Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

2

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited November 2017
    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Federalist, pro Euro Remainers make up about 10-20% of the electorate, hard Brexiteers just over a third of the electorate, everyone else, whether they voted Leave or Remain, was in between.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    .

    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.
    I know you disagree with him on trade and on the lack of democracy in the institutions of the EU, but I think you’ll agree he isn’t a xenophobic bigot.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    nielh said:

    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.
    +1
  • England without big billy and mike brown are a totally different team.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    HYUFD said:


    Federalist, pro Euro Remainers make up about 10% of the electorate, hard Brexiteers just over a third of the electorate, everyone else, whether they voted Leave or Remain, was in between.

    Then there are people like me who oppose the Single Market and Freedom of Movement but would be quite happy with the Euro - we defy categorisation and cock a snook (does anyone still say that ? Yes, I do) at pigeon-holing.
  • Mr. H, reform is a nice idea. If I thought it were credible I would've voted to Remain. But I think the only direction the EU will go in is towards ever more integration.
  • @Philip_Thompson So apart from the poster that Vote Leave majored on in the closing weeks that was,a xenophobic lie, Vote Leave aren't xenophobic liars. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
  • Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Hannan is a good and respectful man. That you view him as something to be "tarred" with is beyond me, whether you agree or not he is polite, intelligent and stands for something without being bigoted or xenophobic.

    And I agree with him and his politics. I see nothing to be tarred with in that.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    England without big billy and mike brown are a totally different team.

    As usual it’s the huge number of sloppy penalties and unforced handling errors. Someone in a white shirt is about to go in the bin.

    Luckily those in gold shirts aren’t any better, Rugby being a good metaphor for the Ashes cricket next month?
  • @Philip_Thompson So apart from the poster that Vote Leave majored on in the closing weeks that was,a xenophobic lie, Vote Leave aren't xenophobic liars. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    It wasn't a xenophobic lie since it was a matter of EU, UK and Turkish policy.

    David Cameron in 2014: “In terms of Turkish membership of the EU, I very much support that.
    “That’s a longstanding position of British foreign policy which I support. We discussed that again in our talks today”

    In a speech at the Turkish parliament in Ankara in July 2010, Mr Cameron said: “I’m here to make the case for Turkey's membership of the EU. And to fight for it.”
    He added that he wanted to "pave the road" for Turkey to join the EU, saying the country was "vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our diplomacy".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html

    Government policy is not a xenophobic lie.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    Federalist, pro Euro Remainers make up about 10% of the electorate, hard Brexiteers just over a third of the electorate, everyone else, whether they voted Leave or Remain, was in between.

    Then there are people like me who oppose the Single Market and Freedom of Movement but would be quite happy with the Euro - we defy categorisation and cock a snook (does anyone still say that ? Yes, I do) at pigeon-holing.
    The percentage of the electorate who back the Euro but want to leave the single market and end free movement probably amounts to yourself and a Professor in Greater Manchester. So that does not really change the point.
  • I don't think the ref goes on holiday to Oz any time soon! Probably going to need a new away side changing room as well.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    @Philip_Thompson So apart from the poster that Vote Leave majored on in the closing weeks that was,a xenophobic lie, Vote Leave aren't xenophobic liars. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    It wasn't a xenophobic lie since it was a matter of EU, UK and Turkish policy.

    David Cameron in 2014: “In terms of Turkish membership of the EU, I very much support that.
    “That’s a longstanding position of British foreign policy which I support. We discussed that again in our talks today”

    In a speech at the Turkish parliament in Ankara in July 2010, Mr Cameron said: “I’m here to make the case for Turkey's membership of the EU. And to fight for it.”
    He added that he wanted to "pave the road" for Turkey to join the EU, saying the country was "vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our diplomacy".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html

    Government policy is not a xenophobic lie.
    And don’t forget the meeting that happened between the EU and Turkey the week after the referendum.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36672242
  • @Philip_Thompson So apart from the poster that Vote Leave majored on in the closing weeks that was,a xenophobic lie, Vote Leave aren't xenophobic liars. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    It wasn't a xenophobic lie since it was a matter of EU, UK and Turkish policy.

    David Cameron in 2014: “In terms of Turkish membership of the EU, I very much support that.
    “That’s a longstanding position of British foreign policy which I support. We discussed that again in our talks today”

    In a speech at the Turkish parliament in Ankara in July 2010, Mr Cameron said: “I’m here to make the case for Turkey's membership of the EU. And to fight for it.”
    He added that he wanted to "pave the road" for Turkey to join the EU, saying the country was "vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our diplomacy".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html

    Government policy is not a xenophobic lie.
    Give me a date when Turkey is joining the EU and I'll accept it's not a lie. But both of us know that it was a straight lie chosen to frighten the public with fears of millions of Muslim immigrants.
  • @Philip_Thompson So apart from the poster that Vote Leave majored on in the closing weeks that was,a xenophobic lie, Vote Leave aren't xenophobic liars. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    It wasn't a xenophobic lie since it was a matter of EU, UK and Turkish policy.

    David Cameron in 2014: “In terms of Turkish membership of the EU, I very much support that.
    “That’s a longstanding position of British foreign policy which I support. We discussed that again in our talks today”

    In a speech at the Turkish parliament in Ankara in July 2010, Mr Cameron said: “I’m here to make the case for Turkey's membership of the EU. And to fight for it.”
    He added that he wanted to "pave the road" for Turkey to join the EU, saying the country was "vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our diplomacy".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html

    Government policy is not a xenophobic lie.
    Give me a date when Turkey is joining the EU and I'll accept it's not a lie. But both of us know that it was a straight lie chosen to frighten the public with fears of millions of Muslim immigrants.
    If someone had in 2001 that Poland was acceding to the EU would it have been a lie? They were in negotiations, it was official policy but accession hadn't been agreed yet and no date was set yet.

    It was official UK government policy that Turkey should join and they were already in official negotiations. Taking the UK Prime Minister at his word is not a lie. If it is that says more about the UK Prime Minister than it does about Vote Leave.
  • Sandpit said:

    @Philip_Thompson So apart from the poster that Vote Leave majored on in the closing weeks that was,a xenophobic lie, Vote Leave aren't xenophobic liars. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    It wasn't a xenophobic lie since it was a matter of EU, UK and Turkish policy.

