic frothers who appear to be the core Tory vote these days.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Excellent analysis from Mr Meeks. Thank you. One comment though: It is in no-one's interest to carry on with government and parliament in its present stasis. But it is in no faction's interest to have a GE unless that faction can actually win it. Factions and parties of course coincide less than usual which complicates things. The current minority government has no power to call an election under the FTPA, and not even the power (almost certainly) to change the law to call an election. They haven't got the numbers. There is no faction or party that looks as if it can win a majority, and the nearest possibility is the Conservative/Leave party/faction - the very people who have no power to call one. So why should anyone lift a finger to enable to GE in the foreseeable future when there is no reason to think they can win, and every reason to think that the present government/party/faction will run into trouble.

    Without a general election or EUref2 there will be no extension, France would veto it as they made clear yesterday, so Boris delivers Brexit on 31st October
    Yes that seems to be the plan.
    As parliament will not agree anything on crisis Saturday.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    It’s a stupid question

    I can’t guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It probably will but I can’t guarantee it. If it doesn’t there may be deaths. Peoples lives are at risk.
    You could get squashed by a falling comet at any time, but you still look both ways before crossing a busy road. That's because a speeding taxi is a commonplace and predictable hazard. As are shortages of imported goods in a situation where an underprepared country is suddenly faced with confusing new border arrangements.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,717

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
    I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS

    Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
    You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
    Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
  • Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    It’s a stupid question

    I can’t guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It probably will but I can’t guarantee it. If it doesn’t there may be deaths. Peoples lives are at risk.
    Breaking news: the human race has absolutely zero influence on the rising of the sun, otoh the importation of life saving drugs is precisely under the agency of humans, particularly governments.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    isam said:

    “Parliament seems incapable of making its mind up so let the people decide”

    They did decide.

    The main bone of contention at the moment is whether the customs border with the EU should be down the Irish sea or across the island of Ireland. What was the people's decision on this question and when did they make it?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    The remain solution to 'nobody knew what they were voting for' seems to be to offer a vote between a discredited deal that has been rejected 3 times and leaves us locked in a backstop indefinitely or what they want. Genius.

    Well it’s the only deal that has been agreed.
    Then any referendum should be that deal or no deal. The decision to leave has been taken.
    No deal is a lie so of course we won’t be doing that. Next.
  • Two of the so-called "IS Beatles" have been taken out of Syria to "a secure location controlled by the US", President Donald Trump has said

    BBC News - British IS fighters taken into US custody, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49995909
  • HYUFD said:

    @HYUFD the Lib Dems are appealing to Remainers and those who feel they were lied to by the Cummings disinformation campaign. They don’t care about your frothers.

    Well North Norfolk at least will be a Tory gain next time from the LDs and most of the Tory seats in the Southwest Tory holds if the LDs do not care about Leavers, even if the LDs gain a few London, South East and university Remain seats
    You clearly don't know N Norfolk very well. Very simplistic analysis as ever!
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    HYUFD said:

    Anorak said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, Leavers not backing the Lib Dems does sound a bit like Muslims boycotting pork butchers.

    30% of 2015 LD voters voted Leave, as did some LD seats like North Norfolk where Norman Lamb is retiring and which the Tories could gain
    2015?!? When they polled under 8%!! That's not really the gotcha you think it is.
    Still over 2% of the vote, handy for the Tories to pick them up in a close election
    They've already gone to either Labour or Cons. Actually, forget it, you're a Tory version of Professor Pangloss.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
    I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS

    Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
    You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
    Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
    American forces are already there and are willing to continue their duty. Your apologism for Trump is really something to behold.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Gate, it hasn't been agreed. May's deal was explicitly rejected by the Commons on multiple occasions.
  • Sandpit said:

    On topic, I agree with Alastair’s conclusions, with one constraint: the suggestion in the Benn Act letter is for an extension until 31st January.

    If that is the extension given, then the election is probably going to have to be on 5th December, or possibly 13th. No-one is going to want to campaign over Christmas (or be seen supporting the idea), and an early January dissolution leads to a mid-February election, most likely 20th if we stick to a 25 day campaign and a Thursday election.

    My betting plan here is to base decisions on the extension date proposal, any date other than 31st Jan leads to a 2020 election. (But what do I know, I didn’t see Boris as next PM until it was way too late to still be laying the favourite).

    I don't see any reason for the EU to offer a short extension. It would simply create more hassle for them.

    Six months is probably the minimum, and it's best to look at dates in the EU calendar that they might link it to. So there's another EU council scheduled for mid-June, which is why the end of June has been mooted as a possible date.

    I've also suggested the end of 2020 - the end date for the transition period agreed as part of May's deal.
    The March to October extension didn't achieve anything, possibly even the reverse. May at least had a deal to put to parliament.

    The EU offering an extension would only make sense from their viewpoint if they thought it mean a GE would (a) happen before the end of the extension and (b) return a Remain friendly government or one likely to run a 2nd referendum. If it returns a Tory majority however, and a Tory party purged largely of Europhiles, this would surely mean no deal.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited October 2019
    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    It’s a stupid question

    I can’t guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It probably will but I can’t guarantee it. If it doesn’t there may be deaths. Peoples lives are at risk.
    Interesting assessment of risk. You equate the probability of the sun rising tomorrow with the chances of us running out of medicines post a no deal Brexit and people dying as a result. Those two events in your mind have an equivalent probability.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,547

    1. I can't see either a December or January election anymore. This isn't 1910. People start thinking about Christmas in September (certainly the shops do) and by December everyone is in Christmas mood now. No one, but no one, will want an election or a campaign during Christmas. So both December and January are out.
    2. Likewise February is unlikely unless its end of February.
    3. So I think its either November (28th?) or March 2020.
    4. I don't think the average Conservative or Labour MP really wants an election. There are too many banana skins on route to be reasonably sure of keeping your job. For the CONS, all the need is a poor campaign, Brexit party hammering at them day and night and suddenly they finish on 25% and lose 150 seats. For Labour, all they need is for the Lib Dems to hammer them as the party of REMAIN, and Corbyn can't work his magic a second time, and they finish on 25%, and lose 100 seats.
    Hell, BOTH could happen. How long ago were those polls with four parties all in the low 20s? Could happen.
    5. Never underestimate the average MP wanting to keep their job more than anything. Look at O'Mara. How many times has he 'resigned' now?
    6. Never underestimate the love of can kicking. The EU isn't the only organisation that loves to kick the can. If the EU gives us a June 2020 extension, I'm quite sure Parliament won't think about it until next March. If they give us till December 2020, Parliament will forget all about it till this time next year.


