Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » DDavis drops sharply in the next CON leader betting following

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited November 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » DDavis drops sharply in the next CON leader betting following reports that he might quit

A report in the Telegraph about the frustration that BrexSec DDavis is having with his job has prompted big changes in two betting markets – next CON leader and next Cabinet exit.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 938
    When we say resign in protest, do we think he will call a by election... :D
  • Second like Sarwar.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,613

    Second like Sarwar.

    Third like Scottish Labour?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,613
    edited November 2017
    kyf_100 said:

    When we say resign in protest, do we think he will call a by election... :D

    Well, there have been suggestions that Russian money helped Leave buy an election.

    As an aside, it's entertaining to reflect that in olden days such allegations were levelled against the Left by the Right, and now it's all arse about face.
  • Michael Gove now featuring. I expect he will enjoy a day in the sun in this contest. In my view he should be favourite. The main question is whether he wants the job.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,613
    edited November 2017

    Michael Gove now featuring. I expect he will enjoy a day in the sun in this contest. In my view he should be favourite. The main question is whether he wants the job.

    That raises the truly frightening prospect that I would have to vote for a party led by a mad dogmatist with a vastly inflated sense of his own worth who never listens to advice and has a genuine loathing for all his enemies that he hides under a thin veneer of charm and views on various Foreign Office and military matters that border on the fascistic...

    ...or for Jeremy Corbyn.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    ydoethur said:

    Michael Gove now featuring. I expect he will enjoy a day in the sun in this contest. In my view he should be favourite. The main question is whether he wants the job.

    That raises the truly frightening prospect that I would have to vote for a party led by a mad dogmatist with a vastly inflated sense of his own worth who never listens to advice and has a genuine loathing for all his enemies that he hides under a thin veneer of charm and views on various Foreign Office and military matters that border on the fascistic...

    ...or for Jeremy Corbyn.
    You don't have to vote for Cable...
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,871
    Phillip Hammond's completely dropped out of contention, then?

    It has to be said that, whether you agree with him or not, it's hard to think of a more politically-inept top Cabinet figure in recent years.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,813
    edited November 2017
    I’ve been laying Boris, Davis, and JRM for a while.

    Gove’s time is coming, I suspect he’ll be able to shore up the Leave vote and the Cameroon vote within the PCP.

    I suspect a young Cardinal like Raab to be an alternative if Gove doesn’t run.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 938
    edited November 2017
    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    When we say resign in protest, do we think he will call a by election... :D

    Well, there have been suggestions that Russian money helped Leave buy an election.

    As an aside, it's entertaining to reflect that in olden days such allegations were levelled against the Left by the Right, and now it's all arse about face.
    Remainers crying that the Russians bought the election for Leave would do well to remember Cameron ordered the government to print up a pro-EU leaflet at the cost of £9m, just before the purdah period.

    They may like to remember that the official campaigns were limited to a spend of £7m throughout the campaign.

    This, along with Obama's 'back of the queue' intervention was one of the things that swung my vote to Leave. In terms of governments intervening, it certainly wasn't Russian intervention I was worried about.
  • Danny565 said:

    Phillip Hammond's completely dropped out of contention, then?

    It has to be said that, whether you agree with him or not, it's hard to think of a more politically-inept top Cabinet figure in recent years.

    No. He is just in a party infested with Brexiteers. For political ineptness BoJo, DDavis and the disgraced LFox are higher up the league.

    Her ability to choose people is about equal to her skill in getting the big decision right.
  • Danny565 said:

    Phillip Hammond's completely dropped out of contention, then?

    It has to be said that, whether you agree with him or not, it's hard to think of a more politically-inept top Cabinet figure in recent years.

    Philip Hammond is viscerally hated by Leavers because he has to deal with the fiscal realities of Brexit rather than pretend it's all wonderful. A 100/1 shot, I'd have thought, in the current Conservative party.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    kyf_100 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    When we say resign in protest, do we think he will call a by election... :D

    Well, there have been suggestions that Russian money helped Leave buy an election.

    As an aside, it's entertaining to reflect that in olden days such allegations were levelled against the Left by the Right, and now it's all arse about face.
    Remainers crying that the Russians bought the election for Leave would do well to remember Cameron ordered the government to print up a pro-EU leaflet at the cost of £9m, just before the purdah period.

    They may like to remember that the official campaigns were limited to a spend of £7m throughout the campaign.

    This, along with Obama's 'back of the queue' intervention was one of the things that swung my vote to Leave. In terms of governments intervening, it certainly wasn't Russian intervention I was worried about.
    Those seem like pretty petty reasons to vote Leave, but that is the problem with referendums.
  • Well, at least I’m £120 better off!
  • Danny565 said:

    Phillip Hammond's completely dropped out of contention, then?

    It has to be said that, whether you agree with him or not, it's hard to think of a more politically-inept top Cabinet figure in recent years.

    Really? What makes you say that? Yes, there was the NI-on-the-self-employed fiasco, but I get the impression he was hung out to dry by Theresa and Tory MPs with a secret agenda.
  • kyf_100 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    When we say resign in protest, do we think he will call a by election... :D

    Well, there have been suggestions that Russian money helped Leave buy an election.

    As an aside, it's entertaining to reflect that in olden days such allegations were levelled against the Left by the Right, and now it's all arse about face.
    Remainers crying that the Russians bought the election for Leave would do well to remember Cameron ordered the government to print up a pro-EU leaflet at the cost of £9m, just before the purdah period.

    They may like to remember that the official campaigns were limited to a spend of £7m throughout the campaign.

    This, along with Obama's 'back of the queue' intervention was one of the things that swung my vote to Leave. In terms of governments intervening, it certainly wasn't Russian intervention I was worried about.
    Those seem like pretty petty reasons to vote Leave, but that is the problem with referendums.
    And yet many of us who voted Remain have been going on and on about such petty rubbish as some thousands of Russian tweets over the last few days. Both sides will be able to find enough reasons to discredit the other side to our own satisfaction if we want. 'We find reasons for the things we want to believe' and mislead ourselves into thinking we're more rational than the other lot.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Danny565 said:

    Phillip Hammond's completely dropped out of contention, then?

    It has to be said that, whether you agree with him or not, it's hard to think of a more politically-inept top Cabinet figure in recent years.

    Philip Hammond is viscerally hated by Leavers because he has to deal with the fiscal realities of Brexit rather than pretend it's all wonderful. A 100/1 shot, I'd have thought, in the current Conservative party.
    It depends. If a contest happens in the context of a crash out scenario, the prospect of a fiscally sane soft Brexiteer in charge may well get him into the final two. A lot then would depend on who his runoff rival would be. I am comfortably green on Phil.
  • Danny565 said:

    Phillip Hammond's completely dropped out of contention, then?

    It has to be said that, whether you agree with him or not, it's hard to think of a more politically-inept top Cabinet figure in recent years.

    No. He is just in a party infested with Brexiteers. For political ineptness BoJo, DDavis and the disgraced LFox are higher up the league.

    Her ability to choose people is about equal to her skill in getting the big decision right.
    Agreed.
  • Danny565 said:

    Phillip Hammond's completely dropped out of contention, then?

    It has to be said that, whether you agree with him or not, it's hard to think of a more politically-inept top Cabinet figure in recent years.

    Philip Hammond is viscerally hated by Leavers because he has to deal with the fiscal realities of Brexit rather than pretend it's all wonderful. A 100/1 shot, I'd have thought, in the current Conservative party.
    It depends. If a contest happens in the context of a crash out scenario, the prospect of a fiscally sane soft Brexiteer in charge may well get him into the final two. A lot then would depend on who his runoff rival would be. I am comfortably green on Phil.
    In that context, the maddest Leaver would win.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 938

    kyf_100 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    When we say resign in protest, do we think he will call a by election... :D

    Well, there have been suggestions that Russian money helped Leave buy an election.

    As an aside, it's entertaining to reflect that in olden days such allegations were levelled against the Left by the Right, and now it's all arse about face.
    Remainers crying that the Russians bought the election for Leave would do well to remember Cameron ordered the government to print up a pro-EU leaflet at the cost of £9m, just before the purdah period.

    They may like to remember that the official campaigns were limited to a spend of £7m throughout the campaign.

    This, along with Obama's 'back of the queue' intervention was one of the things that swung my vote to Leave. In terms of governments intervening, it certainly wasn't Russian intervention I was worried about.
    Those seem like pretty petty reasons to vote Leave, but that is the problem with referendums.
    I said "that swung my vote to leave" - they were swing factors in a decision that for me, could have gone either way.

    The funny thing is, much of the leave campaign gave me pause for thought and made me consider voting remain.

    The official vote leave campaign was disingenuous in places - the 350m claim for example - while the unofficial leave.eu campaign was positively odious.

    But they had to be balanced out against nonsense like the 'little Englander' insult and the punishment budget threat.

    However, I do think Tony Benn's famous questions to ask to those in power, particularly the last question, "how do we get rid of you?" were what gave me pause for thought.

    I took the first opportunity *in my lifetime* to register my discontent with the way things were going. Unfortunately, the only option on the table was the nuclear one.

    Had our masters made a greater effort to secure democratic consensus at an earlier stage, we might not be where we are now. Considering how the promise on a referendum on Lisbon was reneged upon, I figured this referendum may be the last chance I'd ever get.

    Remainers - be honest - if there was a second referendum and the decision reversed, do you think the people in power would ever allow the question to be put to the British people again?

    Then perhaps you understand why I voted the way I voted.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,199
    FPT

    “AlastairMeeks said:
    Casino_Royale said:
    AlastairMeeks said:
    DavidL said:
    I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.

    My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.

    The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.