    David Cameron in 2014: “In terms of Turkish membership of the EU, I very much support that.
    “That’s a longstanding position of British foreign policy which I support. We discussed that again in our talks today”

    In a speech at the Turkish parliament in Ankara in July 2010, Mr Cameron said: “I’m here to make the case for Turkey's membership of the EU. And to fight for it.”
    He added that he wanted to "pave the road" for Turkey to join the EU, saying the country was "vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our diplomacy".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html

    Government policy is not a xenophobic lie.
    And don’t forget the meeting that happened between the EU and Turkey the week after the referendum.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36672242
    Indeed had Erdogan not decided he'd rather be a dictator than join the EU then they could already be further into the accession process.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    I don't think the ref goes on holiday to Oz any time soon! Probably going to need a new away side changing room as well.

    Doubly so now!
  • @Philip_Thompson So apart from the poster that Vote Leave majored on in the closing weeks that was,a xenophobic lie, Vote Leave aren't xenophobic liars. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    It wasn't a xenophobic lie since it was a matter of EU, UK and Turkish policy.

    David Cameron in 2014: “In terms of Turkish membership of the EU, I very much support that.
    “That’s a longstanding position of British foreign policy which I support. We discussed that again in our talks today”

    In a speech at the Turkish parliament in Ankara in July 2010, Mr Cameron said: “I’m here to make the case for Turkey's membership of the EU. And to fight for it.”
    He added that he wanted to "pave the road" for Turkey to join the EU, saying the country was "vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our diplomacy".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html

    Government policy is not a xenophobic lie.
    Give me a date when Turkey is joining the EU and I'll accept it's not a lie. But both of us know that it was a straight lie chosen to frighten the public with fears of millions of Muslim immigrants.
    If someone had in 2001 that Poland was acceding to the EU would it have been a lie? They were in negotiations, it was official policy but accession hadn't been agreed yet and no date was set yet.

    It was official UK government policy that Turkey should join and they were already in official negotiations. Taking the UK Prime Minister at his word is not a lie. If it is that says more about the UK Prime Minister than it does about Vote Leave.
    Whatever gets you through the night. It's a xenophobic lie that will haunt British politics for years. Turkey is not joining the EU.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    @Philip_Thompson So apart from the poster that Vote Leave majored on in the closing weeks that was,a xenophobic lie, Vote Leave aren't xenophobic liars. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    It wasn't a xenophobic lie since it was a matter of EU, UK and Turkish policy.

    David Cameron in 2014: “In terms of Turkish membership of the EU, I very much support that.
    “That’s a longstanding position of British foreign policy which I support. We discussed that again in our talks today”

    In a speech at the Turkish parliament in Ankara in July 2010, Mr Cameron said: “I’m here to make the case for Turkey's membership of the EU. And to fight for it.”
    He added that he wanted to "pave the road" for Turkey to join the EU, saying the country was "vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our diplomacy".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html

    Government policy is not a xenophobic lie.
    Give me a date when Turkey is joining the EU and I'll accept it's not a lie. But both of us know that it was a straight lie chosen to frighten the public with fears of millions of Muslim immigrants.
    If someone had in 2001 that Poland was acceding to the EU would it have been a lie? They were in negotiations, it was official policy but accession hadn't been agreed yet and no date was set yet.

    It was official UK government policy that Turkey should join and they were already in official negotiations. Taking the UK Prime Minister at his word is not a lie. If it is that says more about the UK Prime Minister than it does about Vote Leave.
    Whatever gets you through the night. It's a xenophobic lie that will haunt British politics for years. Turkey is not joining the EU.
    And of course Cameron could have changed Govt policy and said that.

    But he didn't.

    No huge surprise that Remain was beaten by a bus.
  • Sandpit said:

    I don't think the ref goes on holiday to Oz any time soon! Probably going to need a new away side changing room as well.

    Doubly so now!
    I don't envy who ever has got the job of interviewing Australia manager!
  • Never in doubt......
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821

    calum said:

    Richard Leonard taking the fight to the SNP !

    https://twitter.com/AidanKerrTweets/status/931860729090756608

    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.
    They aren't paranoid. Her father is a Nat and she is sleeping with a Nat.
  • Mortimer said:

    @Philip_Thompson So apart from the poster that Vote Leave majored on in the closing weeks that was,a xenophobic lie, Vote Leave aren't xenophobic liars. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    It wasn't a xenophobic lie since it was a matter of EU, UK and Turkish policy.

    David Cameron in 2014: “In terms of Turkish membership of the EU, I very much support that.
    “That’s a longstanding position of British foreign policy which I support. We discussed that again in our talks today”

    In a speech at the Turkish parliament in Ankara in July 2010, Mr Cameron said: “I’m here to make the case for Turkey's membership of the EU. And to fight for it.”
    He added that he wanted to "pave the road" for Turkey to join the EU, saying the country was "vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our diplomacy".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html

    Government policy is not a xenophobic lie.
    Give me a date when Turkey is joining the EU and I'll accept it's not a lie. But both of us know that it was a straight lie chosen to frighten the public with fears of millions of Muslim immigrants.
    If someone had in 2001 that Poland was acceding to the EU would it have been a lie? They were in negotiations, it was official policy but accession hadn't been agreed yet and no date was set yet.

    It was official UK government policy that Turkey should join and they were already in official negotiations. Taking the UK Prime Minister at his word is not a lie. If it is that says more about the UK Prime Minister than it does about Vote Leave.
    Whatever gets you through the night. It's a xenophobic lie that will haunt British politics for years. Turkey is not joining the EU.
    And of course Cameron could have changed Govt policy and said that.

    But he didn't.

    No huge surprise that Remain was beaten by a bus.
    No huge surprise that you're happy to see xenophobic lies spread.
  • Re: Turkey.

    Here is the Leave leaflet that actually used Turkey (and Serbia).

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/files/2016/06/Ref-address1.pdf

    In some places they use the phrase "set to join" and in others "in the queue". Obviously there is a difference between these meanings. Turkey is in some kind of queue, but it will be waiting at the back for a very long time as it has zero chance of ticking all the necessary boxes on being, well, a European democracy.

    Interestingly, the Spectator blog had the following comment some days prior to the referendum:

    "Back in March, I wrote about how promising a referendum on Turkish accession would be the nearest that David Cameron could come to a Scottish-style vow if the polls were against him in the days before the referendum."

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/leave-talks-turkey/


    So, I think it is fair to say that Leave were extremely economical with the facts on Turkey - as they are not and were not "set to join", but they were in a queue. Cameron however could have killed this dead, but didn't bother.

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    Mortimer said:

    @Philip_Thompson So apart from the poster that Vote Leave majored on in the closing weeks that was,a xenophobic lie, Vote Leave aren't xenophobic liars. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    It wasn't a xenophobic lie since it was a matter of EU, UK and Turkish policy.