    Having said all that, the problem at the moment is that we have a Government that are so far in 'the red' in terms of majority they can't do anything. Can we really limp on for six months (or more) with nothing happening (YES! I have a friend who insists the less government does, the better!)?

    FWIW I think Parliament will decide that there is a requirement for an electoral process but it will go for a referendum rather than a general election. I'd say there is already a majority for that - almost all Labour MPs, Lib Dems, nationalists, Tory rebels and I think also a number of one nation Tories will see that as a better option than going into an election on a no deal platform.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    And yet the tangerine moron was citing the Kurds' non-presence at the Normandy landings as some kind of justifcation, an event that was the very antithesis of America First.

    The chances of Trump having a rational, thought out position on this are between zero and fuck all, though I guess that reflects the world view of his base pretty well.
    As some wag put it: "That's a bit rich from someone who didn't help us in Vietnam."
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,587
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
    I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS

    Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
    You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
    Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
    That might have been theoretically possible had Trump given a few months' notice. As it was, he didn't even consult his own generals before he announced the abandonment of the Kurds.

    All of which ought to be pretty obvious, so I guess your question was mere smoke and rhetoric ?
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,678
    I also wonder.

    Last GE 8th June 2017.
    PArliament returned for QS on 21st June 2017.
    FTPA expires in 2020.
    Five year term to 20th June 2022.
    25 working days later.
    GE held on Monday 25th July 2022.

    You heard it here first. Bet accordingly.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    The remain solution to 'nobody knew what they were voting for' seems to be to offer a vote between a discredited deal that has been rejected 3 times and leaves us locked in a backstop indefinitely or what they want. Genius.

    I posted these links many moons ago and it looks like I'll have to do so again. Decision making can take place under several conditions (risk, uncertainty, certainty). The referendum a decision made under uncertainty. Things have moved on since then and therefore there is no democratic, moral, or logical deficit by having another referendum.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
    I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS

    Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
    You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
    Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
    American forces are already there and are willing to continue their duty. Your apologism for Trump is really something to behold.
    American forces do their duty wherever they are posted, they have no involvement in where they should or should not do that duty. If America has betrayed the Kurds then others must step in if they wish to see the Kurds have support. America isn't the world's policeman, if it wants to be a dick, it's free to do so.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,717

    HYUFD said:

    @HYUFD the Lib Dems are appealing to Remainers and those who feel they were lied to by the Cummings disinformation campaign. They don’t care about your frothers.

    Well North Norfolk at least will be a Tory gain next time from the LDs and most of the Tory seats in the Southwest Tory holds if the LDs do not care about Leavers, even if the LDs gain a few London, South East and university Remain seats
    You clearly don't know N Norfolk very well. Very simplistic analysis as ever!
    N Norfolk voted 59% Leave, the LDs only hold it because of the Norman Lamb personal vote and he is stepping down
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981

    nichomar said:

    GIN1138 said:

    What time asre we expecting Boris and Leo to have their Mexican Standof on the banks of the Mersey? :D

    Why Liverpool? Does Boris think the Bootle be on the other foot?
    They actually said on sky that they were meeting on neutral ground has Liverpool declared UDI?
    Liverpool Scotland voted Irish Nationalist for many years from 1885 to 1929!
    Liverpool also voted Remain and is not exactly natural Tory territory....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Two of the so-called "IS Beatles" have been taken out of Syria to "a secure location controlled by the US", President Donald Trump has said

    BBC News - British IS fighters taken into US custody, says Trump
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49995909

    Hope they're enjoying the waterboarding.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,587
    Anorak said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    And yet the tangerine moron was citing the Kurds' non-presence at the Normandy landings as some kind of justifcation, an event that was the very antithesis of America First.

    The chances of Trump having a rational, thought out position on this are between zero and fuck all, though I guess that reflects the world view of his base pretty well.
    As some wag put it: "That's a bit rich from someone who didn't help us in Vietnam."
    And it's not as though the Turks were a conspicuous D-Day ally.

    As a business partner of various dodgy Trump ventures, on the other hand...
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,678
    Yorkcity said:


    Yes that seems to be the plan.
    As parliament will not agree anything on crisis Saturday.

    Fixed that for you.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,717

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
    I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS

    Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
    You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
    Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
    American forces are already there and are willing to continue their duty. Your apologism for Trump is really something to behold.
    Trump was elected on an 'America First' agenda, he is only doing what he said he would and only fighting wars where America is directly at threat.

    If we criticise him we cannot do so over the Kurds unless we are also willing to send troops to Syria to protect Kurdish lands
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,336

    I also wonder.

    Last GE 8th June 2017.
    PArliament returned for QS on 21st June 2017.
    FTPA expires in 2020.
    Five year term to 20th June 2022.
    25 working days later.
    GE held on Monday 25th July 2022.

    You heard it here first. Bet accordingly.

    Does the FTPA expire?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    TOPPING said:

    The remain solution to 'nobody knew what they were voting for' seems to be to offer a vote between a discredited deal that has been rejected 3 times and leaves us locked in a backstop indefinitely or what they want. Genius.

    I posted these links many moons ago and it looks like I'll have to do so again. Decision making can take place under several conditions (risk, uncertainty, certainty). The referendum a decision made under uncertainty. Things have moved on since then and therefore there is no democratic, moral, or logical deficit by having another referendum.
    There is when it's being framed to achieve a desired result. The May deal is not the only basis on which we can leave the EU, therefore it cannot be the only option presented
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    isam said:

    “Parliament seems incapable of making its mind up so let the people decide”

    They did decide.

