Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New poll highlights the danger for Corbyn if LAB is perceived

13

Comments

  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,721

    Lennon said:

    Totally O/T, but there has been little mention here of the stock market 'crash'. Smugly, 'my' IFA has been predicting something of the sort for some time and has strongly advised against share-buying.

    What stock-market "crash"? S&P is at the same level it was at the beginning of December - 10week fluctuations are volatility, not a "crash" surely...
    Quite so. The correction provides a buying opportunity - but be selective, avoid the more speculative stocks and pick those with good cash flow that are not short of funds. At your own risk.
    Whereas I look at it the other way around - I thought that it was over-valued 10 weeks ago - and very little has changed in my view.

  • Moving parliament to Birmingham would reduce the number of daily £300 claims from their Lordships.
  • Also note the sly digs at Heath.......And in fairness it was not Robin Day who made the 'redhead' comment, but Cliff Michelmore, for those who don't watch the clip (and it may have had a bit to do with the then new colour TV as he adds 'for those watching in black & white')

    What did Miss Fookes think about it? Was she flattered?
    She didn't look overly impressed. Happily Baroness Fookes is still with us and after taking no nonsense as Deputy Speaker in the Commons is doing the same in the House of Lords.....
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    RoyalBlue said:

    Farron’s troubles were a product of his cowardice in refusing to be honest with the electorate while purporting to lead a party with ‘Liberal’ in the title. He deserved everything he got.

    It's inexplicable that he didn't deal with the question by saying that we're all sinners and making light of it.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    If the Labour Party can elect a parody as leader why shouldn’t the Conservatives do so? Nor should anyone underestimate the Conservative Party’s enthusiasm for extremism. Two years ago, 84 Tory MPs thought that Andrea Leadsom should be prime minister, and whatever criticisms may properly be made of Theresa May, she’s no Andrea Leadsom. Mr Rees-Mogg is Boris Johnson with the added benefit that he actually means it.

    Every “solution” the government finds merely causes a problem elsewhere. Dismissing membership of “the”, or “a”, customs union post-Brexit revives the problem of the Irish border; allowing for some kind of fudged customs arrangement — pertaining to goods, perhaps, but not services — reopens scarcely closed wounds inside the cabinet, let alone inside the Conservative Party as a whole.

    There are no good options, either. Mrs May limps on, surviving only because her potential replacements are no more palatable than she is. None seems capable of uniting the Tory party, far less can they inspire the country. The Conservative Party does not trust this Conservative government and the country does not trust this Conservative Party.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/dont-panic-at-least-we-have-an-escape-hatch-9w6tvlzvb
  • But this government could not offer such a deal. It would blow itself apart.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    Essexit said:

    The trouble with this poll is that Labour did support Brexit at the last GE, and they polled at 39%, not 30%.

    Agree, I'm skeptical of a pool focusing all the attention on one of several issues that actually motivated people to vote.
    Yep, in effect i'd argue that it wasn't Brexit which caused the tories trouble at the election. It was May herself, the botched social care policy and the lacklustre manifesto.
    The 2017 election was not about Brexit. There wasn't a fag paper between the Tories and Labour on it.

    Over 86% voted for parties that had a commitment to implement Brexit.

    Now, if one of those parties had said "actually, hang on a minute...maybe we won't...." - things would have looked very different. If it was Labour, they would have picked up a few votes from the LibDems - and hemorrhaged them to the Tories.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    The smaller number is those who didn't....
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    But this government could not offer such a deal. It would blow itself apart.

    The government is going to blow itself apart over Brexit inevitably.

    Doing it now would be a blessing
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    https://twitter.com/PA/status/960835569411555328

    A cynic might wonder, but the trial has ended.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    Who hasn't worn a Nazi uniform at some point?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    I don't know how the EU would respond, but IMO, EEA-minus-free-movement would be very much a goer with the British public, including a crucial segment of Leave voters. As much as some of the Leave elites like Dan Hannan might not like it, the referendum really was all about immigration for a lot of people.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    Sir Robin Day was a lot more complimentary about her than Alan Clark was.
  • dr_spyn said:

    https://twitter.com/PA/status/960835569411555328

    A cynic might wonder, but the trial has ended.

    Why would the trial end rather than be suspended?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    HHemmelig said:

    Morn_Cres said:

    The fact that JRM is a Catholic is neither here nor there. IDS is Catholic too. JRM has an exceptionally well-crafted and well-fed image. Something like the Bristol event played remarkably well to the brand message, and the way it has been built up is unprecedented. Of course it helps that pater was editor of the Times, a more important position at least in those days than any office at the BBC.