    Who is this we? The we who voted for a hard anti-immigration Brexit or the we who didn't vote for Brexit at all? You want to betray both groups to achieve your own aspiration.
    Could DavidL win, in your eyes?

    If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.

    If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.

    As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.

    Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.”

    You are making an assumption that all those who voted Leave “fell in behind” those particular lies. I don’t think you can make that assumption. Anymore than someone could make an assumption about you that you are a fan of the EU simply because you voted Remain.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    kyf_100 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    When we say resign in protest, do we think he will call a by election... :D

    Well, there have been suggestions that Russian money helped Leave buy an election.

    As an aside, it's entertaining to reflect that in olden days such allegations were levelled against the Left by the Right, and now it's all arse about face.
    Remainers crying that the Russians bought the election for Leave would do well to remember Cameron ordered the government to print up a pro-EU leaflet at the cost of £9m, just before the purdah period.

    They may like to remember that the official campaigns were limited to a spend of £7m throughout the campaign.

    This, along with Obama's 'back of the queue' intervention was one of the things that swung my vote to Leave. In terms of governments intervening, it certainly wasn't Russian intervention I was worried about.
    Those seem like pretty petty reasons to vote Leave, but that is the problem with referendums.
    And yet many of us who voted Remain have been going on and on about such petty rubbish as some thousands of Russian tweets over the last few days. Both sides will be able to find enough reasons to discredit the other side to our own satisfaction if we want. 'We find reasons for the things we want to believe' and mislead ourselves into thinking we're more rational than the other lot.
    I am not so bothered by the Russian trolls as some Remainders.

    It would only bother me if illegality rather than propaganda came to light, and it doesn't seem to have done so, even though UKIP have been Putin's useful idiots.

    Off now to the footy. Let's hope for 3:1 to Leicester again, though not too optimistic.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 415
    edited November 2017
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    When we say resign in protest, do we think he will call a by election... :D

    erms of governments intervening, it certainly wasn't Russian intervention I was worried about.
    Those seem like pretty petty reasons to vote Leave, but that is the problem with referendums.
    I said "that swung my vote to leave" - they were swing factors in a decision that for me, could have gone either way.

    The funny thing is, much of the leave campaign gave me pause for thought and made me consider voting remain.

    The official vote leave campaign was disingenuous in places - the 350m claim for example - while the unofficial leave.eu campaign was positively odious.

    However, I do think Tony Benn's famous questions to ask to those in power, particularly the last question, "how do we get rid of you?" were what gave me pause for thought.

    I took the first opportunity *in my lifetime* to register my discontent with the way things were going. Unfortunately, the only option on the table was the nuclear one.

    Had our masters made a greater effort to secure democratic consensus at an earlier stage, we might not be where we are now. Considering how the promise on a referendum on Lisbon was reneged upon, I figured this referendum may be the last chance I'd ever get.

    Remainers - be honest - if there was a second referendum and the decision reversed, do you think the people in power would ever allow the question to be put to the British people again?

    Then perhaps you understand why I voted the way I voted.
    It astonishes me that we constantly have Leave voters making their case so sensibly, based on reasons which can't just be dismissed as reactionary and thick, and yet so many of us who voted Remain cling to a certain image of Leavers as bereft of reason.

    I'm not a big fan of the Harry's Place website, but this was a good post on these kinds of issues: http://hurryupharry.org/2016/06/20/why-i-am-voting-leave-by-professor-alan-johnson/

    I disagree, personally - I think the thrust of the democratic critique of the EU has a point, but that even after we leave we're so intertwined with the EU in other ways that we'll hardly be free of it, and anyway the British state is hardly a better beast to hold sovereignty over us (as if it doesn't just react haphazardly to processes and events beyond any democratic control most of the time anyway). But it's a worthwhile conversation to have. It's a terrible shame that the referendum was wasted on 'WW3 versus EU-Nazi superstate!' nonsense rather than a proper discussion of fundamentals, but I guess it never could have been that.
  • Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    “AlastairMeeks said:
    Casino_Royale said:
    Could DavidL win, in your eyes?

    If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.

    If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.

    As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.

    Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.”

    You are making an assumption that all those who voted Leave “fell in behind” those particular lies. I don’t think you can make that assumption. Anymore than someone could make an assumption about you that you are a fan of the EU simply because you voted Remain.

    Vote Leave had a prospectus and fought a campaign. Voting Leave endorsed both. Remain did not fight on ever closer union or enthusiasm for the EU (perhaps it should have), but on project fear. Voting Remain subscribed to that.

    If there had been a vociferous cohort of Leavers at the time expressing dismay at the official campaign's approach, your point would have some force. But there wasn't. The so-called liberal Leavers cowered until the vote was past, then sought to subvert the campaign to their own ends. They have rightly been disregarded.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,976

    Michael Gove now featuring. I expect he will enjoy a day in the sun in this contest. In my view he should be favourite. The main question is whether he wants the job.

    I have come to respect and even like Gove, having originally detested him. Much like my journey with Corbyn. I really don't know which one I'd prefer.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,613

    ydoethur said:

    Michael Gove now featuring. I expect he will enjoy a day in the sun in this contest. In my view he should be favourite. The main question is whether he wants the job.

    That raises the truly frightening prospect that I would have to vote for a party led by a mad dogmatist with a vastly inflated sense of his own worth who never listens to advice and has a genuine loathing for all his enemies that he hides under a thin veneer of charm and views on various Foreign Office and military matters that border on the fascistic...

    ...or for Jeremy Corbyn.
    You don't have to vote for Cable...
    Boom boom! :lol:

    In all seriousness it does fit him too, doesn't it?

    How did we come to this?
  • Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    “AlastairMeeks said:
    Casino_Royale said:
    Could DavidL win, in your eyes?

    If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.

    If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.

    As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.

    Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.”

    You are making an assumption that all those who voted Leave “fell in behind” those particular lies. I don’t think you can make that assumption. Anymore than someone could make an assumption about you that you are a fan of the EU simply because you voted Remain.

    Vote Leave had a prospectus and fought a campaign. Voting Leave endorsed both. Remain did not fight on ever closer union or enthusiasm for the EU (perhaps it should have), but on project fear. Voting Remain subscribed to that.

    If there had been a vociferous cohort of Leavers at the time expressing dismay at the official campaign's approach, your point would have some force. But there wasn't. The so-called liberal Leavers cowered until the vote was past, then sought to subvert the campaign to their own ends. They have rightly been disregarded.
    Plenty of left-wing Leavers had sharp words about the official Leave campaign at the time. Just as plenty of left-wing Remainers had sharp words about the useless, tone-deaf official Remain campaign.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,613

    Michael Gove now featuring. I expect he will enjoy a day in the sun in this contest. In my view he should be favourite. The main question is whether he wants the job.

    I have come to respect and even like Gove, having originally detested him. Much like my journey with Corbyn. I really don't know which one I'd prefer.
    Funny thing is, that's almost the opposite of my journey. When he was in opposition he came across really well on education. He was dedicated, passionate, intelligent, interested and respectful.

    Then he got into office and started behaving like a tinpot dictator. He was arrogant, reckless and extremely rude, to the point of being a bully, hidden under a veneer of charm. Because he failed to listen to advice but did only whatever he thought was right, he made some truly disastrous mistakes of which the new exams being rushed in without proper preparation are only the worst.

    And I think Corbyn would be very like that too. I don't think it's any coincidence that in private they reportedly get on quite well.

    I can fully endorse your last sentence though, albeit for different reasons.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,874

    Danny565 said:

    Phillip Hammond's completely dropped out of contention, then?

    It has to be said that, whether you agree with him or not, it's hard to think of a more politically-inept top Cabinet figure in recent years.

    Really? What makes you say that? Yes, there was the NI-on-the-self-employed fiasco, but I get the impression he was hung out to dry by Theresa and Tory MPs with a secret agenda.
    It's more that he's Theresa May, but without the charisma.
  • So if DD quits, who takes over as Brexit Sec?

    A month ago I would have suggested Priti. Now, maybe Loathsome?
  • ConservativeHome spoke yesterday evening to sources close to David Davis, who unambiguously deny the Daily Telegraph‘s story today that he may resign out of frustration with Theresa May over Brexit. They laughed the suggestion off, saying that it is “simply wrong”. In particular, they disputed the claim that the Brexit Secretary is angry because he was not shown a recent letter to the Prime Minister from Boris Johnson and Michael Gove which sought to toughen her stance on leaving the EU. “David was only too pleased not to have seen the letter,” said the source. “Because that way he can’t be accused of leaking it.”

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/11/claims-that-davis-may-resign-are-simply-wrong-who-gains-from-media-briefing-against-him.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,735
    Don't read too much into this Telegraph report, the Telegraph is a pro Boris mouthpiece and this is really just about reducing a threat to their man to succeed May.

    I would also suggest it is Davis who has most support from Tory MPs at the moment and it is the MPs who decide the two leadership candidates to be put to the the membership.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,735

    Danny565 said:

    Phillip Hammond's completely dropped out of contention, then?

    It has to be said that, whether you agree with him or not, it's hard to think of a more politically-inept top Cabinet figure in recent years.

    Philip Hammond is viscerally hated by Leavers because he has to deal with the fiscal realities of Brexit rather than pretend it's all wonderful. A 100/1 shot, I'd have thought, in the current Conservative party.
    It depends. If a contest happens in the context of a crash out scenario, the prospect of a fiscally sane soft Brexiteer in charge may well get him into the final two. A lot then would depend on who his runoff rival would be. I am comfortably green on Phil.
    Rudd is far more likely to be the Remainer in the final 2 than Hammond.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 938



    It astonishes me that we constantly have Leave voters making their case so sensibly, based on reasons which can't just be dismissed as reactionary and thick, and yet so many of us who voted Remain cling to a certain image of Leavers as bereft of reason.