    The main bone of contention at the moment is whether the customs border with the EU should be down the Irish sea or across the island of Ireland. What was the people's decision on this question and when did they make it?
    That’s for our PM to agree with the EU
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,587

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
    I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS

    Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
    You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
    Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
    American forces are already there and are willing to continue their duty. Your apologism for Trump is really something to behold.
    American forces do their duty wherever they are posted, they have no involvement in where they should or should not do that duty. If America has betrayed the Kurds then others must step in if they wish to see the Kurds have support. America isn't the world's policeman, if it wants to be a dick, it's free to do so.
    Unhuh...

    Turkey's Syria invasion: Member of US Special Forces says, 'I am ashamed for the first time in my career'
    https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkey-syria-invasion-special-forces-soldier-kurds
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,756
    edited October 2019
    Anorak said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    And yet the tangerine moron was citing the Kurds' non-presence at the Normandy landings as some kind of justifcation, an event that was the very antithesis of America First.

    The chances of Trump having a rational, thought out position on this are between zero and fuck all, though I guess that reflects the world view of his base pretty well.
    As some wag put it: "That's a bit rich from someone who didn't help us in Vietnam."
    I guess Trump's position has evolved over the years from Donald First to America First, with the provisos that he probably now identifies himself with America and if it ever came down to an argument over whether Trump or 'murica came first, no contest.
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,300
    Alistair makes good arguments as always - especially around the uncertainty of the result holding back any enthusiasm to call one, and the likely length of the mere process. So I'd agree about November being out, but I think December's still on - and I definitely don't think this parliament could (or should try to) hang on for a referendum.

    The counter-currents to a later poll are strong too:

    1. If "nothing has changed" on Nov 1st, we end up in the same circles we've been going round in for the past year, with a parliament which can do nothing but stop No Deal? Surely that's hitting home by now.. even with Corbyn? Anti No Dealers need to weigh the fact that the EU is likely to lose patience at some point and stop the endless extension of faffing time.

    2. Those tempted to keep this parliament going with a new leader and a new plan have some questions to answer (namely: who is that leader and what's the plan?). I don't see either being agreed beyond "do extension (or revoke in extremis) and call an election".

    3. The view voiced in this short (two-tweet) thread that no-one wins from hanging on too long without seeking a new mandate. Sure, Boris can be made to look like a lame duck/zombie. But to what ends for the other parties?

    https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1182217641676738560?s=20
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    I also wonder.

    Last GE 8th June 2017.
    PArliament returned for QS on 21st June 2017.
    FTPA expires in 2020.
    Five year term to 20th June 2022.
    25 working days later.
    GE held on Monday 25th July 2022.

    You heard it here first. Bet accordingly.

    FTPA is not due to expire, its due for a review
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,717

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
    I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS

    Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
    You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
    Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
    American forces are already there and are willing to continue their duty. Your apologism for Trump is really something to behold.
    American forces do their duty wherever they are posted, they have no involvement in where they should or should not do that duty. If America has betrayed the Kurds then others must step in if they wish to see the Kurds have support. America isn't the world's policeman, if it wants to be a dick, it's free to do so.
    Agreed, no good attacking America for invading the Middle East if you then also attack America for withdrawing from the Middle East
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    It’s a stupid question

    I can’t guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It probably will but I can’t guarantee it. If it doesn’t there may be deaths. Peoples lives are at risk.
    Interesting assessment of risk. You equate the probability of the sun rising tomorrow with the chances of us running out of medicines post a no deal Brexit and people dying as a result. Those two events in your mind have an equivalent probability.
    There were soldiers in WW1 who refused to wear helmets because they believed that "if a bullet's got your name on it, it'll get you anyway". In other words, why experience the discomfort of PPE when the outcome is already ordained.
    This fatalism is, of course, the epitome self-destructive silliness. People died because of it, from head wounds that wouldn't have happened had they worn their helmet. But that mindset is with us today. People who have persuaded themselves that human agency isn't meaningful, that there is some sort of spiritual destiny that must be hurried along. Those are the people at the core of this nationalist project.
    It's why I believe Mr Meeks refers to them as a death cult. They have a millennarian view of the future, and the lives of individuals are merely the grease that keeps the big wheel of destiny turning. Ok, so some people will die in the grinding gears.. a price worth paying?

    Fortunately, most people are not like that. But I'd feel a lot happier if that weirdo minority were not in power.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
    I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS

    Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
    You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
    Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
    American forces are already there and are willing to continue their duty. Your apologism for Trump is really something to behold.
    American forces do their duty wherever they are posted, they have no involvement in where they should or should not do that duty. If America has betrayed the Kurds then others must step in if they wish to see the Kurds have support. America isn't the world's policeman, if it wants to be a dick, it's free to do so.
    Unhuh...

    Turkey's Syria invasion: Member of US Special Forces says, 'I am ashamed for the first time in my career'
    https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkey-syria-invasion-special-forces-soldier-kurds
    That has no effect whatsoever on American policy, it's just someone saying how they feel.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    isam said:

    If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.

    Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful

    So what are you afraid of?
    Grow up!

    Had Remain won I wouldn’t have been campaigning for or calling for another referendum without a party with one in their manifesto winning a GE. If you are too full of your own self interest to respect the vote of a majority of the country you’ll have to live with yourself
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,678

    I also wonder.

    Last GE 8th June 2017.
    PArliament returned for QS on 21st June 2017.
    FTPA expires in 2020.
    Five year term to 20th June 2022.
    25 working days later.
    GE held on Monday 25th July 2022.

    You heard it here first. Bet accordingly.

    Does the FTPA expire?
    I believe its up for review. I assume it may not be. After all, it means a May 2022 election and if Parliament can kick the can just a little longer, then they will.

    I do wonder if Parliament can change the length of terms from 5 years to.... oh I don't know.... 100 years.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    anothnick says: "FWIW I think Parliament will decide that there is a requirement for an electoral process but it will go for a referendum rather than a general election."