    As for the "dream team" meme, a whisper tells me that the notion of a Priti Patel return was a barium feed, (litotes alert) not unconnected with the Qatar problem (or what is a problem for those whose role is to keep long-term issues in their purview, if not at all problematic, short term, for others). Patel is no Mandelson and will not come back to the cabinet.

    The response to the "impugning of the integrity" of public servants at the Treasury has been telling. The reaction that "MPs shouldn't say things like that" is pathetic. It's also OK for newspapers to call judges the "enemies of the people", so long as they don't call for violence or law-breaking or commit civil wrongs. What are people afraid of? It's not up to civil servants or retired ones or the press to tell MPs what they can and can't say in the Commons. Shocked opponents could of course have responded on the issue, protesting that the said public servants have always acted, including on Brexit models, with the utmost integrity, not because it's a law of the universe that they are beyond reproach, but because, well, because they did act with integrity and there isn't a problem. Anybody who's got any issues with that should take it up with Bercow. He has the authority to smack down an MP who have spoken out of order. Since he hasn't, those who still have problems should criticise HIM.

    In a modern general election, JRM's opposition to abortion wouldn't be "neither here nor there". It would dominate the election campaign in much the same way as Farron's "gays are sinners" and lose the Tories bucketloads of votes. And that's before we even start on his hardline Brexit stance and myriad of other controversial views and the huge party infighting that would provoke. Electing JRM as leader would result in a Lib Dem surge and the Tories getting a Michael Foot vote share, with Labour coming through the middle to secure a landslide victory. Not an appealing thought.
    If JRM ran on a platform of banning abortion, it would be a big issue. Not otherwise.
  • They would refuse. They've been 100% explicit that the 4 freedoms are indivisible and to offer that would tear the EU apart as other nations would want it.

    Though the fact other nations would want it should if people were rational show its a good idea, not a bad one. But that's not the way they see it. Giving people what they want isn't their idea which is why we're leaving.
  • Sean_F said:

    HHemmelig said:

    Morn_Cres said:

    The fact that JRM is a Catholic is neither here nor there. IDS is Catholic too. JRM has an exceptionally well-crafted and well-fed image. Something like the Bristol event played remarkably well to the brand message, and the way it has been built up is unprecedented. Of course it helps that pater was editor of the Times, a more important position at least in those days than any office at the BBC.

    As for the "dream team" meme, a whisper tells me that the notion of a Priti Patel return was a barium feed, (litotes alert) not unconnected with the Qatar problem (or what is a problem for those whose role is to keep long-term issues in their purview, if not at all problematic, short term, for others). Patel is no Mandelson and will not come back to the cabinet.

    The response to the "impugning of the integrity" of public servants at the Treasury has been telling. The reaction that "MPs shouldn't say things like that" is pathetic. It's also OK for newspapers to call judges the "enemies of the people", so long as they don't call for violence or law-breaking or commit civil wrongs. What are people afraid of? It's not up to civil servants or retired ones or the press to tell MPs what they can and can't say in the Commons. Shocked opponents could of course have responded on the issue, protesting that the said public servants have always acted, including on Brexit models, with the utmost integrity, not because it's a law of the universe that they are beyond reproach, but because, well, because they did act with integrity and there isn't a problem. Anybody who's got any issues with that should take it up with Bercow. He has the authority to smack down an MP who have spoken out of order. Since he hasn't, those who still have problems should criticise HIM.

    In a modern general election, JRM's opposition to abortion wouldn't be "neither here nor there". It would dominate the election campaign in much the same way as Farron's "gays are sinners" and lose the Tories bucketloads of votes. And that's before we even start on his hardline Brexit stance and myriad of other controversial views and the huge party infighting that would provoke. Electing JRM as leader would result in a Lib Dem surge and the Tories getting a Michael Foot vote share, with Labour coming through the middle to secure a landslide victory. Not an appealing thought.
    If JRM ran on a platform of banning abortion, it would be a big issue. Not otherwise.
    Also abortion is I think different from say gay rights or other forms of equality. I can see there is two sides to an abortion discussion (although I'm on the right for abortion with limitations). On matters of equality I don't think there should be two legitimate sides.
  • dr_spyn said:

    https://twitter.com/PA/status/960835569411555328

    A cynic might wonder, but the trial has ended.

    I suspect a heart attack is more unequivocally diagnosed than pre-senile dementia....mind you 50 is rather young for a heart attack. Why not suspend the trial until he recovers?
  • dr_spyn said:

    https://twitter.com/PA/status/960835569411555328

    A cynic might wonder, but the trial has ended.