    I'm not a big fan of the Harry's Place website, but this was a good post on these kinds of issues: http://hurryupharry.org/2016/06/20/why-i-am-voting-leave-by-professor-alan-johnson/

    I disagree, personally - I think the thrust of the democratic critique of the EU has a point, but that even after we leave we're so intertwined with the EU in other ways that we'll hardly be free of it, and anyway the British state is hardly a better beast to hold sovereignty over us (as if it doesn't just react haphazardly to processes and events beyond any democratic control most of the time anyway). But it's a worthwhile conversation to have. It's a terrible shame that the referendum was wasted on 'WW3 versus EU-Nazi superstate!' nonsense rather than a proper discussion of fundamentals, but I guess it never could have been that.

    Good read, thanks. Had not seen that before. It really is utterly damning.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,735
    edited November 2017

    I’ve been laying Boris, Davis, and JRM for a while.

    Gove’s time is coming, I suspect he’ll be able to shore up the Leave vote and the Cameroon vote within the PCP.

    I suspect a young Cardinal like Raab to be an alternative if Gove doesn’t run.

    Gove is reasonably competent but polls abysmally and as shown in the last leadership contest he does not have have the support with MPs to make the final 2, I expect the latter also holds true for Raab.
  • HYUFD said:

    Don't read too much into this Telegraph report, the Telegraph is a pro Boris mouthpiece and this is really just about reducing a threat to their man to succeed May.

    I would also suggest it is Davis who has most support from Tory MPs at the moment and it is the MPs who decide the two leadership candidates to be put to the the membership.

    Paul Goodman: The Telegraph story is not brilliantly sourced. The “friend” of the Brexit Secretary says in it that he that he might resign, and doesn’t claim to have spoken to him. And that’s about it. A Cabinet member is quoted as saying that Davis “has form” – which is true enough – but this is very much in the realm of speculation. A question sometimes worth asking in these circumstances is: who benefits? Or in this case: who gains from such stories about the Brexit Secretary? (The paper also contains an attack on him today from Charles Moore.) His relations with the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary are very patchy.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,199

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    “AlastairMeeks said:
    Casino_Royale said:
    Could DavidL win, in your eyes?

    If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.

    If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.

    As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.

    Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.”

    You are making an assumption that all those who voted Leave “fell in behind” those particular lies. I don’t think you can make that assumption. Anymore than someone could make an assumption about you that you are a fan of the EU simply because you voted Remain.

    Vote Leave had a prospectus and fought a campaign. Voting Leave endorsed both. Remain did not fight on ever closer union or enthusiasm for the EU (perhaps it should have), but on project fear. Voting Remain subscribed to that.

    If there had been a vociferous cohort of Leavers at the time expressing dismay at the official campaign's approach, your point would have some force. But there wasn't. The so-called liberal Leavers cowered until the vote was past, then sought to subvert the campaign to their own ends. They have rightly been disregarded.
    That may well apply to Leavers in the public eye and Leaver politicians. I was not in the UK in the final week before the referendum so I don’t know what was said and not said. But a distinction can be made between them and private individuals who may have voted for all sorts of reasons, unconnected with any xenophobic lies.

    I would not assume, for instance, that all those who vote Labour share the anti-Semitic views of some of their representatives merely because they voted for them and did not “express dismay”. If one were to adopt your approach, perhaps one should.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,735
    edited November 2017

    HYUFD said:

    Don't read too much into this Telegraph report, the Telegraph is a pro Boris mouthpiece and this is really just about reducing a threat to their man to succeed May.

    I would also suggest it is Davis who has most support from Tory MPs at the moment and it is the MPs who decide the two leadership candidates to be put to the the membership.

    Paul Goodman: The Telegraph story is not brilliantly sourced. The “friend” of the Brexit Secretary says in it that he that he might resign, and doesn’t claim to have spoken to him. And that’s about it. A Cabinet member is quoted as saying that Davis “has form” – which is true enough – but this is very much in the realm of speculation. A question sometimes worth asking in these circumstances is: who benefits? Or in this case: who gains from such stories about the Brexit Secretary? (The paper also contains an attack on him today from Charles Moore.) His relations with the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary are very patchy.
    Moore of course used to employ Boris at the Telegraph and is also an admirer of Rees Mogg and an Old Etonian as they are, Davis is their main rival to succeed May. That of course explains a lot.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    The sooner there is a clean sweep of these aging and stale deadwooders the better. The Tory party needs young blood and to reinvent itself. Corbyn cant win an election, but neither can the Tories without a young dynamic leader and cabinet.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,741
    edited November 2017

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    “AlastairMeeks said:
    Casino_Royale said:
    Could DavidL win, in your eyes?

    If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.

    If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.

    As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.

    Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.”

    You are making an assumption that all those who voted Leave “fell in behind” those particular lies. I don’t think you can make that assumption. Anymore than someone could make an assumption about you that you are a fan of the EU simply because you voted Remain.

    Vote Leave had a prospectus and fought a campaign. Voting Leave endorsed both. Remain did not fight on ever closer union or enthusiasm for the EU (perhaps it should have), but on project fear. Voting Remain subscribed to that.

    If there had been a vociferous cohort of Leavers at the time expressing dismay at the official campaign's approach, your point would have some force. But there wasn't. The so-called liberal Leavers cowered until the vote was past, then sought to subvert the campaign to their own ends. They have rightly been disregarded.
    Indeed and Vote Leave's campaign was liberal and open as opposed to the small-minded, bigoted and xenophobic Leave.EU and UKIP campaigns which were shut out from Vote Leave.

    Vote Leave endorsed Free Trade while Leave.EU and UKIP opposed it.
    Vote Leave endorsed controlled immigration while Leave.EU/UKIP opposed immigration.
    Vote Leave endorsed maintaining rights, I don't know or care what Leave.EU/UKIP stood on for this issue.
    Vote Leave rejected and criticised the disgraceful UKIP Breaking Point poster.
    Vote Leave wanted Farage and his ilk excluded from all debates.

    If you want to major on what Vote Leave did then fine do that. But then don't bring up the xenophobia of Leave.EU/UKIP which were deliberately excluded and rejected by Vote Leave.

    Your only complaint about Vote Leave relating to "xenophobic lies" appears to be the "Turkey joining the EU" campaign - which ignores the fact that Turkey joining the EU was official EU and UK and Turkish policy at the time! Claiming official government policy is what is going to happen is not a "lie".
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,735
    edited November 2017
    stevef said:

    The sooner there is a clean sweep of these aging and stale deadwooders the better. The Tory party needs young blood and to reinvent itself. Corbyn cant win an election, but neither can the Tories without a young dynamic leader and cabinet.

    When was the last time a dynamic young leader in their 30s or early 40s took over a party almost a decade into government? Certainly not when Macmillan succeeded Eden or Home succeeded Macmillan. Certainly not when Callaghan succeeded Wilson or Brown succeeded Blair. John Major is probably the closest but I don't think even his wife would have called Major 'a young dynamic leader.'

    Young, dynamic leaders e.g. Cameron and Blair take over in opposition when a party is desperate to return to power not when a party has been in power a long time. Then parties almost always pick experienced, competent leaders who can present stability to voters fearful of the alternative.
  • Cyclefree said:

    That may well apply to Leavers in the public eye and Leaver politicians. I was not in the UK in the final week before the referendum so I don’t know what was said and not said. But a distinction can be made between them and private individuals who may have voted for all sorts of reasons, unconnected with any xenophobic lies.

    I would not assume, for instance, that all those who vote Labour share the anti-Semitic views of some of their representatives merely because they voted for them and did not “express dismay”. If one were to adopt your approach, perhaps one should.

    Let's see what official Leavers had to say about xenophobia in the final week:
    19/6/16: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36570759
    Chris Grayling said: "It's the wrong poster, it was the wrong approach, it's the wrong view."

    Micheal Gove: “When I saw that poster I shuddered. I thought it was the wrong thing to do,” he said, adding he was “pro-migration” but wanted proper control on the number of those moving to Britain. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/19/eu-referendum-campaigning-resumes-as-jeremy-corbyn-and-michael-g2/

    Vote Leave leaders rejected xenophobia before the votes were cast.
  • Good afternoon, my fellow Guelphs and Ghibellines.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,096
    edited November 2017



    It astonishes me that we constantly have Leave voters making their case so sensibly, based on reasons which can't just be dismissed as reactionary and thick, and yet so many of us who voted Remain cling to a certain image of Leavers as bereft of reason.

    I'm not a big fan of the Harry's Place website, but this was a good post on these kinds of issues: http://hurryupharry.org/2016/06/20/why-i-am-voting-leave-by-professor-alan-johnson/

    I disagree, personally - I think the thrust of the democratic critique of the EU has a point, but that even after we leave we're so intertwined with the EU in other ways that we'll hardly be free of it, and anyway the British state is hardly a better beast to hold sovereignty over us (as if it doesn't just react haphazardly to processes and events beyond any democratic control most of the time anyway). But it's a worthwhile conversation to have. It's a terrible shame that the referendum was wasted on 'WW3 versus EU-Nazi superstate!' nonsense rather than a proper discussion of fundamentals, but I guess it never could have been that.

    That is a truly excellent read, especially when you consider it is written from the perspective of a self-declared social democrat. I would love to hear a critique of where he was wrong by TSE or Mr Meeks.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,996

    HYUFD said:

    Don't read too much into this Telegraph report, the Telegraph is a pro Boris mouthpiece and this is really just about reducing a threat to their man to succeed May.

    I would also suggest it is Davis who has most support from Tory MPs at the moment and it is the MPs who decide the two leadership candidates to be put to the the membership.