    I agree that this is where we are heading. Odds on 2022 GE are much too long IMO.

    With regard to a referendum: can they agree the question?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,587
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
    I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS

    Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
    You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
    Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
    American forces are already there and are willing to continue their duty. Your apologism for Trump is really something to behold.
    Trump was elected on an 'America First' agenda, he is only doing what he said he would and only fighting wars where America is directly at threat.

    If we criticise him we cannot do so over the Kurds unless we are also willing to send troops to Syria to protect Kurdish lands
    Even a conspicuous Trump lickspittle like Lindsey Graham is prepared to cross him on this:
    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/09/syria-backlash-trump-042654
  • Does anybody know who's behind the fake Britain Elects poll yesterday or why they did it (apart from winding up some posters on here)?

    "There was no poll released today by @OpiniumResearch or tweeted by us. Figures you may be seeing come from a fake account attempting to impersonate us and put out false data."

    Difference is merely an underscore in the twitter account name.

    BritainElects and Britain_Elects

    To be fair the fake one's bio explicitly says it makes up polls. But still people fell for it somehow.

    One of my favourite pastimes in idle moments is reading the irate/pompous/gleeful/despairing/etc comments in reply to tweets which people don't realise are fake! It's a shame Corbynsuperfan is no more
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    I also wonder.

    Last GE 8th June 2017.
    PArliament returned for QS on 21st June 2017.
    FTPA expires in 2020.
    Five year term to 20th June 2022.
    25 working days later.
    GE held on Monday 25th July 2022.

    You heard it here first. Bet accordingly.

    Does the FTPA expire?
    I believe its up for review. I assume it may not be. After all, it means a May 2022 election and if Parliament can kick the can just a little longer, then they will.

    I do wonder if Parliament can change the length of terms from 5 years to.... oh I don't know.... 100 years.
    That's the one thing the sovereign parliament cannot do
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    isam said:

    to respect the vote of a majority of the country

    This is the cleverest post from you in quite a while. The contortions needed to avoid pinning your statement to a particular tense is quite something. Well done, sir.
    Of course, if you had used the past tense -- "what the majority voted for" -- you open the discussion up to the fact that the majority has now gone. And it you used the present tense -- "what the majority want" -- you'd be making the opposite point, since the majority now want remain.

    Nice going.
  • Does anybody know who's behind the fake Britain Elects poll yesterday or why they did it (apart from winding up some posters on here)?

    "There was no poll released today by @OpiniumResearch or tweeted by us. Figures you may be seeing come from a fake account attempting to impersonate us and put out false data."

    Difference is merely an underscore in the twitter account name.

    BritainElects and Britain_Elects

    To be fair the fake one's bio explicitly says it makes up polls. But still people fell for it somehow.

    One of my favourite pastimes in idle moments is reading the irate/pompous/gleeful/despairing/etc comments in reply to tweets which people don't realise are fake! It's a shame Corbynsuperfan is no more
    It looks to me like a trial run for a betting coup. Possibly a fake exit poll 'leaked' via Twitter at 9.58pm on election night. Lots of money to be made before the truth puts its boots on. This site would no doubt have a walk-on part to play.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    It’s a stupid question

    I can’t guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It probably will but I can’t guarantee it. If it doesn’t there may be deaths. Peoples lives are at risk.
    I guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    It’s a stupid question

    I can’t guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It probably will but I can’t guarantee it. If it doesn’t there may be deaths. Peoples lives are at risk.
    I guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    The remain solution to 'nobody knew what they were voting for' seems to be to offer a vote between a discredited deal that has been rejected 3 times and leaves us locked in a backstop indefinitely or what they want. Genius.

    I posted these links many moons ago and it looks like I'll have to do so again. Decision making can take place under several conditions (risk, uncertainty, certainty). The referendum a decision made under uncertainty. Things have moved on since then and therefore there is no democratic, moral, or logical deficit by having another referendum.
    There is when it's being framed to achieve a desired result. The May deal is not the only basis on which we can leave the EU, therefore it cannot be the only option presented
    I hear you. But it is the basis which has been negotiated in good faith by the two parties. I get also that the current government doesn't like it but that is only because some in Parliament dislike it. The reason for a second referendum is to bypass parliament.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630
    isam said:

    isam said:

    If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.

    Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful

    So what are you afraid of?
    Grow up!

    Had Remain won I wouldn’t have been campaigning for or calling for another referendum without a party with one in their manifesto winning a GE. If you are too full of your own self interest to respect the vote of a majority of the country you’ll have to live with yourself
    There was literally a UKIP petition already on the gov website the day of the referendum to ask for another one if the result was 52/48 remain.

    I also remember JRM in the House saying we can always have a confirmatory referendum on any deal.

    I also remember the entire referendum campaign being around getting a deal being super easy, no deal was project fear, and we could be just like Norway.

    Why can't we just be like Norway? Why are the government ignoring the will of the people by not offering a Norway deal?

    There is no mandate for a No Deal exit of the EU. The referendum does not provide it. The last election does not provide it. I doubt another election will provide it.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,883
    ?

    Is S/Lt (Acting) Mordaunt proposing British forces deploy or is it just Americans she is prepared to see die in defence of Rojava?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    The remain solution to 'nobody knew what they were voting for' seems to be to offer a vote between a discredited deal that has been rejected 3 times and leaves us locked in a backstop indefinitely or what they want. Genius.

    I posted these links many moons ago and it looks like I'll have to do so again. Decision making can take place under several conditions (risk, uncertainty, certainty). The referendum a decision made under uncertainty. Things have moved on since then and therefore there is no democratic, moral, or logical deficit by having another referendum.
    There is when it's being framed to achieve a desired result. The May deal is not the only basis on which we can leave the EU, therefore it cannot be the only option presented
    I hear you. But it is the basis which has been negotiated in good faith by the two parties. I get also that the current government doesn't like it but that is only because some in Parliament dislike it. The reason for a second referendum is to bypass parliament.
    A range of options need to be presented if we are to truly undo the supposed knowledge deficit of 2016. Anything else is just fixing it for one side
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,680
    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    We will be too busy licking their butts for a trade deal
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited October 2019
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    The remain solution to 'nobody knew what they were voting for' seems to be to offer a vote between a discredited deal that has been rejected 3 times and leaves us locked in a backstop indefinitely or what they want. Genius.