    David Cameron in 2014: “In terms of Turkish membership of the EU, I very much support that.
    “That’s a longstanding position of British foreign policy which I support. We discussed that again in our talks today”

    In a speech at the Turkish parliament in Ankara in July 2010, Mr Cameron said: “I’m here to make the case for Turkey's membership of the EU. And to fight for it.”
    He added that he wanted to "pave the road" for Turkey to join the EU, saying the country was "vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our diplomacy".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html

    Government policy is not a xenophobic lie.
    Give me a date when Turkey is joining the EU and I'll accept it's not a lie. But both of us know that it was a straight lie chosen to frighten the public with fears of millions of Muslim immigrants.
    If someone had in 2001 that Poland was acceding to the EU would it have been a lie? They were in negotiations, it was official policy but accession hadn't been agreed yet and no date was set yet.

    It was official UK government policy that Turkey should join and they were already in official negotiations. Taking the UK Prime Minister at his word is not a lie. If it is that says more about the UK Prime Minister than it does about Vote Leave.
    Whatever gets you through the night. It's a xenophobic lie that will haunt British politics for years. Turkey is not joining the EU.
    And of course Cameron could have changed Govt policy and said that.

    But he didn't.

    No huge surprise that Remain was beaten by a bus.
    No huge surprise that you're happy to see xenophobic lies spread.
    Lies are easy to disprove. That you're having to resort to the personal speaks volumes.
  • But honestly, it really doesn't matter who said or wrote what in the EU campaign. It's gone. The public voted.

    The issue now is whether there is a sufficient degree of buyer's remorse to justify "think again".
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

    @Philip_Thompson So apart from the poster that Vote Leave majored on in the closing weeks that was,a xenophobic lie, Vote Leave aren't xenophobic liars. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    It wasn't a xenophobic lie since it was a matter of EU, UK and Turkish policy.

    David Cameron in 2014: “In terms of Turkish membership of the EU, I very much support that.
    “That’s a longstanding position of British foreign policy which I support. We discussed that again in our talks today”

    In a speech at the Turkish parliament in Ankara in July 2010, Mr Cameron said: “I’m here to make the case for Turkey's membership of the EU. And to fight for it.”
    He added that he wanted to "pave the road" for Turkey to join the EU, saying the country was "vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our diplomacy".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html

    Government policy is not a xenophobic lie.
    Give me a date when Turkey is joining the EU and I'll accept it's not a lie. But both of us know that it was a straight lie chosen to frighten the public with fears of millions of Muslim immigrants.
    If someone had in 2001 that Poland was acceding to the EU would it have been a lie? They were in negotiations, it was official policy but accession hadn't been agreed yet and no date was set yet.

    It was official UK government policy that Turkey should join and they were already in official negotiations. Taking the UK Prime Minister at his word is not a lie. If it is that says more about the UK Prime Minister than it does about Vote Leave.
    Whatever gets you through the night. It's a xenophobic lie that will haunt British politics for years. Turkey is not joining the EU.
    So lies are acceptable if they're government policy?

    No wonder the country voted Leave.
  • RoyalBlue said:

    @Philip_Thompson So apart from the poster that Vote Leave majored on in the closing weeks that was,a xenophobic lie, Vote Leave aren't xenophobic liars. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    It wasn't a xenophobic lie since it was a matter of EU, UK and Turkish policy.

    David Cameron in 2014: “In terms of Turkish membership of the EU, I very much support that.
    “That’s a longstanding position of British foreign policy which I support. We discussed that again in our talks today”

    In a speech at the Turkish parliament in Ankara in July 2010, Mr Cameron said: “I’m here to make the case for Turkey's membership of the EU. And to fight for it.”
    He added that he wanted to "pave the road" for Turkey to join the EU, saying the country was "vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our diplomacy".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html

    Government policy is not a xenophobic lie.
    Give me a date when Turkey is joining the EU and I'll accept it's not a lie. But both of us know that it was a straight lie chosen to frighten the public with fears of millions of Muslim immigrants.
    If someone had in 2001 that Poland was acceding to the EU would it have been a lie? They were in negotiations, it was official policy but accession hadn't been agreed yet and no date was set yet.

    It was official UK government policy that Turkey should join and they were already in official negotiations. Taking the UK Prime Minister at his word is not a lie. If it is that says more about the UK Prime Minister than it does about Vote Leave.
    Whatever gets you through the night. It's a xenophobic lie that will haunt British politics for years. Turkey is not joining the EU.
    So lies are acceptable if they're government policy?

    No wonder the country voted Leave.
    There is a world of difference between it being Government policy that Turkey should one day, provided it has ticked all the boxes, be allowed to enter the EU, and actually saying that Turkey is joining the EU.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    IanB2 said:

    nielh said:

    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.
    +1
    +2
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    RoyalBlue said:

    @Philip_Thompson So apart from the poster that Vote Leave majored on in the closing weeks that was,a xenophobic lie, Vote Leave aren't xenophobic liars. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    It wasn't a xenophobic lie since it was a matter of EU, UK and Turkish policy.

    David Cameron in 2014: “In terms of Turkish membership of the EU, I very much support that.
    “That’s a longstanding position of British foreign policy which I support. We discussed that again in our talks today”

    In a speech at the Turkish parliament in Ankara in July 2010, Mr Cameron said: “I’m here to make the case for Turkey's membership of the EU. And to fight for it.”
    He added that he wanted to "pave the road" for Turkey to join the EU, saying the country was "vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our diplomacy".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html

    Government policy is not a xenophobic lie.
    Give me a date when Turkey is joining the EU and I'll accept it's not a lie. But both of us know that it was a straight lie chosen to frighten the public with fears of millions of Muslim immigrants.
    If someone had in 2001 that Poland was acceding to the EU would it have been a lie? They were in negotiations, it was official policy but accession hadn't been agreed yet and no date was set yet.

    It was official UK government policy that Turkey should join and they were already in official negotiations. Taking the UK Prime Minister at his word is not a lie. If it is that says more about the UK Prime Minister than it does about Vote Leave.
    Whatever gets you through the night. It's a xenophobic lie that will haunt British politics for years. Turkey is not joining the EU.
    So lies are acceptable if they're government policy?

    No wonder the country voted Leave.
    This is like Hilary Clinton wondering afterwards why the white working classes she called the “Basket of Deplorables” didn’t vote for her...
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    edited November 2017
    Wonder what Kezia may have to say of interest whilst she's in Celebrity?