    Paul Goodman: The Telegraph story is not brilliantly sourced. The “friend” of the Brexit Secretary says in it that he that he might resign, and doesn’t claim to have spoken to him. And that’s about it. A Cabinet member is quoted as saying that Davis “has form” – which is true enough – but this is very much in the realm of speculation. A question sometimes worth asking in these circumstances is: who benefits? Or in this case: who gains from such stories about the Brexit Secretary? (The paper also contains an attack on him today from Charles Moore.) His relations with the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary are very patchy.
    The Telegraph doesn't really seem to source or think about anything nowadays. Whoever wrote the air crash story noticed that Wycombe ATC had closure periods due to staff shortage, but doesn't appear to have spoken to anyone about it since anyone in aviation could have told them that aircraft departing Wycombe would have left their frequency well before reaching Waddesdon north west of Aylesbury, and that Waddesdon is in any case in uncontrolled airspace below 5500 feet. Indeed all the stuff about Wycombe in their article is very likely to be irrelevant, including the fact that both aircraft left from there. I feel for the investigators since they may well have very little to investigate, there sadly being no survivors. The wreckage will probably tell them the configuration of the two craft when they made contact, but other than that the likelihood is that one or both of them wasn't looking out of the window on a day with near perfect visibility. But we shall never know for sure.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,996



    It astonishes me that we constantly have Leave voters making their case so sensibly, based on reasons which can't just be dismissed as reactionary and thick, and yet so many of us who voted Remain cling to a certain image of Leavers as bereft of reason.

    I'm not a big fan of the Harry's Place website, but this was a good post on these kinds of issues: http://hurryupharry.org/2016/06/20/why-i-am-voting-leave-by-professor-alan-johnson/

    I disagree, personally - I think the thrust of the democratic critique of the EU has a point, but that even after we leave we're so intertwined with the EU in other ways that we'll hardly be free of it, and anyway the British state is hardly a better beast to hold sovereignty over us (as if it doesn't just react haphazardly to processes and events beyond any democratic control most of the time anyway). But it's a worthwhile conversation to have. It's a terrible shame that the referendum was wasted on 'WW3 versus EU-Nazi superstate!' nonsense rather than a proper discussion of fundamentals, but I guess it never could have been that.

    That is a truly excellent read, especially when you consider it is written from the perspective of a self-declared social democrat. I would love to hear a critique of where he was wrong by TSE or Mr Meeks.
    I am not sure that he is so much wrong as aiming at the wrong (or at least a secondary) target. His argument is a bit like saying you want to leave the Uk because our democracy doesn't work, our voting system is broken and the House of Lords is a sick joke. All true, but the right response is to lend support to changing these things, rather than to walk away. The arguments for remaining within the EU are essentially economic and geopolitical; Prof Johnson is simply nit picking from afar.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,096
    IanB2 said:



    It astonishes me that we constantly have Leave voters making their case so sensibly, based on reasons which can't just be dismissed as reactionary and thick, and yet so many of us who voted Remain cling to a certain image of Leavers as bereft of reason.

    I'm not a big fan of the Harry's Place website, but this was a good post on these kinds of issues: http://hurryupharry.org/2016/06/20/why-i-am-voting-leave-by-professor-alan-johnson/

    I disagree, personally - I think the thrust of the democratic critique of the EU has a point, but that even after we leave we're so intertwined with the EU in other ways that we'll hardly be free of it, and anyway the British state is hardly a better beast to hold sovereignty over us (as if it doesn't just react haphazardly to processes and events beyond any democratic control most of the time anyway). But it's a worthwhile conversation to have. It's a terrible shame that the referendum was wasted on 'WW3 versus EU-Nazi superstate!' nonsense rather than a proper discussion of fundamentals, but I guess it never could have been that.

    That is a truly excellent read, especially when you consider it is written from the perspective of a self-declared social democrat. I would love to hear a critique of where he was wrong by TSE or Mr Meeks.
    I am not sure that he is so much wrong as aiming at the wrong (or at least a secondary) target. His argument is a bit like saying you want to leave the Uk because our democracy doesn't work, our voting system is broken and the House of Lords is a sick joke. All true, but the right response is to lend support to changing these things, rather than to walk away. The arguments for remaining within the EU are essentially economic and geopolitical; Prof Johnson is simply nit picking from afar.
    The piece is a well-argued critique of why your approach - of changing those things - was not ever going to happen.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,199
    Brexit, schmexit....

    I bring you useful news. If you get a lipstick stain on cashmere, spray it with some WD40 and, hey presto, the stain goes. Follow by a mild wash in cool water and no wringing or putting to dry on a radiator. Just air dry on a towel.

    Useful for adulterers, cashmere wearers and those fond of lipstick.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 938
    IanB2 said:



    It astonishes me that we constantly have Leave voters making their case so sensibly, based on reasons which can't just be dismissed as reactionary and thick, and yet so many of us who voted Remain cling to a certain image of Leavers as bereft of reason.

    I'm not a big fan of the Harry's Place website, but this was a good post on these kinds of issues: http://hurryupharry.org/2016/06/20/why-i-am-voting-leave-by-professor-alan-johnson/

    I disagree, personally - I think the thrust of the democratic critique of the EU has a point, but that even after we leave we're so intertwined with the EU in other ways that we'll hardly be free of it, and anyway the British state is hardly a better beast to hold sovereignty over us (as if it doesn't just react haphazardly to processes and events beyond any democratic control most of the time anyway). But it's a worthwhile conversation to have. It's a terrible shame that the referendum was wasted on 'WW3 versus EU-Nazi superstate!' nonsense rather than a proper discussion of fundamentals, but I guess it never could have been that.

    That is a truly excellent read, especially when you consider it is written from the perspective of a self-declared social democrat. I would love to hear a critique of where he was wrong by TSE or Mr Meeks.
    I am not sure that he is so much wrong as aiming at the wrong (or at least a secondary) target. His argument is a bit like saying you want to leave the Uk because our democracy doesn't work, our voting system is broken and the House of Lords is a sick joke. All true, but the right response is to lend support to changing these things, rather than to walk away. The arguments for remaining within the EU are essentially economic and geopolitical; Prof Johnson is simply nit picking from afar.
    If I believed there was any hope of reforming the EU, my vote might have gone the other way.

    But is there any indication that either a) the EU wants to become more democratic or b) that the mechanism to reform the EU even exists? What would it look like? The whole system is designed to prevent direct democracy, so I assume that placards or riots on the streets would be the only effective means of protest. When no clear mechanism for reform via the ballot box exists I prefer to simply leave.

    For the last forty years the direction of travel has been clear, and it has only ever been one way.
  • IanB2 said:

    I am not sure that he is so much wrong as aiming at the wrong (or at least a secondary) target. His argument is a bit like saying you want to leave the Uk because our democracy doesn't work, our voting system is broken and the House of Lords is a sick joke. All true, but the right response is to lend support to changing these things, rather than to walk away. The arguments for remaining within the EU are essentially economic and geopolitical; Prof Johnson is simply nit picking from afar.

    Within the UK we have the power to reform our voting system or the House of Lords, we just need to elect a government that does that. In fact we have as recently as 2010 had a government that had a referendum on changing the voting system and by a margin of roughly two-to-one we chose to keep our voting system. That was our choice, we've chosen to keep our voting system. We have parties that propose reforming the voting system and the Lords we just choose not to elect them.

    There is no such comparison in Europe. Europe is not ran by a government we elect. It is ran by an unelected Commission, the European Council (of which we are only one member and can be outvoted, also elected by national manifestos not EU ones) and the European Parliamentary elections are impotent to enact any serious change.

    Within the last decade we've had a Labour government, a Coalition (including a voting reform referendum), a Tory majority and minority government and could potentially have a Corbyn government next. All at the whim of us, the voters.

    When has the EU actually been credibly changed by the actions of the voters?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,996

    IanB2 said:



    It astonishes me that we constantly have Leave voters making their case so sensibly, based on reasons which can't just be dismissed as reactionary and thick, and yet so many of us who voted Remain cling to a certain image of Leavers as bereft of reason.

    I'm not a big fan of the Harry's Place website, but this was a good post on these kinds of issues: http://hurryupharry.org/2016/06/20/why-i-am-voting-leave-by-professor-alan-johnson/

    I disagree, personally - I think the thrust of the democratic critique of the EU has a point, but that even after we leave we're so intertwined with the EU in other ways that we'll hardly be free of it, and anyway the British state is hardly a better beast to hold sovereignty over us (as if it doesn't just react haphazardly to processes and events beyond any democratic control most of the time anyway). But it's a worthwhile conversation to have. It's a terrible shame that the referendum was wasted on 'WW3 versus EU-Nazi superstate!' nonsense rather than a proper discussion of fundamentals, but I guess it never could have been that.

    That is a truly excellent read, especially when you consider it is written from the perspective of a self-declared social democrat. I would love to hear a critique of where he was wrong by TSE or Mr Meeks.
    I am not sure that he is so much wrong as aiming at the wrong (or at least a secondary) target. His argument is a bit like saying you want to leave the Uk because our democracy doesn't work, our voting system is broken and the House of Lords is a sick joke. All true, but the right response is to lend support to changing these things, rather than to walk away. The arguments for remaining within the EU are essentially economic and geopolitical; Prof Johnson is simply nit picking from afar.
    The piece is a well-argued critique of why your approach - of changing those things - was not ever going to happen.
    One might say the same about our absurd voting system and the House of Lords! But the alternative is to buy an island, forget about the world and live out our days as a hermit. We can only strive to change things for the better, and, if we fail, hope that the next generation will pick up the baton and succeed where we have failed, as has happened so many times through history.