    I posted these links many moons ago and it looks like I'll have to do so again. Decision making can take place under several conditions (risk, uncertainty, certainty). The referendum a decision made under uncertainty. Things have moved on since then and therefore there is no democratic, moral, or logical deficit by having another referendum.
    There is when it's being framed to achieve a desired result. The May deal is not the only basis on which we can leave the EU, therefore it cannot be the only option presented
    I hear you. But it is the basis which has been negotiated in good faith by the two parties. I get also that the current government doesn't like it but that is only because some in Parliament dislike it. The reason for a second referendum is to bypass parliament.
    So you think it’s perfectly fair to present an option which got 48% last time against one that the leaders of the side that got 52% won’t support?!

    What next? You’ll be tempting us with even money about the offer of tails with your double headed coin?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,236
    You want Leave? Vote Con
    You want Remain? Vote Lib
    You want we, you know, hold on, it's on the tip of my tongue?. Vote Lab.
  • 148grss said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.

    Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful

    So what are you afraid of?
    Grow up!

    Had Remain won I wouldn’t have been campaigning for or calling for another referendum without a party with one in their manifesto winning a GE. If you are too full of your own self interest to respect the vote of a majority of the country you’ll have to live with yourself
    There was literally a UKIP petition already on the gov website the day of the referendum to ask for another one if the result was 52/48 remain.

    I also remember JRM in the House saying we can always have a confirmatory referendum on any deal.

    I also remember the entire referendum campaign being around getting a deal being super easy, no deal was project fear, and we could be just like Norway.

    Why can't we just be like Norway? Why are the government ignoring the will of the people by not offering a Norway deal?

    There is no mandate for a No Deal exit of the EU. The referendum does not provide it. The last election does not provide it. I doubt another election will provide it.
    So make any new referendum Deal or No Deal. But Remain cannot be an option. That question was asked and answered.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,680

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    And yet the tangerine moron was citing the Kurds' non-presence at the Normandy landings as some kind of justifcation, an event that was the very antithesis of America First.

    The chances of Trump having a rational, thought out position on this are between zero and fuck all, though I guess that reflects the world view of his base pretty well.
    He really is a nasty piece of work.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
    I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS

    Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
    You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
    Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
    American forces are already there and are willing to continue their duty. Your apologism for Trump is really something to behold.
    American forces do their duty wherever they are posted, they have no involvement in where they should or should not do that duty. If America has betrayed the Kurds then others must step in if they wish to see the Kurds have support. America isn't the world's policeman, if it wants to be a dick, it's free to do so.
    Agreed, no good attacking America for invading the Middle East if you then also attack America for withdrawing from the Middle East
    Well you can, if they f*** it up, then make it worse by then not clearing up the mess and getting out of there.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    isam said:

    If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.

    Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful

    A more positive interpretation is that the public are open to changing their mind, public debate still matters and political campaigning makes a difference.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    148grss said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.

    Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful

    So what are you afraid of?
    Grow up!

    Had Remain won I wouldn’t have been campaigning for or calling for another referendum without a party with one in their manifesto winning a GE. If you are too full of your own self interest to respect the vote of a majority of the country you’ll have to live with yourself
    There was literally a UKIP petition already on the gov website the day of the referendum to ask for another one if the result was 52/48 remain.

    I also remember JRM in the House saying we can always have a confirmatory referendum on any deal.

    I also remember the entire referendum campaign being around getting a deal being super easy, no deal was project fear, and we could be just like Norway.

    Why can't we just be like Norway? Why are the government ignoring the will of the people by not offering a Norway deal?

    There is no mandate for a No Deal exit of the EU. The referendum does not provide it. The last election does not provide it. I doubt another election will provide it.
    Then they should have voted for Mays agreement with the EU.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited October 2019

    Does anybody know who's behind the fake Britain Elects poll yesterday or why they did it (apart from winding up some posters on here)?

    "There was no poll released today by @OpiniumResearch or tweeted by us. Figures you may be seeing come from a fake account attempting to impersonate us and put out false data."

    Difference is merely an underscore in the twitter account name.

    BritainElects and Britain_Elects

    To be fair the fake one's bio explicitly says it makes up polls. But still people fell for it somehow.

    One of my favourite pastimes in idle moments is reading the irate/pompous/gleeful/despairing/etc comments in reply to tweets which people don't realise are fake! It's a shame Corbynsuperfan is no more
    It looks to me like a trial run for a betting coup. Possibly a fake exit poll 'leaked' via Twitter at 9.58pm on election night. Lots of money to be made before the truth puts its boots on. This site would no doubt have a walk-on part to play.
    Not just a betting coup: there are higher prizes at stake in the markets and even at Westminster itself. In an election expected to be dominated by tactical voting, information on how everyone else will vote can be crucial, so all sides and the KGB will be sending the electronic equivalent of Winning Here! and Only We Can Beat the Reds/Blues/Yellows!
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    isam said:

    If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.

    Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful

    A more positive interpretation is that the public are open to changing their mind, public debate still matters and political campaigning makes a difference.
    Why is everyone so reluctant to question pollsters findings on long term hypotheticals, when their track record is so ridiculously poor? It really is like a religion
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,547
    Stocky said:

    anothnick says: "FWIW I think Parliament will decide that there is a requirement for an electoral process but it will go for a referendum rather than a general election."

    I agree that this is where we are heading. Odds on 2022 GE are much too long IMO.

    With regard to a referendum: can they agree the question?

    Remain vs leave.
    The difficult bit will be agreeing on the definition of "leave."
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.

    Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful

    So what are you afraid of?
    Grow up!

    Had Remain won I wouldn’t have been campaigning for or calling for another referendum without a party with one in their manifesto winning a GE. If you are too full of your own self interest to respect the vote of a majority of the country you’ll have to live with yourself
    There was literally a UKIP petition already on the gov website the day of the referendum to ask for another one if the result was 52/48 remain.