    [football talk banned in scrap towers]
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Toys exiting prams in great life-threatening salvos, it seems. It is the sheer infantile denial of a three year old with a face covered in chocolate swearing it hasn't been raiding the Quality Street. I am afraid the unanimous consensus among the grown-ups is that until Erdogan's reverse non-coup, Turkey was well on the way to joining the EU. The infantile reply to this indisputable fact is a bit of magical thinking: I don't want it to have been happening, therefore it cannot have been happening, so we will pretend that all the grown-ups were only pretending, and Turkey was being strung along. Which is bollocks. Grown-ups don't behave like that, and I have never seen this frankly babyish claim made by anyone serious.

    The xenophobia point is easily reduced to an absurdity. Let's say every single country in Africa was going to be made a full EU member on 1 January 2018. Happy with that? - if you say yes you are lying, if you say no then you are, by your own lights, an evil xenophobe. As it happens I like Turkey, I've been there often (and not just to Istanbul and the West Coast), I get on with the people I meet there, and I am quite happy to say that I'd rather such a large and poor country with values different from those of Western Europe didn't join the EU. The scalded-fanny remainers are like an elderly tribal chief who can't get it up, so a witch must have cast a spell on his thingy
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    edited November 2017
    daodao said:

    calum said:

    Richard Leonard taking the fight to the SNP !

    https://twitter.com/AidanKerrTweets/status/931860729090756608

    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.
    They aren't paranoid. Her father is a Nat and she is sleeping with a Nat.
    I'd hope the looniest of loons might admit that the prime purpose of a sleeper agent is to stay in place until you've caused or can cause maximum damage. If resigning and going on a pishy entertainment show counts as maximum damage, most recent SLab leaders & Ruth Davidson would also qualify as sleepers.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046

    calum said:

    Richard Leonard taking the fight to the SNP !

    https://twitter.com/AidanKerrTweets/status/931860729090756608

    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.
    This was Corbyn's rather bizarre quote about Leonard's victory:

    " But Richard's campaign offered a challenge to the rigged system that has benefited a wealthy elite and showed how he will lead Scottish Labour to transform society. "

    He seems to be indicating that SLAB has been operating a rigged system - fair comment I suppose - but not sure it's going to help improve voter confidence in SLAB. I think Leonard should focus on transforming SLAB before attempting to transform society. That said, Corbyn appears to have undermined poor old Richard's first big decision:

    https://twitter.com/PA/status/931912714716434432
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited November 2017
    IanB2 said:

    nielh said:

    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.
    +1
    That is a very good essay.

    I have no regrets over my vote to remain, though. This tory brexit is turning into an even greater disaster than I feared.

    The sh*ts in power are deliberately destroying the country.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Toys exiting prams in great life-threatening salvos, it seems. It is the sheer infantile denial of a three year old with a face covered in chocolate swearing it hasn't been raiding the Quality Street. I am afraid the unanimous consensus among the grown-ups is that until Erdogan's reverse non-coup, Turkey was well on the way to joining the EU. The infantile reply to this indisputable fact is a bit of magical thinking: I don't want it to have been happening, therefore it cannot have been happening, so we will pretend that all the grown-ups were only pretending, and Turkey was being strung along. Which is bollocks. Grown-ups don't behave like that, and I have never seen this frankly babyish claim made by anyone serious.

    The xenophobia point is easily reduced to an absurdity. Let's say every single country in Africa was going to be made a full EU member on 1 January 2018. Happy with that? - if you say yes you are lying, if you say no then you are, by your own lights, an evil xenophobe. As it happens I like Turkey, I've been there often (and not just to Istanbul and the West Coast), I get on with the people I meet there, and I am quite happy to say that I'd rather such a large and poor country with values different from those of Western Europe didn't join the EU. The scalded-fanny remainers are like an elderly tribal chief who can't get it up, so a witch must have cast a spell on his thingy

    The French public was always going to veto Turkey's membership. Note Turkey's application was made in 1987 - I repeat 1987. It had zero chance of getting in. UK was one of the few countries that did want Turkey to join to re-balance the Franco-German axis.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/02/eu.france
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    calum said:

    calum said:

    Richard Leonard taking the fight to the SNP !

    https://twitter.com/AidanKerrTweets/status/931860729090756608

    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.
    This was Corbyn's rather bizarre quote about Leonard's victory:

    " But Richard's campaign offered a challenge to the rigged system that has benefited a wealthy elite and showed how he will lead Scottish Labour to transform society. "

    He seems to be indicating that SLAB has been operating a rigged system - fair comment I suppose - but not sure it's going to help improve voter confidence in SLAB. I think Leonard should focus on transforming SLAB before attempting to transform society. That said, Corbyn appears to have undermined poor old Richard's first big decision:

    https://twitter.com/PA/status/931912714716434432
    "Get me out of here" is a stupid place to go - but I don't think it is a membership losing decision.

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    Not sure if discussed earlier but Leonard only beat Sarwar 52-48 amongst party members.

    But he won 77-23 amongst affiliated supporters (a much smaller group), giving an overall result of 57-43.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Labour_Party_leadership_election,_2017#Procedure
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Pong said:

    IanB2 said:

    nielh said:

    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.
    +1
    That is a very good essay.

    I have no regrets over my vote to remain, though. This tory brexit is turning into an even greater disaster than I feared.

    The sh*ts in power are deliberately destroying the country.

    Good job it isn't a Corbyn Brexit or we'd really be in trouble.

  • calum said:

    calum said:

    Richard Leonard taking the fight to the SNP !

    https://twitter.com/AidanKerrTweets/status/931860729090756608

    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.
    This was Corbyn's rather bizarre quote about Leonard's victory:

    " But Richard's campaign offered a challenge to the rigged system that has benefited a wealthy elite and showed how he will lead Scottish Labour to transform society. "

    He seems to be indicating that SLAB has been operating a rigged system - fair comment I suppose - but not sure it's going to help improve voter confidence in SLAB. I think Leonard should focus on transforming SLAB before attempting to transform society. That said, Corbyn appears to have undermined poor old Richard's first big decision:

    https://twitter.com/PA/status/931912714716434432
    Sod changing SLab, the Leonardites seem to have gone straight into Dick for next FM mode. I daresay it's required pom pom waving for each new incarnation of SLab leader, but it seems to be based entirely on a few subsamples and a measly 10k more votes than their 2015 GE disaster.
  • Sandpit said:
    I am less confident we will get that lucky in the cricket!
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    But honestly, it really doesn't matter who said or wrote what in the EU campaign. It's gone. The public voted.

    The issue now is whether there is a sufficient degree of buyer's remorse to justify "think again".

    The public did not vote - certainly not the 52% - to pay £60bn or even £ 20bn as a divorce bill.