    Why would the trial end rather than be suspended?
    It's had numerous delays on it already.

    IIRC the judge fell ill.

    From The Times 'The Serious Fraud Office is considering whether a re-trial is appropriate. A decision is expected by the beginning of March.'
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,723
    dr_spyn said:

    https://twitter.com/PA/status/960835569411555328

    A cynic might wonder, but the trial has ended.

    Ernest Saunders rides again!
  • Sean_F said:



    If JRM ran on a platform of banning abortion, it would be a big issue. Not otherwise.

    Disagree. Farron didn't run on an anti-gay rights platform but it didn't stop him being dogged by this issue constantly. The BBC and entire mainstream media would have a field day constantly asking Mogg about abortion to the exclusion of everything else he wants to talk about; you can imagine the scaremongering Labour leaflets and billboards now.
  • Mr. Hemmelig, that was partly because Farron handled it badly initially, refusing to engage with or answer the question directly.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,883
    Sean_F said:

    HHemmelig said:

    Morn_Cres said:

    The fact that JRM is a Catholic is neither here nor there. IDS is Catholic too. JRM has an exceptionally well-crafted and well-fed image. Something like the Bristol event played remarkably well to the brand message, and the way it has been built up is unprecedented. Of course it helps that pater was editor of the Times, a more important position at least in those days than any office at the BBC.

    As for the "dream team" meme, a whisper tells me that the notion of a Priti Patel return was a barium feed, (litotes alert) not unconnected with the Qatar problem (or what is a problem for those whose role is to keep long-term issues in their purview, if not at all problematic, short term, for others). Patel is no Mandelson and will not come back to the cabinet.

    The response to the "impugning of the integrity" of public servants at the Treasury has been telling. The reaction that "MPs shouldn't say things like that" is pathetic. It's also OK for newspapers to call judges the "enemies of the people", so long as they don't call for violence or law-breaking or commit civil wrongs. What are people afraid of? It's not up to civil servants or retired ones or the press to tell MPs what they can and can't say in the Commons. Shocked opponents could of course have responded on the issue, protesting that the said public servants have always acted, including on Brexit models, with the utmost integrity, not because it's a law of the universe that they are beyond reproach, but because, well, because they did act with integrity and there isn't a problem. Anybody who's got any issues with that should take it up with Bercow. He has the authority to smack down an MP who have spoken out of order. Since he hasn't, those who still have problems should criticise HIM.

    In a modern general election, JRM's opposition to abortion wouldn't be "neither here nor there". It would dominate the election campaign in much the same way as Farron's "gays are sinners" and lose the Tories bucketloads of votes. And that's before we even start on his hardline Brexit stance and myriad of other controversial views and the huge party infighting that would provoke. Electing JRM as leader would result in a Lib Dem surge and the Tories getting a Michael Foot vote share, with Labour coming through the middle to secure a landslide victory. Not an appealing thought.
    If JRM ran on a platform of banning abortion, it would be a big issue. Not otherwise.
    It's not as if abortion is his only strand of mentalness. He would spend the entire campaign fielding questions on contraception, divorce, the fact that he recognises no monarch since James II, etc. Having said that his Guy Crouchback's Father act is a bit of a novelty and therefore might play well to the low information voters.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    HHemmelig said:

    Sean_F said:



    If JRM ran on a platform of banning abortion, it would be a big issue. Not otherwise.

    Disagree. Farron didn't run on an anti-gay rights platform but it didn't stop him being dogged by this issue constantly. The BBC and entire mainstream media would have a field day constantly asking Mogg about abortion to the exclusion of everything else he wants to talk about; you can imagine the scaremongering Labour leaflets and billboards now.
    Frankly, I think the public would get very bored of such an approach by the media and it would be counterproductive.
  • RoyalBlue said:

    Farron’s troubles were a product of his cowardice in refusing to be honest with the electorate while purporting to lead a party with ‘Liberal’ in the title. He deserved everything he got.

    It's inexplicable that he didn't deal with the question by saying that we're all sinners and making light of it.
    Yes, the problem was not the belief but the way he handled it. He appeared weak, which was part of a more general image problem he had.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    edited February 2018
    HHemmelig said:

    Sean_F said:



    If JRM ran on a platform of banning abortion, it would be a big issue. Not otherwise.

    Disagree. Farron didn't run on an anti-gay rights platform but it didn't stop him being dogged by this issue constantly. The BBC and entire mainstream media would have a field day constantly asking Mogg about abortion to the exclusion of everything else he wants to talk about; you can imagine the scaremongering Labour leaflets and billboards now.
    It was used as a stick to beat Tim Farron with because (a) the Lib Dems were massively unpopular anyway (b) he was being evasive and (c) it was a point of view that most party members strongly disapproved of.