    I also remember JRM in the House saying we can always have a confirmatory referendum on any deal.

    I also remember the entire referendum campaign being around getting a deal being super easy, no deal was project fear, and we could be just like Norway.

    Why can't we just be like Norway? Why are the government ignoring the will of the people by not offering a Norway deal?

    There is no mandate for a No Deal exit of the EU. The referendum does not provide it. The last election does not provide it. I doubt another election will provide it.
    So make any new referendum Deal or No Deal. But Remain cannot be an option. That question was asked and answered.
    Exactly
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,717
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
    I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS

    Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
    You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
    Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
    American forces are already there and are willing to continue their duty. Your apologism for Trump is really something to behold.
    Trump was elected on an 'America First' agenda, he is only doing what he said he would and only fighting wars where America is directly at threat.

    If we criticise him we cannot do so over the Kurds unless we are also willing to send troops to Syria to protect Kurdish lands
    Even a conspicuous Trump lickspittle like Lindsey Graham is prepared to cross him on this:
    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/09/syria-backlash-trump-042654
    Lindsey Graham is a neocon and was a close ally of John McCain so no surprise there.

    However while Graham might be able to criticise Trump unless we are prepared to put British boots on the ground in Syria to protect Kurdish territory I don't think we have any moral authority to attack Trump in this
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    isam said:

    If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.

    Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful

    A more positive interpretation is that the public are open to changing their mind, public debate still matters and political campaigning makes a difference.
    I can't recall a democratic vote where the result hasn't been implemented before. I think very long term leaving then rejoining may have served the remain cause better. The forces of leave can't be held out forever, certainly not under FPTP anyway.
    Will Labour go for PR if they have a minority, it's probably that that is crucial in the next parliament for the Lib Dems to push rather than a second referendum.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.

    Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful

    So what are you afraid of?
    Grow up!

    Had Remain won I wouldn’t have been campaigning for or calling for another referendum without a party with one in their manifesto winning a GE. If you are too full of your own self interest to respect the vote of a majority of the country you’ll have to live with yourself
    There was literally a UKIP petition already on the gov website the day of the referendum to ask for another one if the result was 52/48 remain.

    I also remember JRM in the House saying we can always have a confirmatory referendum on any deal.

    I also remember the entire referendum campaign being around getting a deal being super easy, no deal was project fear, and we could be just like Norway.

    Why can't we just be like Norway? Why are the government ignoring the will of the people by not offering a Norway deal?

    There is no mandate for a No Deal exit of the EU. The referendum does not provide it. The last election does not provide it. I doubt another election will provide it.
    So make any new referendum Deal or No Deal. But Remain cannot be an option. That question was asked and answered.
    That question was asked and answered in a different context.

    I also don't accept that No Deal should be on a referendum. It would be immoral and irresponsible. If No Deal is going to happen it should be a decision taken by those with the knowledge and understanding of what will happen. It would be like putting healthcare to plebiscite.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,547

    I also wonder.

    Last GE 8th June 2017.
    PArliament returned for QS on 21st June 2017.
    FTPA expires in 2020.
    Five year term to 20th June 2022.
    25 working days later.
    GE held on Monday 25th July 2022.

    You heard it here first. Bet accordingly.

    FTPA is not due to expire, its due for a review
    And this parliament will certainly not be able to agree on any change, still less repeal.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    https://twitter.com/the3million/status/1182203372574822402?s=19

    What with this and the prospect of IS being revived because of the malicious ignorance of the tangerine moron, there is not much reason to be cheerful about world affairs this morning.
  • Looks like we've avoided technical recession which would have been declared in mid November and dominated the subsequent narrative. Unless the September figures are really, suddenly grim the Government has dodged a bullet. A win for Boris.
  • Looks like we've avoided technical recession which would have been declared in mid November and dominated the subsequent narrative. Unless the September figures are really, suddenly grim the Government has dodged a bullet. A win for Boris.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    edited October 2019
    Stocky said:

    anothnick says: "FWIW I think Parliament will decide that there is a requirement for an electoral process but it will go for a referendum rather than a general election."

    I agree that this is where we are heading. Odds on 2022 GE are much too long IMO.

    With regard to a referendum: can they agree the question?

    It should be stay or leave followed by if leave wins then current WA deal or no deal.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
    I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS

    Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
    You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
    Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
    American forces are already there and are willing to continue their duty. Your apologism for Trump is really something to behold.
    Trump was elected on an 'America First' agenda, he is only doing what he said he would and only fighting wars where America is directly at threat.

    If we criticise him we cannot do so over the Kurds unless we are also willing to send troops to Syria to protect Kurdish lands
    If that were the case then he should have been consistent and not have let US forces operate alongside the Kurds for the last few years. Much like the US encouraging the Marsh Arabs to rise up against Saddam and the abandoning them to be massacred when they were no longer needed.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    A commons vote on May`s WA subject to the rider of a confirmatory referendum would put us in the interesting position of virtually all MPs in support of the vote with the only MP`s opposing it being from the party which created the WA in the first place (albeit under a different PM).
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, I agree with Alastair’s conclusions, with one constraint: the suggestion in the Benn Act letter is for an extension until 31st January.

    If that is the extension given, then the election is probably going to have to be on 5th December, or possibly 13th. No-one is going to want to campaign over Christmas (or be seen supporting the idea), and an early January dissolution leads to a mid-February election, most likely 20th if we stick to a 25 day campaign and a Thursday election.

    My betting plan here is to base decisions on the extension date proposal, any date other than 31st Jan leads to a 2020 election. (But what do I know, I didn’t see Boris as next PM until it was way too late to still be laying the favourite).

    I don't see any reason for the EU to offer a short extension. It would simply create more hassle for them.

    Six months is probably the minimum, and it's best to look at dates in the EU calendar that they might link it to. So there's another EU council scheduled for mid-June, which is why the end of June has been mooted as a possible date.