    The divorce bill was not even mentioned. We were sold a false prospectus. In fact, we were supposed to receive £350m a week.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    Pong said:

    IanB2 said:

    nielh said:

    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.
    +1
    That is a very good essay.

    I have no regrets over my vote to remain, though. This tory brexit is turning into an even greater disaster than I feared.

    The sh*ts in power are deliberately destroying the country.
    They're prepared to damage the economy to preserve the Tory party, or rather to keep right-wing control over it and not cede any power to moderates. Leading moderates are instead named on the front page of the Torygraph (unless they keep their head down).

    The berserker MPs seem to be prepared to sabotage TV programmes too

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/berserker-right-wing-tory-mps-tried-to-sabotage-bbc-documentary-10012041.html
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911
    surbiton said:

    But honestly, it really doesn't matter who said or wrote what in the EU campaign. It's gone. The public voted.

    The issue now is whether there is a sufficient degree of buyer's remorse to justify "think again".

    The public did not vote - certainly not the 52% - to pay £60bn or even £ 20bn as a divorce bill.

    The divorce bill was not even mentioned. We were sold a false prospectus. In fact, we were supposed to receive £350m a week.
    I don't remember either of those two things being on the ballot paper I received. Mine asked me if I wished to "remain a member of the European Union" or "Leave the European Union".

    Perhaps you received a different ballot paper?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    surbiton said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Toys exiting prams in great life-threatening salvos, it seems. It is the sheer infantile denial of a three year old with a face covered in chocolate swearing it hasn't been raiding the Quality Street. I am afraid the unanimous consensus among the grown-ups is that until Erdogan's reverse non-coup, Turkey was well on the way to joining the EU. The infantile reply to this indisputable fact is a bit of magical thinking: I don't want it to have been happening, therefore it cannot have been happening, so we will pretend that all the grown-ups were only pretending, and Turkey was being strung along. Which is bollocks. Grown-ups don't behave like that, and I have never seen this frankly babyish claim made by anyone serious.

    The xenophobia point is easily reduced to an absurdity. Let's say every single country in Africa was going to be made a full EU member on 1 January 2018. Happy with that? - if you say yes you are lying, if you say no then you are, by your own lights, an evil xenophobe. As it happens I like Turkey, I've been there often (and not just to Istanbul and the West Coast), I get on with the people I meet there, and I am quite happy to say that I'd rather such a large and poor country with values different from those of Western Europe didn't join the EU. The scalded-fanny remainers are like an elderly tribal chief who can't get it up, so a witch must have cast a spell on his thingy

    The French public was always going to veto Turkey's membership. Note Turkey's application was made in 1987 - I repeat 1987. It had zero chance of getting in. UK was one of the few countries that did want Turkey to join to re-balance the Franco-German axis.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/02/eu.france
    Ancient, and irrelevant, history. Macron is strongly pro-Turkey, which is a bit more important than an undertaking given by Chirac 13 years ago to get himself out of a fix.
  • surbiton said:

    But honestly, it really doesn't matter who said or wrote what in the EU campaign. It's gone. The public voted.

    The issue now is whether there is a sufficient degree of buyer's remorse to justify "think again".

    The public did not vote - certainly not the 52% - to pay £60bn or even £ 20bn as a divorce bill.

    The divorce bill was not even mentioned. We were sold a false prospectus. In fact, we were supposed to receive £350m a week.
    I can't remember whether there was any discussion of the "divorce bill" to be honest. Personally I would assume it was obvious that any existing liabilities would have to be paid for.

    But even if a figure of say £50b had been banded about - would it have changed anyone's mind?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    MikeL said:

    Not sure if discussed earlier but Leonard only beat Sarwar 52-48 amongst party members.

    But he won 77-23 amongst affiliated supporters (a much smaller group), giving an overall result of 57-43.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Labour_Party_leadership_election,_2017#Procedure

    Actually, eerily, 51.8% - 48.2%. Does it remind us of something ?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    surbiton said:

    But honestly, it really doesn't matter who said or wrote what in the EU campaign. It's gone. The public voted.

    The issue now is whether there is a sufficient degree of buyer's remorse to justify "think again".

    The public did not vote - certainly not the 52% - to pay £60bn or even £ 20bn as a divorce bill.

    The divorce bill was not even mentioned. We were sold a false prospectus. In fact, we were supposed to receive £350m a week.
    I can't remember whether there was any discussion of the "divorce bill" to be honest. Personally I would assume it was obvious that any existing liabilities would have to be paid for.

    But even if a figure of say £50b had been banded about - would it have changed anyone's mind?
    There was definitely no discussion about a divorce bill. I think Barnier raised it first.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Ishmael_Z said:

    surbiton said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Toys exiting prams in great life-threatening salvos, it seems. It is the sheer infantile denial of a three year old with a face covered in chocolate swearing it hasn't been raiding the Quality Street. I am afraid the unanimous consensus among the grown-ups is that until Erdogan's reverse non-coup, Turkey was well on the way to joining the EU. The infantile reply to this indisputable fact is a bit of magical thinking: I don't want it to have been happening, therefore it cannot have been happening, so we will pretend that all the grown-ups were only pretending, and Turkey was being strung along. Which is bollocks. Grown-ups don't behave like that, and I have never seen this frankly babyish claim made by anyone serious.

    The xenophobia point is easily reduced to an absurdity. Let's say every single country in Africa was going to be made a full EU member on 1 January 2018. Happy with that? - if you say yes you are lying, if you say no then you are, by your own lights, an evil xenophobe. As it happens I like Turkey, I've been there often (and not just to Istanbul and the West Coast), I get on with the people I meet there, and I am quite happy to say that I'd rather such a large and poor country with values different from those of Western Europe didn't join the EU. The scalded-fanny remainers are like an elderly tribal chief who can't get it up, so a witch must have cast a spell on his thingy

    The French public was always going to veto Turkey's membership. Note Turkey's application was made in 1987 - I repeat 1987. It had zero chance of getting in. UK was one of the few countries that did want Turkey to join to re-balance the Franco-German axis.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/02/eu.france
    Ancient, and irrelevant, history. Macron is strongly pro-Turkey, which is a bit more important than an undertaking given by Chirac 13 years ago to get himself out of a fix.
    I did not know Macron was President in 2016. Are you rewriting history ?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    surbiton said:

    But honestly, it really doesn't matter who said or wrote what in the EU campaign. It's gone. The public voted.

    The issue now is whether there is a sufficient degree of buyer's remorse to justify "think again".

    The public did not vote - certainly not the 52% - to pay £60bn or even £ 20bn as a divorce bill.