    The fact remains that our country is going to be impoverished both economically and in terms of our global influence and standing by Brexit, and its advocates will find that their dream to stop the world and get off is not a viable proposition.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,306

    So if DD quits, who takes over as Brexit Sec?

    A month ago I would have suggested Priti. Now, maybe Loathsome?

    Gove is the obvious choice.
  • IanB2 said:

    One might say the same about our absurd voting system and the House of Lords! But the alternative is to buy an island, forget about the world and live out our days as a hermit. We can only strive to change things for the better, and, if we fail, hope that the next generation will pick up the baton and succeed where we have failed, as has happened so many times through history.

    The fact remains that our country is going to be impoverished both economically and in terms of our global influence and standing by Brexit, and its advocates will find that their dream to stop the world and get off is not a viable proposition.

    No you can't say the same about our voting system since it is up to us at any election to elect a government that will change it and we as recently as 2011 had a referendum on the voting system at which point keeping FPTP was our choice by 13 million voters choosing to keep FPTP vs just 6 million voters choosing to switch to AV.

    If you want to change our voting system there is a path to do so.

    When has the EU had a comparable change at the choice of the electorate rather than the electorate rubber stamping (or being by-passed if they disagree) what the powers that be have already decided?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    Taken a look at UK housing in a blogpost:

    http://ponyonthetories.blogspot.co.uk/
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,592
    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The sooner there is a clean sweep of these aging and stale deadwooders the better. The Tory party needs young blood and to reinvent itself. Corbyn cant win an election, but neither can the Tories without a young dynamic leader and cabinet.

    When was the last time a dynamic young leader in their 30s or early 40s took over a party almost a decade into government? Certainly not when Macmillan succeeded Eden or Home succeeded Macmillan. Certainly not when Callaghan succeeded Wilson or Brown succeeded Blair. John Major is probably the closest but I don't think even his wife would have called Major 'a young dynamic leader.'
    Young, dynamic leaders e.g. Cameron and Blair take over in opposition when a party is desperate to return to power not when a party has been in power a long time. Then parties almost always pick experienced, competent leaders who can present stability to voters fearful of the alternative.
    Is there anybody in the Tory Party who matches that description? I cannot think of anybody.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,996

    IanB2 said:

    One might say the same about our absurd voting system and the House of Lords! But the alternative is to buy an island, forget about the world and live out our days as a hermit. We can only strive to change things for the better, and, if we fail, hope that the next generation will pick up the baton and succeed where we have failed, as has happened so many times through history.

    The fact remains that our country is going to be impoverished both economically and in terms of our global influence and standing by Brexit, and its advocates will find that their dream to stop the world and get off is not a viable proposition.

    No you can't say the same about our voting system since it is up to us at any election to elect a government that will change it and we as recently as 2011 had a referendum on the voting system at which point keeping FPTP was our choice by 13 million voters choosing to keep FPTP vs just 6 million voters choosing to switch to AV.

    If you want to change our voting system there is a path to do so.

    When has the EU had a comparable change at the choice of the electorate rather than the electorate rubber stamping (or being by-passed if they disagree) what the powers that be have already decided?
    You seem to be missing the obvious point that our "opportunity" to elect a government to change the voting system is only offered under the same corrupt system that is so unfit for purpose in the first place.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,851
    Cyclefree said:

    Brexit, schmexit....

    I bring you useful news. If you get a lipstick stain on cashmere, spray it with some WD40 and, hey presto, the stain goes. Follow by a mild wash in cool water and no wringing or putting to dry on a radiator. Just air dry on a towel.

    Useful for adulterers, cashmere wearers and those fond of lipstick.

    Now if your wife asks you why you smell of WD40, you can just say you were doing some dirty maintenance work (in your finest clothes) :D
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,851
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    One might say the same about our absurd voting system and the House of Lords! But the alternative is to buy an island, forget about the world and live out our days as a hermit. We can only strive to change things for the better, and, if we fail, hope that the next generation will pick up the baton and succeed where we have failed, as has happened so many times through history.

    The fact remains that our country is going to be impoverished both economically and in terms of our global influence and standing by Brexit, and its advocates will find that their dream to stop the world and get off is not a viable proposition.

    No you can't say the same about our voting system since it is up to us at any election to elect a government that will change it and we as recently as 2011 had a referendum on the voting system at which point keeping FPTP was our choice by 13 million voters choosing to keep FPTP vs just 6 million voters choosing to switch to AV.

    If you want to change our voting system there is a path to do so.

    When has the EU had a comparable change at the choice of the electorate rather than the electorate rubber stamping (or being by-passed if they disagree) what the powers that be have already decided?
    You seem to be missing the obvious point that our "opportunity" to elect a government to change the voting system is only offered under the same corrupt system that is so unfit for purpose in the first place.
    And yet it happened, there was a referendum.
  • Mr. B2, with the exception of the proliferation of postal votes, and police unwillingness to investigate matters such as Tower Hamlets, the UK voting system is rather good.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,989
    edited November 2017
    kyf_100 said:

    IanB2 said:



    It astonishes me that we constantly have Leave voters making their case so sensibly, based on reasons which can't just be dismissed as reactionary and thick, and yet so many of us who voted Remain cling to a certain image of Leavers as bereft of reason.

    I'm not a big fan of the Harry's Place website, but this was a good post on these kinds of issues: http://hurryupharry.org/2016/06/20/why-i-am-voting-leave-by-professor-alan-johnson/

    I disagree, personally - I think the thrust of the democratic critique of the EU has a point, but that even after we leave we're so intertwined with the EU in other ways that we'll hardly be free of it, and anyway the British state is hardly a better beast to hold sovereignty over us (as if it doesn't just react haphazardly to processes and events beyond any democratic control most of the time anyway). But it's a worthwhile conversation to have. It's a terrible shame that the referendum was wasted on 'WW3 versus EU-Nazi superstate!' nonsense rather than a proper discussion of fundamentals, but I guess it never could have been that.

    That is a truly excellent read, especially when you consider it is written from the perspective of a self-declared social democrat. I would love to hear a critique of where he was wrong by TSE or Mr Meeks.
    I am not sure that he is so much wrong as aiming at the wrong (or at least a secondary) target. His argument is a bit like saying you want to leave the Uk because our democracy doesn't work, our voting system is broken and the House of Lords is a sick joke. All true, but the right response is to lend support to changing these things, rather than to walk away. The arguments for remaining within the EU are essentially economic and geopolitical; Prof Johnson is simply nit picking from afar.
    If I believed there was any hope of reforming the EU, my vote might have gone the other way.

    I could quote easily have been swayed to vote Remain; a decent deal (including proper FOM reform) might have been enough.

    To be honest, though, the way the EU have responded to Brexit makes me happier every day to have voted Leave. Europe deserves better leadership than the likes of Juncker and Barnier.
  • IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    One might say the same about our absurd voting system and the House of Lords! But the alternative is to buy an island, forget about the world and live out our days as a hermit. We can only strive to change things for the better, and, if we fail, hope that the next generation will pick up the baton and succeed where we have failed, as has happened so many times through history.

    The fact remains that our country is going to be impoverished both economically and in terms of our global influence and standing by Brexit, and its advocates will find that their dream to stop the world and get off is not a viable proposition.

    No you can't say the same about our voting system since it is up to us at any election to elect a government that will change it and we as recently as 2011 had a referendum on the voting system at which point keeping FPTP was our choice by 13 million voters choosing to keep FPTP vs just 6 million voters choosing to switch to AV.

    If you want to change our voting system there is a path to do so.

    When has the EU had a comparable change at the choice of the electorate rather than the electorate rubber stamping (or being by-passed if they disagree) what the powers that be have already decided?
    You seem to be missing the obvious point that our "opportunity" to elect a government to change the voting system is only offered under the same corrupt system that is so unfit for purpose in the first place.
    Corruption is a very serious allegation I'd ask you to prove.

    You are still ignoring the 2011 referendum, did you vote in it? 13 million voters decided they wanted to keep our current system. Those darn pesky voters getting in the way of what you want, if only we could override them - no wonder you're a fan of the EU!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,996
    RobD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    One might say the same about our absurd voting system and the House of Lords! But the alternative is to buy an island, forget about the world and live out our days as a hermit. We can only strive to change things for the better, and, if we fail, hope that the next generation will pick up the baton and succeed where we have failed, as has happened so many times through history.

    The fact remains that our country is going to be impoverished both economically and in terms of our global influence and standing by Brexit, and its advocates will find that their dream to stop the world and get off is not a viable proposition.

    No you can't say the same about our voting system since it is up to us at any election to elect a government that will change it and we as recently as 2011 had a referendum on the voting system at which point keeping FPTP was our choice by 13 million voters choosing to keep FPTP vs just 6 million voters choosing to switch to AV.

    If you want to change our voting system there is a path to do so.

    When has the EU had a comparable change at the choice of the electorate rather than the electorate rubber stamping (or being by-passed if they disagree) what the powers that be have already decided?
    You seem to be missing the obvious point that our "opportunity" to elect a government to change the voting system is only offered under the same corrupt system that is so unfit for purpose in the first place.
    And yet it happened, there was a referendum.
    A sick joke, putting forward an alternative that would quite possibly have made the inadequacies of our current system even worse.
  • IanB2 said:

    RobD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    One might say the same about our absurd voting system and the House of Lords! But the alternative is to buy an island, forget about the world and live out our days as a hermit. We can only strive to change things for the better, and, if we fail, hope that the next generation will pick up the baton and succeed where we have failed, as has happened so many times through history.

    The fact remains that our country is going to be impoverished both economically and in terms of our global influence and standing by Brexit, and its advocates will find that their dream to stop the world and get off is not a viable proposition.