    I've also suggested the end of 2020 - the end date for the transition period agreed as part of May's deal.
    The March to October extension didn't achieve anything, possibly even the reverse. May at least had a deal to put to parliament.

    The EU offering an extension would only make sense from their viewpoint if they thought it mean a GE would (a) happen before the end of the extension and (b) return a Remain friendly government or one likely to run a 2nd referendum. If it returns a Tory majority however, and a Tory party purged largely of Europhiles, this would surely mean no deal.
    The EU will offer an extension simply because that is preferable to taking the blame for a No Deal exit and and economic disruption that would cause to their voters.
  • nichomar said:

    Stocky said:

    anothnick says: "FWIW I think Parliament will decide that there is a requirement for an electoral process but it will go for a referendum rather than a general election."

    I agree that this is where we are heading. Odds on 2022 GE are much too long IMO.

    With regard to a referendum: can they agree the question?

    It should be stay or leave followed by if leave wins then current WA deal or no deal.
    Why shoukd Remain get a second chance? If the argument is that no one voted for a No Deal first time round then have a vote on the form of Brexit. What is certain is that Remain has already been rejected.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,678

    I also wonder.

    Last GE 8th June 2017.
    PArliament returned for QS on 21st June 2017.
    FTPA expires in 2020.
    Five year term to 20th June 2022.
    25 working days later.
    GE held on Monday 25th July 2022.

    You heard it here first. Bet accordingly.

    Does the FTPA expire?
    I believe its up for review. I assume it may not be. After all, it means a May 2022 election and if Parliament can kick the can just a little longer, then they will.

    I do wonder if Parliament can change the length of terms from 5 years to.... oh I don't know.... 100 years.
    That's the one thing the sovereign parliament cannot do
    Why not? Who changed it from seven year term to five year term?
  • Yellow_SubmarineYellow_Submarine Posts: 647
    edited October 2019
    Duplicate post deleted.
  • Now that Ruth Davidson has quit Penny Mordaunt is positioning herself as the new designated survivor. If we Remain she can pivot as an arch Brexiter. " We remain for now. We will revisit this after the next Tory majority with a plan. " Equally if we Brexit badly her sacking means she's a clean skin true believer who can cast herself as a fixer.

    Of course if the Boris project works he'll be around for a while.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,678

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    It’s a stupid question

    I can’t guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It probably will but I can’t guarantee it. If it doesn’t there may be deaths. Peoples lives are at risk.
    I guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow.
    True. And you could even offer monetary compensation if it didn't (knowing that you wouldn't be around to actually have to pay out).
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    edited October 2019
    I'm not sure the commons numbers are there for a second ref. Tories and DUP will be three line whipped against, and there are a portion of labour that won't vote for it. Would the '21' all vote for? Doubtful, some would but I cant see all of them taking that route.
    Then even if it squeaks through there will be more disagreement on the question.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, I agree with Alastair’s conclusions, with one constraint: the suggestion in the Benn Act letter is for an extension until 31st January.

    If that is the extension given, then the election is probably going to have to be on 5th December, or possibly 13th. No-one is going to want to campaign over Christmas (or be seen supporting the idea), and an early January dissolution leads to a mid-February election, most likely 20th if we stick to a 25 day campaign and a Thursday election.

    My betting plan here is to base decisions on the extension date proposal, any date other than 31st Jan leads to a 2020 election. (But what do I know, I didn’t see Boris as next PM until it was way too late to still be laying the favourite).

    I don't see any reason for the EU to offer a short extension. It would simply create more hassle for them.

    Six months is probably the minimum, and it's best to look at dates in the EU calendar that they might link it to. So there's another EU council scheduled for mid-June, which is why the end of June has been mooted as a possible date.

    I've also suggested the end of 2020 - the end date for the transition period agreed as part of May's deal.
    The March to October extension didn't achieve anything, possibly even the reverse. May at least had a deal to put to parliament.

    The EU offering an extension would only make sense from their viewpoint if they thought it mean a GE would (a) happen before the end of the extension and (b) return a Remain friendly government or one likely to run a 2nd referendum. If it returns a Tory majority however, and a Tory party purged largely of Europhiles, this would surely mean no deal.
    The EU will offer an extension simply because that is preferable to taking the blame for a No Deal exit and and economic disruption that would cause to their voters.
    Also I can’t see how they can insist on an election as there is no way of that being guaranteed. They may advise that the UK considers an election or a referendum so give the extension to 31/6 but without a defined position there will be no more.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Cyclefree said:

    Morning all.

    Were I French I would simply say that since the last extension was wasted, another one would only be granted on the basis that there is a referendum to decide between leaving on the basis of the WA or Remaining.

    I would have zero appetite for trying to negotiate some other deal either with a majority Johnson government or some other unknown government with all the uncertainties involved.

    Take it or leave it.

    Parliament seems incapable of making its mind up so let the people decide. A GE risks being, from the EU's perspective, a self-indulgent distraction which may do nothing to resolve matters. Much like the last one.

    In what way is that not interfering?

    The democratically legitimate option would be deal vs no deal

  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630
    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.

    Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful

    So what are you afraid of?
    Grow up!

    Had Remain won I wouldn’t have been campaigning for or calling for another referendum without a party with one in their manifesto winning a GE. If you are too full of your own self interest to respect the vote of a majority of the country you’ll have to live with yourself
    There was literally a UKIP petition already on the gov website the day of the referendum to ask for another one if the result was 52/48 remain.

    I also remember JRM in the House saying we can always have a confirmatory referendum on any deal.

    I also remember the entire referendum campaign being around getting a deal being super easy, no deal was project fear, and we could be just like Norway.

    Why can't we just be like Norway? Why are the government ignoring the will of the people by not offering a Norway deal?

    There is no mandate for a No Deal exit of the EU. The referendum does not provide it. The last election does not provide it. I doubt another election will provide it.
    Then they should have voted for Mays agreement with the EU.
    They didn't. Parliament is sovereign, not the executive. It was May's job to make a deal that could pass Parliament, not Parliaments job to rubber stamp whatever she produced.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    nichomar said:

    Stocky said:

    anothnick says: "FWIW I think Parliament will decide that there is a requirement for an electoral process but it will go for a referendum rather than a general election."