    The divorce bill was not even mentioned. We were sold a false prospectus. In fact, we were supposed to receive £350m a week.
    I can't remember whether there was any discussion of the "divorce bill" to be honest. Personally I would assume it was obvious that any existing liabilities would have to be paid for.

    But even if a figure of say £50b had been banded about - would it have changed anyone's mind?
    I don't think a divorce bill in excess of our liabilities as current members was ever talked about. And that isn't too surprising. Leave wouldn't want to talk about the potential for the EU to demand a load of money before even countenancing trade talks. Remain wouldn't want to be seen to drawing attention to what we were signed up to.

    I actually don't think we owe them anything other than what we owe as members until we leave. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be averse to making a voluntary contribution to smooth things over, it's just a question of how much.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    surbiton said:

    MikeL said:

    Not sure if discussed earlier but Leonard only beat Sarwar 52-48 amongst party members.

    But he won 77-23 amongst affiliated supporters (a much smaller group), giving an overall result of 57-43.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Labour_Party_leadership_election,_2017#Procedure

    Actually, eerily, 51.8% - 48.2%. Does it remind us of something ?
    Indeed.

    One other point - only 79 registered supporters voted - they are the £3 people I think.

    Numbers voting:

    Members - 17,304
    Registered supporters (£3 sign-ups) - 79
    Affiliated supporters (union members) - 4,242

    Suggests far left at least not totally dominant in Scottish Labour.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2017
    I seem to remeber a hell of talk about how the economy would immediately tank making £40bn look like small change. That didn't put people off voting for brexit, if anything the harder that line was pushed the stronger the out vote got.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    HYUFD said:



    The percentage of the electorate who back the Euro but want to leave the single market and end free movement probably amounts to yourself and a Professor in Greater Manchester. So that does not really change the point.

    A majority is simply the largest number of people wrong about any given subject at any given time.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    The country is more polarised, and less able to uphold the ‘traditional British virtue’ of tolerance that I can remember, and as I’ve bored people with before, I’ve voted in every GE since 1959, and worked for candidates in a good few of them.

    Furrther the 2106 Referendum was the least honest (which is saying quite a lot) I’ve ever been involved with, and that applies to both sides. Yes, I’m a Remainer but I cringed at some of the stuff that was being put out. The only saving grace was that, as far as I could see, Leave was worse.
    And the 2017 GE wasn’t much better.

    I was reading recently that 120 or so years ago, at the time of the Boer War the country was, apprently, similarly polarised and it took ten or so years for ‘normal’ politics to resume. I suspect we’e in a similar situation.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    Just in time for May’s next snap election? ;)
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    surbiton said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    surbiton said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Toys exiting prams in great life-threatening salvos, it seems. It is the sheer infantile denial of a three year old with a face covered in chocolate swearing it hasn't been raiding the Quality Street. I am afraid the unanimous consensus among the grown-ups is that until Erdogan's reverse non-coup, Turkey was well on the way to joining the EU. The infantile reply to this indisputable fact is a bit of magical thinking: I don't want it to have been happening, therefore it cannot have been happening, so we will pretend that all the grown-ups were only pretending, and Turkey was being strung along. Which is bollocks. Grown-ups don't behave like that, and I have never seen this frankly babyish claim made by anyone serious.

    The xenophobia point is easily reduced to an absurdity. Let's say every single country in Africa was going to be made a full EU member on 1 January 2018. Happy with that? - if you say yes you are lying, if you say no then you are, by your own lights, an evil xenophobe. As it happens I like Turkey, I've been there often (and not just to Istanbul and the West Coast), I get on with the people I meet there, and I am quite happy to say that I'd rather such a large and poor country with values different from those of Western Europe didn't join the EU. The scalded-fanny remainers are like an elderly tribal chief who can't get it up, so a witch must have cast a spell on his thingy

    The French public was always going to veto Turkey's membership. Note Turkey's application was made in 1987 - I repeat 1987. It had zero chance of getting in. UK was one of the few countries that did want Turkey to join to re-balance the Franco-German axis.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/02/eu.france
    Ancient, and irrelevant, history. Macron is strongly pro-Turkey, which is a bit more important than an undertaking given by Chirac 13 years ago to get himself out of a fix.
    I did not know Macron was President in 2016. Are you rewriting history ?
    No, what we are talking about is the now counterfactual question, how things would have gone but for the 2016 anti-coup, with Turkey up for membership in say 2026. So Macron is irrelevant, but not as irrelevant as bloody Chirac in 2004. You have to face it that black and white really are, respectively, black and white. In Turkey's hissy fit with the Germans a couple of months back, no serious commentator was putting in footnotes to the effect of yebbut this is all irrelevant because it was never going to happen anyway. It was at least likely enough to happen, to be a serious and legitimate concern.
  • The country is more polarised, and less able to uphold the ‘traditional British virtue’ of tolerance that I can remember, and as I’ve bored people with before, I’ve voted in every GE since 1959, and worked for candidates in a good few of them.

    Furrther the 2106 Referendum was the least honest (which is saying quite a lot) I’ve ever been involved with, and that applies to both sides. Yes, I’m a Remainer but I cringed at some of the stuff that was being put out. The only saving grace was that, as far as I could see, Leave was worse.
    And the 2017 GE wasn’t much better.

    I was reading recently that 120 or so years ago, at the time of the Boer War the country was, apprently, similarly polarised and it took ten or so years for ‘normal’ politics to resume. I suspect we’e in a similar situation.

    And then straight into a world war.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881

    The country is more polarised, and less able to uphold the ‘traditional British virtue’ of tolerance that I can remember, and as I’ve bored people with before, I’ve voted in every GE since 1959, and worked for candidates in a good few of them.

    Furrther the 2106 Referendum was the least honest (which is saying quite a lot) I’ve ever been involved with, and that applies to both sides. Yes, I’m a Remainer but I cringed at some of the stuff that was being put out. The only saving grace was that, as far as I could see, Leave was worse.
    And the 2017 GE wasn’t much better.

    I was reading recently that 120 or so years ago, at the time of the Boer War the country was, apprently, similarly polarised and it took ten or so years for ‘normal’ politics to resume. I suspect we’e in a similar situation.

    I don’t see the country as particularly polarised.
    Certainly not when I look at the US where rural and urban communities are engaged in a vicious culture war and basically can’t talk to each other any more.

    If you look at the Referendum, even the ‘landslide’ areas went 65/35 or 60/40...

    I think the jnternet makes things seem more polarised than they really are.


  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited November 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    The country is more polarised, and less able to uphold the ‘traditional British virtue’ of tolerance that I can remember, and as I’ve bored people with before, I’ve voted in every GE since 1959, and worked for candidates in a good few of them.