    No you can't say the same about our voting system since it is up to us at any election to elect a government that will change it and we as recently as 2011 had a referendum on the voting system at which point keeping FPTP was our choice by 13 million voters choosing to keep FPTP vs just 6 million voters choosing to switch to AV.

    If you want to change our voting system there is a path to do so.

    When has the EU had a comparable change at the choice of the electorate rather than the electorate rubber stamping (or being by-passed if they disagree) what the powers that be have already decided?
    You seem to be missing the obvious point that our "opportunity" to elect a government to change the voting system is only offered under the same corrupt system that is so unfit for purpose in the first place.
    And yet it happened, there was a referendum.
    A sick joke, putting forward an alternative that would quite possibly have made the inadequacies of our current system even worse.
    Blame Nick Clegg, that was the alternative he proposed and thought he could win. Again, did you vote in it? More than twice as many wanted our system than reform.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,851
    IanB2 said:

    RobD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    One might say the same about our absurd voting system and the House of Lords! But the alternative is to buy an island, forget about the world and live out our days as a hermit. We can only strive to change things for the better, and, if we fail, hope that the next generation will pick up the baton and succeed where we have failed, as has happened so many times through history.

    The fact remains that our country is going to be impoverished both economically and in terms of our global influence and standing by Brexit, and its advocates will find that their dream to stop the world and get off is not a viable proposition.

    No you can't say the same about our voting system since it is up to us at any election to elect a government that will change it and we as recently as 2011 had a referendum on the voting system at which point keeping FPTP was our choice by 13 million voters choosing to keep FPTP vs just 6 million voters choosing to switch to AV.

    If you want to change our voting system there is a path to do so.

    When has the EU had a comparable change at the choice of the electorate rather than the electorate rubber stamping (or being by-passed if they disagree) what the powers that be have already decided?
    You seem to be missing the obvious point that our "opportunity" to elect a government to change the voting system is only offered under the same corrupt system that is so unfit for purpose in the first place.
    And yet it happened, there was a referendum.
    A sick joke, putting forward an alternative that would quite possibly have made the inadequacies of our current system even worse.
    But it shows that such change is possible if people vote for it. You were suggesting that the "corrupt" system would prevent any opportunity for change.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,989
    IanB2 said:

    RobD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    One might say the same about our absurd voting system and the House of Lords! But the alternative is to buy an island, forget about the world and live out our days as a hermit. We can only strive to change things for the better, and, if we fail, hope that the next generation will pick up the baton and succeed where we have failed, as has happened so many times through history.

    The fact remains that our country is going to be impoverished both economically and in terms of our global influence and standing by Brexit, and its advocates will find that their dream to stop the world and get off is not a viable proposition.

    No you can't say the same about our voting system since it is up to us at any election to elect a government that will change it and we as recently as 2011 had a referendum on the voting system at which point keeping FPTP was our choice by 13 million voters choosing to keep FPTP vs just 6 million voters choosing to switch to AV.

    If you want to change our voting system there is a path to do so.

    When has the EU had a comparable change at the choice of the electorate rather than the electorate rubber stamping (or being by-passed if they disagree) what the powers that be have already decided?
    You seem to be missing the obvious point that our "opportunity" to elect a government to change the voting system is only offered under the same corrupt system that is so unfit for purpose in the first place.
    And yet it happened, there was a referendum.
    A sick joke, putting forward an alternative that would quite possibly have made the inadequacies of our current system even worse.
    How would LDs perform on full fat PR nowadays?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,851
    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    RobD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    One might say the same about our absurd voting system and the House of Lords! But the alternative is to buy an island, forget about the world and live out our days as a hermit. We can only strive to change things for the better, and, if we fail, hope that the next generation will pick up the baton and succeed where we have failed, as has happened so many times through history.

    The fact remains that our country is going to be impoverished both economically and in terms of our global influence and standing by Brexit, and its advocates will find that their dream to stop the world and get off is not a viable proposition.

    No you can't say the same about our voting system since it is up to us at any election to elect a government that will change it and we as recently as 2011 had a referendum on the voting system at which point keeping FPTP was our choice by 13 million voters choosing to keep FPTP vs just 6 million voters choosing to switch to AV.

    If you want to change our voting system there is a path to do so.

    When has the EU had a comparable change at the choice of the electorate rather than the electorate rubber stamping (or being by-passed if they disagree) what the powers that be have already decided?
    You seem to be missing the obvious point that our "opportunity" to elect a government to change the voting system is only offered under the same corrupt system that is so unfit for purpose in the first place.
    And yet it happened, there was a referendum.
    A sick joke, putting forward an alternative that would quite possibly have made the inadequacies of our current system even worse.
    How would LDs perform on full fat PR nowadays?
    A touchy subject. :p
  • England will never beat nz playing like this. Johnny may might be one of the fastest men in world rugby but massive liability at international level.
  • 'We need you to hold this woman to account' has a certain death to traitors, freedom for Britain ring to it.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 938
    Pulpstar said:

    Taken a look at UK housing in a blogpost:

    http://ponyonthetories.blogspot.co.uk/

    Very interesting post, and I agree with your conclusion - encourage housebuilding and slowly raise interest rates in such a way that doesn't cripple the market.

    However the question is the time it would take to do so - ten years or so perhaps?

    I think you hit the nail on the head when you point out that while the affordability of repayments has never been better, but the deposit required to get on the housing ladder is historically at its most unaffordable.

    In other words the gap between the haves and the have nots will continue to rise, those fortunate enough to have resources - often parental resources - will continue to benefit while those who do not will be left behind.

    That means that while your conclusion - a slow adjustment - is the sane one, the angry mob will probably vote in a radical long before that happens.

    As I've said on the subject previously, Corbynism is a very middle class rebellion. Mostly university educated Glastonbury types in middle class jobs on middle class salaries whose parents were able to get on the property ladder but they are not, and feel hard done by.

    A generation ago they would have turned into natural Conservative voters as they settled down, bought houses, and had families. Instead, they are turning to radical socialism as a panacea for their perceived declining quality of life.

    In that respect, they are much like the working class who voted 'leave' - choosing a radical solution to arrest their declining living standards.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,851
    On topic: how liquid is the market?
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited November 2017
    The party is trashed.

    Elect Labour and reset the clock. Have a proper national discussion about whether a realistic brexit is possible and/or desirable - without the toxic bollox - and then the country and economy can move forward.

    The tories must either wither and die, or reinvent themselves.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,851
    Pong said:

    The party is trashed.

    Elect Labour and reset the clock. Have a new national discussion about whether brexit is possible and/or desirable - without the toxic bollox - and then the country and economy can move forward.
    Move forward, with McDonnell in charge?
  • Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    RobD said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    One might say the same about our absurd voting system and the House of Lords! But the alternative is to buy an island, forget about the world and live out our days as a hermit. We can only strive to change things for the better, and, if we fail, hope that the next generation will pick up the baton and succeed where we have failed, as has happened so many times through history.

    The fact remains that our country is going to be impoverished both economically and in terms of our global influence and standing by Brexit, and its advocates will find that their dream to stop the world and get off is not a viable proposition.

    No you can't say the same about our voting system since it is up to us at any election to elect a government that will change it and we as recently as 2011 had a referendum on the voting system at which point keeping FPTP was our choice by 13 million voters choosing to keep FPTP vs just 6 million voters choosing to switch to AV.

    If you want to change our voting system there is a path to do so.

    When has the EU had a comparable change at the choice of the electorate rather than the electorate rubber stamping (or being by-passed if they disagree) what the powers that be have already decided?
    You seem to be missing the obvious point that our "opportunity" to elect a government to change the voting system is only offered under the same corrupt system that is so unfit for purpose in the first place.
    And yet it happened, there was a referendum.
    A sick joke, putting forward an alternative that would quite possibly have made the inadequacies of our current system even worse.
    How would LDs perform on full fat PR nowadays?
    A lot better than they would at having to win the popular vote at a constituency level which is why they want to gerrymander the vote to give so much more power to losers and less to winners.
  • Pong said:

    The party is trashed.

    Elect Labour and reset the clock. Have a proper national discussion about whether a realistic brexit is possible and/or desirable - without the toxic bollox - and then the country and economy can move forward.

    The tories must either wither and die, or reinvent themselves.
    Reset the clock to the 70s....
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 938
    Mortimer said:

    kyf_100 said:

    IanB2 said:



    That is a truly excellent read, especially when you consider it is written from the perspective of a self-declared social democrat. I would love to hear a critique of where he was wrong by TSE or Mr Meeks.

    I am not sure that he is so much wrong as aiming at the wrong (or at least a secondary) target. His argument is a bit like saying you want to leave the Uk because our democracy doesn't work, our voting system is broken and the House of Lords is a sick joke. All true, but the right response is to lend support to changing these things, rather than to walk away. The arguments for remaining within the EU are essentially economic and geopolitical; Prof Johnson is simply nit picking from afar.
    If I believed there was any hope of reforming the EU, my vote might have gone the other way.

    I could quote easily have been swayed to vote Remain; a decent deal (including proper FOM reform) might have been enough.

    To be honest, though, the way the EU have responded to Brexit makes me happier every day to have voted Leave. Europe deserves better leadership than the likes of Juncker and Barnier.
    +1 for this. I remember being dismayed by Dave's deal because from that point it was clear to me that the EU had no intention of listening to criticism or offering meaningful reform.

    Have you seen Diem25, Varoufakis' pan-European party / pressure group? That is what resistance within the EU looks like, that is what the democratic reform movement looks like. It is limited to a few fringe elements waving placards on the street and sitting in circles attending well-meaning meetings at which they say 'something must be done' without having any power to actually do anything.

    Meaningful reform can only come if you are prepared to walk away when you don't get it.
  • Pong said:

    The party is trashed.