    I agree that this is where we are heading. Odds on 2022 GE are much too long IMO.

    With regard to a referendum: can they agree the question?

    It should be stay or leave followed by if leave wins then current WA deal or no deal.
    Why shoukd Remain get a second chance? If the argument is that no one voted for a No Deal first time round then have a vote on the form of Brexit. What is certain is that Remain has already been rejected.
    No it hasn’t. Remain has been rejected against a fairytale concept of ‘leave’. Who’s to say that Remain isn’t favored against a realistic Leave scenario.

    Regardless this is a pointless debate to have as its your best interest for Remain not to appear on any hypothetical 2nd ref and in my best interest for it to appear.
  • 148grss said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.

    Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful

    So what are you afraid of?
    Grow up!

    Had Remain won I wouldn’t have been campaigning for or calling for another referendum without a party with one in their manifesto winning a GE. If you are too full of your own self interest to respect the vote of a majority of the country you’ll have to live with yourself
    There was literally a UKIP petition already on the gov website the day of the referendum to ask for another one if the result was 52/48 remain.

    I also remember JRM in the House saying we can always have a confirmatory referendum on any deal.

    I also remember the entire referendum campaign being around getting a deal being super easy, no deal was project fear, and we could be just like Norway.

    Why can't we just be like Norway? Why are the government ignoring the will of the people by not offering a Norway deal?

    There is no mandate for a No Deal exit of the EU. The referendum does not provide it. The last election does not provide it. I doubt another election will provide it.
    So make any new referendum Deal or No Deal. But Remain cannot be an option. That question was asked and answered.
    That question was asked and answered in a different context.

    I also don't accept that No Deal should be on a referendum. It would be immoral and irresponsible. If No Deal is going to happen it should be a decision taken by those with the knowledge and understanding of what will happen. It would be like putting healthcare to plebiscite.
    Nope you don't get to argue that rubbish. Making the choice between Deal or No Deal answes the question of the form of Brexit. But until such times as we actually leave the Original referendum has not been respected and that question should not be asked again.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    "Why should Remain get a second chance? If the argument is that no one voted for a No Deal first time round then have a vote on the form of Brexit. What is certain is that Remain has already been rejected."

    Remainers would be getting two second chances! Remain plus WA agreement (which is not really Brexit). And I`m saying that as a remainer!
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    I also wonder.

    Last GE 8th June 2017.
    PArliament returned for QS on 21st June 2017.
    FTPA expires in 2020.
    Five year term to 20th June 2022.
    25 working days later.
    GE held on Monday 25th July 2022.

    You heard it here first. Bet accordingly.

    Does the FTPA expire?
    I believe its up for review. I assume it may not be. After all, it means a May 2022 election and if Parliament can kick the can just a little longer, then they will.

    I do wonder if Parliament can change the length of terms from 5 years to.... oh I don't know.... 100 years.
    The next election was delayed at least twice during the Second World War to well beyond 5 years.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    Stocky said:

    "Why should Remain get a second chance? If the argument is that no one voted for a No Deal first time round then have a vote on the form of Brexit. What is certain is that Remain has already been rejected."

    Remainers would be getting two second chances! Remain plus WA agreement (which is not really Brexit). And I`m saying that as a remainer!

    Total nonsense.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Stocky said:

    A commons vote on May`s WA subject to the rider of a confirmatory referendum would put us in the interesting position of virtually all MPs in support of the vote with the only MP`s opposing it being from the party which created the WA in the first place (albeit under a different PM).


    But they would have to hang on without an election until the referendum took place or risk it being cancelled by an incoming government. Also you can’t leave Johnson in place to put the referendum together given he is opposed to it. So not really a simple approach.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    I also wonder.

    Last GE 8th June 2017.
    PArliament returned for QS on 21st June 2017.
    FTPA expires in 2020.
    Five year term to 20th June 2022.
    25 working days later.
    GE held on Monday 25th July 2022.

    You heard it here first. Bet accordingly.

    Does the FTPA expire?
    I believe its up for review. I assume it may not be. After all, it means a May 2022 election and if Parliament can kick the can just a little longer, then they will.

    I do wonder if Parliament can change the length of terms from 5 years to.... oh I don't know.... 100 years.
    That's the one thing the sovereign parliament cannot do
    Why not? Who changed it from seven year term to five year term?
    Previously such a move would have been unthinkable, it probably still is. But in all the legal cases recently "Parliamentary sovereignty" has been trumped as the absolubte pinacle of the legal and constitutional pillar.
    I'd have thought the declaration of a hundred year term though would be followed by a Hong Kong redux. I'd find that a step too far even to keep Corbyn and his lot out, and I'd be joining the stormers if it was Corbyn himself doing it.
  • Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.

    Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful

    A more positive interpretation is that the public are open to changing their mind, public debate still matters and political campaigning makes a difference.
    I can't recall a democratic vote where the result hasn't been implemented before. I think very long term leaving then rejoining may have served the remain cause better. The forces of leave can't be held out forever, certainly not under FPTP anyway.
    Will Labour go for PR if they have a minority, it's probably that that is crucial in the next parliament for the Lib Dems to push rather than a second referendum.
    Revisiting the question once wr have left would be absolutely correct. But as you say, doing it before hand to try and overturn the original vote would he unacceptable and extremly dangerous. Long term it will poison both UK and EU politics far more than leaving.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620
    isam said:

    If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.

    Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful

    We disagree on many things. But, on this, I'm afraid I agree wholeheartedly with you. Perfectly articulated!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    HYUFD said:

    I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.

    From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.

    Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
    And yet the tangerine moron was citing the Kurds' non-presence at the Normandy landings as some kind of justifcation, an event that was the very antithesis of America First.

    The chances of Trump having a rational, thought out position on this are between zero and fuck all, though I guess that reflects the world view of his base pretty well.
    An example not a justification
This discussion has been closed.