    Furrther the 2106 Referendum was the least honest (which is saying quite a lot) I’ve ever been involved with, and that applies to both sides. Yes, I’m a Remainer but I cringed at some of the stuff that was being put out. The only saving grace was that, as far as I could see, Leave was worse.
    And the 2017 GE wasn’t much better.

    I was reading recently that 120 or so years ago, at the time of the Boer War the country was, apprently, similarly polarised and it took ten or so years for ‘normal’ politics to resume. I suspect we’e in a similar situation.

    I don’t see the country as particularly polarised.
    Certainly not when I look at the US where rural and urban communities are engaged in a vicious culture war and basically can’t talk to each other any more.

    If you look at the Referendum, even the ‘landslide’ areas went 65/35 or 60/40...

    I think the jnternet makes things seem more polarised than they really are.
    I think the existence of internet echo chambers are amplifying differences, and other media and to some extent the politicians themselves aren’t helping the situation. Also contributing are difficult economic conditions that have persisted for close to a decade, and referenda on a yes/no question about identity - such as we saw with Scotland and the EU - are by their very nature hugely polarising.

    Not close to the cultural problems in the US though, where everyone is shouting past each other and no-one is listening. I don’t see any moderate centrists lining up there any time soon.

    To summarise: David Cameron’s maxim about Tweets will be written in stone and taught to politics students long after Twitter have gone bust.
  • King Cole, tolerance, free speech and nuance are all being eroded rapidly. Just look how people with views outside the orthodoxy on transgender matters get pilloried [for the record, I support the rights of adults to transition, think it's not on for kids].

    The 'hold them to account' line regarding Soubry et al. is another example of this. The whole basis of democracy is that varying but valid opinions can be held. If there's only one acceptable opinion then there's no point having elections to choose because the orthodoxy and only the orthodoxy can prevail, and heretics be damned.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    King Cole, tolerance, free speech and nuance are all being eroded rapidly. Just look how people with views outside the orthodoxy on transgender matters get pilloried [for the record, I support the rights of adults to transition, think it's not on for kids].

    The 'hold them to account' line regarding Soubry et al. is another example of this. The whole basis of democracy is that varying but valid opinions can be held. If there's only one acceptable opinion then there's no point having elections to choose because the orthodoxy and only the orthodoxy can prevail, and heretics be damned.

    Hear hear
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    Theresa May will quit (be ousted) before DD.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Cyclefree said:

    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.

    Whoops. Did it again. Chucked a grenade and then went off for Saturday morning coffee with my better half. Apologies.

    Yes the compromise will probably upset some of the supporters of each side but frankly, tough. We need something that works for the country and satisfies the majority. Since I am completely sensible and entirely reasonable it stands to reason the majority wants the same as me.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    On topic
    If David Davis quits, he becomes the brexit martyr and IMO more likely to be the next conservative leader.
    I backed him at 100/1 earlier in the year, should really have cashed out, but I still think he is in with a decent chance.
    Davis would surely win in a head to head with Rees Mogg. He is far more experienced.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited November 2017
    nielh said:

    On topic
    If David Davis quits, he becomes the brexit martyr and IMO more likely to be the next conservative leader.
    I backed him at 100/1 earlier in the year, should really have cashed out, but I still think he is in with a decent chance.
    Davis would surely win in a head to head with Rees Mogg. He is far more experienced.

    You can lay Davis at 13.5 right now if you want to take a profit. https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051208/market?marketId=1.125574963

    I can’t see JRM as next leader to become PM, he’s just not experienced enough unless he gets a big Cabinet job soon. Not unless the MPs screw up and leave us a choice of JRM or Rudd/Hammond/Leadsom.

    Next leader as LotO, much more plausible.
  • Council asks for names for its two new road gritters and the public answers with... Gritsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Anti-Slip Machiney and David Plowie

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5095339/Council-names-gritters-Gritsy-Bitsy-David-Plowie.html
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    On topic
    If David Davis quits, he becomes the brexit martyr and IMO more likely to be the next conservative leader.
    I backed him at 100/1 earlier in the year, should really have cashed out, but I still think he is in with a decent chance.
    Davis would surely win in a head to head with Rees Mogg. He is far more experienced.

    You can lay Davis at 13.5 right now if you want to take a profit. https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051208/market?marketId=1.125574963

    I can’t see JRM as next leader to become PM, he’s just not experienced enough unless he gets a big Cabinet job soon. Not unless the MPs screw up and leave us a choice of JRM or Rudd/Hammond/Leadsom.

    Next leader as LotO, much more plausible.
    Lay Boris. Lay JRM. Wait.
  • GIN1138 said:
    The significant paragraph is at the end of the story, if it is true that Kier Starmer himself was consulted (as DPP).
  • Mr. Urquhart, those are pretty good names.

    I believe a ferry down under has been named Ferry McFerryface...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    On topic
    If David Davis quits, he becomes the brexit martyr and IMO more likely to be the next conservative leader.
    I backed him at 100/1 earlier in the year, should really have cashed out, but I still think he is in with a decent chance.
    Davis would surely win in a head to head with Rees Mogg. He is far more experienced.

    You can lay Davis at 13.5 right now if you want to take a profit. https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051208/market?marketId=1.125574963

    I can’t see JRM as next leader to become PM, he’s just not experienced enough unless he gets a big Cabinet job soon. Not unless the MPs screw up and leave us a choice of JRM or Rudd/Hammond/Leadsom.

    Next leader as LotO, much more plausible.
    Lay Boris. Lay JRM. Wait.
    That too. Lay the favourite and lay Boris has always been the golden rule of this market.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2017
    Tories should be very worried that they are behind on best for running the economy with 35-44 year olds. The massive turn over the course of the GE campaign among this demographic is what lost it for May.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited November 2017

    GIN1138 said:
    The significant paragraph is at the end of the story, if it is true that Kier Starmer himself was consulted (as DPP).
    If Starmer has anything to do with the recent Green stories, using confidential information he gained when in post as DPP for political ends, he’s completely and utterly toast.

    Not that they suggest that, of course, but it’s an interesting point to make in passing.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281

    Tories should be very worried that they are behind on best for running the economy with 35-44 year olds. The massive turn over the course of the GE campaign among this demographic is what lost it for May.

    Though perhaps surprisingly Lab's lead on the economy amongst 18 to 34 year olds is only 35-28, much narrower than might have been thought given the general narrative.
  • Robert Mugabe 'to be sacked by his Zanu-PF party on Sunday'
  • Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:
    The significant paragraph is at the end of the story, if it is true that Kier Starmer himself was consulted (as DPP).
    If Starmer has anything to do with the recent Green stories, using confidential information he gained when in post as DPP for political ends, he’s completely and utterly toast.