    Elect Labour and reset the clock. Have a proper national discussion about whether a realistic brexit is possible and/or desirable - without the toxic bollox - and then the country and economy can move forward.

    The tories must either wither and die, or reinvent themselves.
    This misses the fact that the Tories have until 2022 to get us through Brexit. If the Tories make a success of Brexit then they may deserve to be re-elected next time, if they can't they don't.

    Sounds like a great incentive to make Brexit work.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,569

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    “AlastairMeeks said:

    Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.”

    You are making an assumption that all those who voted Leave “fell in behind” those particular lies. I don’t think you can make that assumption. Anymore than someone could make an assumption about you that you are a fan of the EU simply because you voted Remain.

    Vote Leave had a prospectus and fought a campaign. Voting Leave endorsed both. Remain did not fight on ever closer union or enthusiasm for the EU (perhaps it should have), but on project fear. Voting Remain subscribed to that.

    If there had been a vociferous cohort of Leavers at the time expressing dismay at the official campaign's approach, your point would have some force. But there wasn't. The so-called liberal Leavers cowered until the vote was past, then sought to subvert the campaign to their own ends. They have rightly been disregarded.
    Indeed and Vote Leave's campaign was liberal and open as opposed to the small-minded, bigoted and xenophobic Leave.EU and UKIP campaigns which were shut out from Vote Leave.

    Vote Leave endorsed Free Trade while Leave.EU and UKIP opposed it.
    Vote Leave endorsed controlled immigration while Leave.EU/UKIP opposed immigration.
    Vote Leave endorsed maintaining rights, I don't know or care what Leave.EU/UKIP stood on for this issue.
    Vote Leave rejected and criticised the disgraceful UKIP Breaking Point poster.
    Vote Leave wanted Farage and his ilk excluded from all debates.

    If you want to major on what Vote Leave did then fine do that. But then don't bring up the xenophobia of Leave.EU/UKIP which were deliberately excluded and rejected by Vote Leave.

    Your only complaint about Vote Leave relating to "xenophobic lies" appears to be the "Turkey joining the EU" campaign - which ignores the fact that Turkey joining the EU was official EU and UK and Turkish policy at the time! Claiming official government policy is what is going to happen is not a "lie".
    Very well said :+1:

    Many of us voted to leave the EU for reasons of governmental accountability and support of global free trade, rather than an inward looking, shrinking and protectionist bloc. For the reasons offered by Michael Gove and Daniel Hannan, not the reasons offered by Nigel Farage.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,735
    PClipp said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    The sooner there is a clean sweep of these aging and stale deadwooders the better. The Tory party needs young blood and to reinvent itself. Corbyn cant win an election, but neither can the Tories without a young dynamic leader and cabinet.

    When was the last time a dynamic young leader in their 30s or early 40s took over a party almost a decade into government? Certainly not when Macmillan succeeded Eden or Home succeeded Macmillan. Certainly not when Callaghan succeeded Wilson or Brown succeeded Blair. John Major is probably the closest but I don't think even his wife would have called Major 'a young dynamic leader.'
    Young, dynamic leaders e.g. Cameron and Blair take over in opposition when a party is desperate to return to power not when a party has been in power a long time. Then parties almost always pick experienced, competent leaders who can present stability to voters fearful of the alternative.
    Is there anybody in the Tory Party who matches that description? I cannot think of anybody.
    David Davis is probably the closest match.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,735
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    “AlastairMeeks said:

    Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.”

    You are making an assumption that all those who voted Leave “fell in behind” those particular lies. I don’t think you can make that assumption. Anymore than someone could make an assumption about you that you are a fan of the EU simply because you voted Remain.

    Vote Leave had a prospectus and fought a campaign. Voting Leave endorsed both. Remain did not fight on ever closer union or enthusiasm for the EU (perhaps it should have), but on project fear. Voting Remain subscribed to that.

    If there had been a vociferous cohort of Leavers at the time expressing dismay at the official campaign's approach, your point would have some force. But there wasn't. The so-called liberal Leavers cowered until the vote was past, then sought to subvert the campaign to their own ends. They have rightly been disregarded.
    Indeed and Vote Leave's campaign was liberal and open as opposed to the small-minded, bigoted and xenophobic Leave.EU and UKIP campaigns which were shut out from Vote Leave.

    Vote Leave endorsed Free Trade while Leave.EU and UKIP opposed it.
    Vote Leave endorsed controlled immigration while Leave.EU/UKIP opposed immigration.
    Vote Leave endorsed maintaining rights, I don't know or care what Leave.EU/UKIP stood on for this issue.
    Vote Leave rejected and criticised the disgraceful UKIP Breaking Point poster.
    Vote Leave wanted Farage and his ilk excluded from all debates.

    If you want to major on what Vote Leave did then fine do that. But then don't bring up the xenophobia of Leave.EU/UKIP which were deliberately excluded and rejected by Vote Leave.

    Your only complaint about Vote Leave relating to "xenophobic lies" appears to be the "Turkey joining the EU" campaign - which ignores the fact that Turkey joining the EU was official EU and UK and Turkish policy at the time! Claiming official government policy is what is going to happen is not a "lie".
    Very well said :+1:

    Many of us voted to leave the EU for reasons of governmental accountability and support of global free trade, rather than an inward looking, shrinking and protectionist bloc. For the reasons offered by Michael Gove and Daniel Hannan, not the reasons offered by Nigel Farage.
    Yes but Leave only got to 52% with Farage voters as well as Gove and Hannan voters.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,569
    edited November 2017
    kyf_100 said:

    Mortimer said:

    kyf_100 said:

    IanB2 said:



    That is a truly excellent read, especially when you consider it is written from the perspective of a self-declared social democrat. I would love to hear a critique of where he was wrong by TSE or Mr Meeks.

    I am not sure that he is so much wrong as aiming at the wrong (or at least a secondary) target. His argument is a bit like saying you want to leave the Uk because our democracy doesn't work, our voting system is broken and the House of Lords is a sick joke. All true, but the right response is to lend support to changing these things, rather than to walk away. The arguments for remaining within the EU are essentially economic and geopolitical; Prof Johnson is simply nit picking from afar.
    If I believed there was any hope of reforming the EU, my vote might have gone the other way.

    I could quote easily have been swayed to vote Remain; a decent deal (including proper FOM reform) might have been enough.

    To be honest, though, the way the EU have responded to Brexit makes me happier every day to have voted Leave. Europe deserves better leadership than the likes of Juncker and Barnier.
    +1 for this. I remember being dismayed by Dave's deal because from that point it was clear to me that the EU had no intention of listening to criticism or offering meaningful reform.

    Have you seen Diem25, Varoufakis' pan-European party / pressure group? That is what resistance within the EU looks like, that is what the democratic reform movement looks like. It is limited to a few fringe elements waving placards on the street and sitting in circles attending well-meaning meetings at which they say 'something must be done' without having any power to actually do anything.

    Meaningful reform can only come if you are prepared to walk away when you don't get it.
    “Dave’s Deal” was the tipping point for myself and many others on here. It was the proof both that the EU was basically unreformable from the inside, and that Dave was trying to sell us the emperor’s new clothes. Then he wheeled out Obama, just to add insult to injury.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,735
    edited November 2017
    Pong said:

    The party is trashed.

    Elect Labour and reset the clock. Have a proper national discussion about whether a realistic brexit is possible and/or desirable - without the toxic bollox - and then the country and economy can move forward.

    The tories must either wither and die, or reinvent themselves.
    The party is trashed? The Tories were actually on 41% with ICM this week, tied with Labour and that voteshare would still be higher than they got at any general election from 1992 until 2017 and still see them win most seats, albeit again not a majority.

    The so called 'toxic Brexit' you talk of, ie leaving the EU and single market, still seems to have a lot of support and the Tories are also gradually moving towards a FTA with the EU.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,110
    kyf_100 said:



    It astonishes me that we constantly have Leave voters making their case so sensibly, based on reasons which can't just be dismissed as reactionary and thick, and yet so many of us who voted Remain cling to a certain image of Leavers as bereft of reason.

    I'm not a big fan of the Harry's Place website, but this was a good post on these kinds of issues: http://hurryupharry.org/2016/06/20/why-i-am-voting-leave-by-professor-alan-johnson/

    I disagree, personally - I think the thrust of the democratic critique of the EU has a point, but that even after we leave we're so intertwined with the EU in other ways that we'll hardly be free of it, and anyway the British state is hardly a better beast to hold sovereignty over us (as if it doesn't just react haphazardly to processes and events beyond any democratic control most of the time anyway). But it's a worthwhile conversation to have. It's a terrible shame that the referendum was wasted on 'WW3 versus EU-Nazi superstate!' nonsense rather than a proper discussion of fundamentals, but I guess it never could have been that.

    Good read, thanks. Had not seen that before. It really is utterly damning.
    I am late coming in to this but that article linked to above is one of the best I have read on Brexit. I still stand by my vote to remain though. I believed at the time that Brexit would prove to be too disruptive to be worth the effort and the better plan was to try and reform the EU.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,041
    Richard Leonard taking the fight to the SNP !

  • From the people who brought you Brexit and Trump - bully the Remainers.
  • Stop F##king box kicking....
  • FFS mario, you the worlds Fastest man in world rugby in space outside and you decide to run it...Head desk this.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,569
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    You are making an assumption that all those who voted Leave “fell in behind” those particular lies. I don’t think you can make that assumption. Anymore than someone could make an assumption about you that you are a fan of the EU simply because you voted Remain.

    Vote Leave had a prospectus and fought a campaign. Voting Leave endorsed both. Remain did not fight on ever closer union or enthusiasm for the EU (perhaps it should have), but on project fear. Voting Remain subscribed to that.