    Not that they suggest that, of course, but it’s an interesting point to make in passing.
    I sure he isn’t stupid enough to get caught doing such a thing.
  • " Those who voted to leave in the EU referendum are almost twice as likely to think the economy is in a good state as those who voted to remain " -


    This seems a stand out from Opinium for me and may explain the lack of Bregret. Counterintuitive as well given the left behind/elite narrative that has sprung up after the vote.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited November 2017
    In before the latest round of goalpost-shifting "Labour should have a much bigger lead than 2%" comments.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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 mana

    Whoops. Did it again. Chucked a grenade and then went off for Saturday morning coffee with my better half. Apologies.

    Yes the compromise will probably upset some of the supporters of each side but frankly, tough. We need something that works for the country and satisfies the majority. Since I am completely sensible and entirely reasonable it stands to reason the majority wants the same as me.
    We can hope. *prepares grenade*We certainly won't find it among people pathologically obsessed with fighting the last battle, assigning blame and posturing about their moral superiority all the time.*walks off*
  • Danny565 said:

    In before the latest round of goalpost-shifting "Labour should have a much bigger lead than 2%" comments.
    Well Tony thinks they should....
  • Also - " While a fifth view Johnson as being good in the post, half of UK adults now think he has been a bad foreign secretary. This marks a drastic change since September, when 29% thought he had been a good foreign secretary and only 33% thought he had been a bad one.

    His reputation also suffered among Conservative voters, with a third now thinking Johnson is doing a bad job, up from 16% in September. "

    Opinium is the second pollster to find Boris has sustained real damage in the last two months.
  • Vote Leave adopted the strategy that would maximise their vote, just as Stronger In did.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    Surely this Opinium poll suggests that by far the best bet for Con is to stick with May as PM.

    Given her numerous stumbles and the absolutely dreadful press she has endured, an approval rating of only minus 13 seems way better than what might be expected under these circumstances.

    Plus:

    1) No guarantee any other leader would do better
    2) Removing her would be highly unpredictable
  • @DavidL - the majority want a close trading relationship with Europe, without political union, and a common-sense approach to immigration.

    That isn't unreasonable.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited November 2017
    Labour 42% Tories 40% LDs 6% UKIP 5% in that new Opinium Poll.

    That would equate to Labour on 290 seats and the Tories on 288 seats and the LDs on 14.

    So again the SNP and LDs would hold the balance of power.
  • King Cole, tolerance, free speech and nuance are all being eroded rapidly. Just look how people with views outside the orthodoxy on transgender matters get pilloried [for the record, I support the rights of adults to transition, think it's not on for kids].

    The 'hold them to account' line regarding Soubry et al. is another example of this. The whole basis of democracy is that varying but valid opinions can be held. If there's only one acceptable opinion then there's no point having elections to choose because the orthodoxy and only the orthodoxy can prevail, and heretics be damned.

    Social media seems to have become more of a tool for enforcing orthodoxy, rather than broadening the boundaries of free speech.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:
    The significant paragraph is at the end of the story, if it is true that Kier Starmer himself was consulted (as DPP).
    If Starmer has anything to do with the recent Green stories, using confidential information he gained when in post as DPP for political ends, he’s completely and utterly toast.

    Not that they suggest that, of course, but it’s an interesting point to make in passing.
    I sure he isn’t stupid enough to get caught doing such a thing.
    Not directly, no. But how many times have we said that about people in recent years, only for them to come unstuck?

    Given that only a handful of people would have known about Damian Green’s computer, and that the story was described as double sourced, there can’t be a lot of suspects...
  • " Those who voted to leave in the EU referendum are almost twice as likely to think the economy is in a good state as those who voted to remain " -


    This seems a stand out from Opinium for me and may explain the lack of Bregret. Counterintuitive as well given the left behind/elite narrative that has sprung up after the vote.

    Those numbers may move, and yet we've had the devaluation and the uptick in inflation following the vote, as predicted, but unemployment has continued to fall, the economy has continued to grow, industrial output is up, and immigration has fallen.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    What a finish to the Scotland-All Blacks game.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Danny565 said:

    In before the latest round of goalpost-shifting "Labour should have a much bigger lead than 2%" comments.
    Well Tony thinks they should....
    Which backs up the point about goalpost shifting - the man who once said Corbyn had no chance of matching even Michael Foot in a general election, is now saying Corbyn "should" be doing better than 2-3% leads.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    In before the latest round of goalpost-shifting "Labour should have a much bigger lead than 2%" comments.
    Well Tony thinks they should....
    Which backs up the point about goalpost shifting - the man who once said Corbyn had no chance of matching even Michael Foot in a general election, is now saying Corbyn "should" be doing better than 2-3% leads.
    Michael Foot of course had far bigger leads than 2-3% in 1980, as did Ed Miliband in 2012, let alone Blair pre 1997.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    In before the latest round of goalpost-shifting "Labour should have a much bigger lead than 2%" comments.
    Well Tony thinks they should....
    Which backs up the point about goalpost shifting - the man who once said Corbyn had no chance of matching even Michael Foot in a general election, is now saying Corbyn "should" be doing better than 2-3% leads.
    Michael Foot of course had far bigger leads than 2-3% in 1980, as did Ed Miliband in 2012, let alone Blair pre 1997.
    Your point being....?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Alistair said:

    What a finish to the Scotland-All Blacks game.

    Very unlucky at the death, but the Scots can be proud to have come so close to the ABs.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    In before the latest round of goalpost-shifting "Labour should have a much bigger lead than 2%" comments.
    Well Tony thinks they should....
    Which backs up the point about goalpost shifting - the man who once said Corbyn had no chance of matching even Michael Foot in a general election, is now saying Corbyn "should" be doing better than 2-3% leads.
    Michael Foot of course had far bigger leads than 2-3% in 1980, as did Ed Miliband in 2012, let alone Blair pre 1997.
    Your point being....?
    On current trends if Corbyn gets in it will be leading a minority government with the weakest mandate of any incoming PM since Wilson in February 1974.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960

    Also - " While a fifth view Johnson as being good in the post, half of UK adults now think he has been a bad foreign secretary. This marks a drastic change since September, when 29% thought he had been a good foreign secretary and only 33% thought he had been a bad one.

    His reputation also suffered among Conservative voters, with a third now thinking Johnson is doing a bad job, up from 16% in September. "

    Opinium is the second pollster to find Boris has sustained real damage in the last two months.

    He has had two months of wretched media coverage. Hardly a surprise!
This discussion has been closed.