    If there had been a vociferous cohort of Leavers at the time expressing dismay at the official campaign's approach, your point would have some force. But there wasn't. The so-called liberal Leavers cowered until the vote was past, then sought to subvert the campaign to their own ends. They have rightly been disregarded.
    Indeed and Vote Leave's campaign was liberal and open as opposed to the small-minded, bigoted and xenophobic Leave.EU and UKIP campaigns which were shut out from Vote Leave.

    Vote Leave endorsed Free Trade while Leave.EU and UKIP opposed it.
    Vote Leave endorsed controlled immigration while Leave.EU/UKIP opposed immigration.
    Vote Leave endorsed maintaining rights, I don't know or care what Leave.EU/UKIP stood on for this issue.
    Vote Leave rejected and criticised the disgraceful UKIP Breaking Point poster.
    Vote Leave wanted Farage and his ilk excluded from all debates.

    If you want to major on what Vote Leave did then fine do that. But then don't bring up the xenophobia of Leave.EU/UKIP which were deliberately excluded and rejected by Vote Leave.

    Your only complaint about Vote Leave relating to "xenophobic lies" appears to be the "Turkey joining the EU" campaign - which ignores the fact that Turkey joining the EU was official EU and UK and Turkish policy at the time! Claiming official government policy is what is going to happen is not a "lie".
    Very well said :+1:

    Many of us voted to leave the EU for reasons of governmental accountability and support of global free trade, rather than an inward looking, shrinking and protectionist bloc. For the reasons offered by Michael Gove and Daniel Hannan, not the reasons offered by Nigel Farage.
    Yes but Leave only got to 52% with Farage voters as well as Gove and Hannan voters.
    Indeed so, but certain Pro-Remain posters on here are determined to defame the latter group by associating everyone who voted Leave as being tarred with the same brush as Farage.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,569

    Stop F##king box kicking....

    Maybe if we got them down to 12 men we might be able to score a try?
  • Sandpit said:

    Stop F##king box kicking....

    Maybe if we got them down to 12 men we might be able to score a try?
    This is utter shit.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,876
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    You are making an assumption that all those who voted Leave “fell in behind” those particular lies. I don’t think you can make that assumption. Anymore than someone could make an assumption about you that you are a fan of the EU simply because you voted Remain.

    Vote Leave had a prospectus and fought a campaign. Voting Leave endorsed both. Remain did not fight on ever closer union or enthusiasm for the EU (perhaps it should have), but on project fear. Voting Remain subscribed to that.

    If there had been a vociferous cohort of Leavers at the time expressing dismay at the official campaign's approach, your point would have some force. But there wasn't. The so-called liberal Leavers cowered until the vote was past, then sought to subvert the campaign to their own ends. They have rightly been disregarded.
    Indeed and Vote Leave's campaign was liberal and open as opposed to the small-minded, bigoted and xenophobic Leave.EU and UKIP campaigns which were shut out from Vote Leave.

    Vote Leave endorsed Free Trade while Leave.EU and UKIP opposed it.
    Vote Leave endorsed controlled immigration while Leave.EU/UKIP opposed immigration.
    Vote Leave endorsed maintaining rights, I don't know or care what Leave.EU/UKIP stood on for this issue.
    Vote Leave rejected and criticised the disgraceful UKIP Breaking Point poster.
    Vote Leave wanted Farage and his ilk excluded from all debates.

    If you want to major on what Vote Leave did then fine do that. But then don't bring up the xenophobia of Leave.EU/UKIP which were deliberately excluded and rejected by Vote Leave.

    Your only complaint about Vote Leave relating to "xenophobic lies" appears to be the "Turkey joining the EU" campaign - which ignores the fact that Turkey joining the EU was official EU and UK and Turkish policy at the time! Claiming official government policy is what is going to happen is not a "lie".
    Very well said :+1:

    Many of us voted to leave the EU for reasons of governmental accountability and support of global free trade, rather than an inward looking, shrinking and protectionist bloc. For the reasons offered by Michael Gove and Daniel Hannan, not the reasons offered by Nigel Farage.
    Yes but Leave only got to 52% with Farage voters as well as Gove and Hannan voters.
    Indeed so, but certain Pro-Remain posters on here are determined to defame the latter group by associating everyone who voted Leave as being tarred with the same brush as Farage.
    You voluntarily tar yourself with the Hannan brush and that’s bad enough.
  • calum said:

    Richard Leonard taking the fight to the SNP !

    The more derangedly paranoid wing of SLab (which is quite a big wing tbf) seem to genuinely believe that Kezia is a Nat sleeper agent.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,735
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    You are making an assumption that all those who voted Leave “fell in behind” those particular lies. I don’t think you can make that assumption. Anymore than someone could make an assumption about you that you are a fan of the EU simply because you voted Remain.

    Vote Leave had a prospectus and fought a campaign. Voting Leave endorsed both. Remain did not fight on ever closer union or enthusiasm for the EU (perhaps it should have), but on project fear. Voting Remain subscribed to that.

    If there had been a vociferous cohort of Leavers at the time expressing dismay at the official campaign's approach, your point would have some force. But there wasn't. The so-called liberal Leavers cowered until the vote was past, then sought to subvert the campaign to their own ends. They have rightly been disregarded.
    Indeed and Vote Leave's campaign was liberal and open as opposed to the small-minded, bigoted and xenophobic Leave.EU and UKIP campaigns which were shut out from Vote Leave.

    Vote Leave endorsed Free Trade while Leave.EU and UKIP opposed it.
    Vote Leave endorsed controlled immigration while Leave.EU/UKIP opposed immigration.
    Vote Leave endorsed maintaining rights, I don't know or care what Leave.EU/UKIP stood on for this issue.
    Vote Leave rejected and criticised the disgraceful UKIP Breaking Point poster.
    Vote Leave wanted Farage and his ilk excluded from all debates.

    If you want to "lie".
    Very well said :+1:

    Many of us voted to leave the EU for reasons of governmental accountability and support of global free trade, rather than an inward looking, shrinking and protectionist bloc. For the reasons offered by Michael Gove and Daniel Hannan, not the reasons offered by Nigel Farage.
    Yes but Leave only got to 52% with Farage voters as well as Gove and Hannan voters.
    Indeed so, but certain Pro-Remain posters on here are determined to defame the latter group by associating everyone who voted Leave as being tarred with the same brush as Farage.
    Oh I agree, of course not all Remainers wanted the UK to become part of the Eurozone and a Federal EU either, many were happy being on the periphery of the EU but were worried about the economic consequences of Brexit and wanted to stay in the single market.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,569

    Sandpit said:

    Stop F##king box kicking....

    Maybe if we got them down to 12 men we might be able to score a try?
    This is utter shit.
    Finally we get one!,,
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Stop F##king box kicking....

    Maybe if we got them down to 12 men we might be able to score a try?
    This is utter shit.
    Finally we get one!,,
    Hold on.....
  • calum said:

    Richard Leonard taking the fight to the SNP !

    The more derangedly paranoid wing of SLab (which is quite a big wing tbf) seem to genuinely believe that Kezia is a Nat sleeper agent.
    The conservatives did the same with Dorries when she went on I'm a Celebrity
  • Branch office reminded it's a branch office.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,569

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Stop F##king box kicking....

    Maybe if we got them down to 12 men we might be able to score a try?
    This is utter shit.
    Finally we get one!,,
    Hold on.....
    Never in doubt!!! :open_mouth:
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,569
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    You are making an assumption that all those who voted Leave “fell in behind” those particular lies. I don’t think you can make that assumption. Anymore than someone could make an assumption about you that you are a fan of the EU simply because you voted Remain.

    Vote Leave had a prospectus and fought a campaign. Voting Leave endorsed both. Remain did not fight on ever closer union or enthusiasm for the EU (perhaps it should have), but on project fear. Voting Remain subscribed to that.

    If there had been a vociferous cohort of Leavers at the time expressing dismay at the official campaign's approach, your point would have some force. But there wasn't. The so-called liberal Leavers cowered until the vote was past, then sought to subvert the campaign to their own ends. They have rightly been disregarded.
    Indeed and Vote Leave's campaign was liberal and open as opposed to the small-minded, bigoted and xenophobic Leave.EU and UKIP campaigns which were shut out from Vote Leave.

    Vote Leave endorsed Free Trade while Leave.EU and UKIP opposed it.
    Vote Leave endorsed controlled immigration while Leave.EU/UKIP opposed immigration.
    Vote Leave endorsed maintaining rights, I don't know or care what Leave.EU/UKIP stood on for this issue.
    Vote Leave rejected and criticised the disgraceful UKIP Breaking Point poster.
    Vote Leave wanted Farage and his ilk excluded from all debates.

    If you want to "lie".
    Very well said :+1:

    Many of us voted to leave the EU for reasons of governmental accountability and support of global free trade, rather than an inward looking, shrinking and protectionist bloc. For the reasons offered by Michael Gove and Daniel Hannan, not the reasons offered by Nigel Farage.
    Yes but Leave only got to 52% with Farage voters as well as Gove and Hannan voters.
    Indeed so, but certain Pro-Remain posters on here are determined to defame the latter group by associating everyone who voted Leave as being tarred with the same brush as Farage.
    Oh I agree, of course not all Remainers wanted the UK to become part of the Eurozone and a Federal EU either, many were happy being on the periphery of the EU but were worried about the economic consequences of Brexit and wanted to stay in the single market.
    Indeed, both sides of the referendum, it being a binary question, were broad churches of political views.
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Stop F##king box kicking....

    Maybe if we got them down to 12 men we might be able to score a try?
    This is utter shit.
    Finally we get one!,,
    Hold on.....
    Never in doubt!!! :open_mouth:
    You could get a bendy bus through the gap between the ball and the line :-)
This discussion has been closed.