    If JRM was Conservative leader (a) might or might not apply, but (b) and (c) would not.

    Look at this way. If say, in 2014/15 Nigel Farage had said that he thought gay sex was a sin, or abortion should be banned, he would have attracted a lot of flak, but it would have caused him no trouble among party members or people planning to vote UKIP.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Sean_F said:

    HHemmelig said:

    Morn_Cres said:

    The fact that JRM is a Catholic is neither here nor there. IDS is Catholic too. JRM has an exceptionally well-crafted and well-fed image. Something like the Bristol event played remarkably well to the brand message, and the way it has been built up is unprecedented. Of course it helps that pater was editor of the Times, a more important position at least in those days than any office at the BBC.

    As for the "dream team" meme, a whisper tells me that the notion of a Priti Patel return was a barium feed, (litotes alert) not unconnected with the Qatar problem (or what is a problem for those whose role is to keep long-term issues in their purview, if not at all problematic, short term, for others). Patel is no Mandelson and will not come back to the cabinet.

    snip
    Anybody who's got any issues with that should take it up with Bercow. He has the authority to smack down an MP who have spoken out of order. Since he hasn't, those who still have problems should criticise HIM.

    In a modern general election, JRM's opposition to abortion wouldn't be "neither here nor there". It would dominate the election campaign in much the same way as Farron's "gays are sinners" and lose the Tories bucketloads of votes. And that's before we even start on his hardline Brexit stance and myriad of other controversial views and the huge party infighting that would provoke. Electing JRM as leader would result in a Lib Dem surge and the Tories getting a Michael Foot vote share, with Labour coming through the middle to secure a landslide victory. Not an appealing thought.
    If JRM ran on a platform of banning abortion, it would be a big issue. Not otherwise.
    It's not as if abortion is his only strand of mentalness. He would spend the entire campaign fielding questions on contraception, divorce, the fact that he recognises no monarch since James II, etc. Having said that his Guy Crouchback's Father act is a bit of a novelty and therefore might play well to the low information voters.
    looking forward to it!! :-)
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    Danny565 said:

    I don't know how the EU would respond, but IMO, EEA-minus-free-movement would be very much a goer with the British public, including a crucial segment of Leave voters. As much as some of the Leave elites like Dan Hannan might not like it, the referendum really was all about immigration for a lot of people.
    I agree it probably would be a goer with very many (not sure I agree as a) we're going to need immigrants for sure, b) it still means we are under a foreign court etc etc ), but I can't see the EU agreeing as they have made clear the "four freedoms" are "indivisible" for them, which has been the issue all along really, as the powers that be at an EU level see that would be the thin end of the wedge, because if you allowed a free market, except for free movement being restricted and controlled by member states, -"well then they'd all want it and then where would we be?"

    Their argument is you can't divide the "four freedoms" because then the market itself would become uneven as they see it, and you'd have gone backwards on the road to ever closer union. My counter argument is, if you keep doing what the people don't want, you are building on sand, storing up resentment, and it will all blow up in your face one day and probably in a pretty messy way.

    To borrow a movie analogy, for a bit of fun, the EU is like Skynet in Terminator - it's become self aware and is no longer actually serving the interests of those who created it but is more interested in defending its own existence. If the people want a looser arrangement between democratic states (such as no centralised freedom of movement agreement) why do you need the EU in its present form? You don't. So it's defending itself to the nth degree on "the four freedoms", even though in many ways it might be far more practical to wind back a bit and not be so rigid.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    welshowl said:

    Danny565 said:

    I don't know how the EU would respond, but IMO, EEA-minus-free-movement would be very much a goer with the British public, including a crucial segment of Leave voters. As much as some of the Leave elites like Dan Hannan might not like it, the referendum really was all about immigration for a lot of people.
    I agree it probably would be a goer with very many (not sure I agree as a) we're going to need immigrants for sure, b) it still means we are under a foreign court etc etc ), but I can't see the EU agreeing as they have made clear the "four freedoms" are "indivisible" for them, which has been the issue all along really, as the powers that be at an EU level see that would be the thin end of the wedge, because if you allowed a free market, except for free movement being restricted and controlled by member states, -"well then they'd all want it and then where would we be?"

    Their argument is you can't divide the "four freedoms" because then the market itself would become uneven as they see it, and you'd have gone backwards on the road to ever closer union. My counter argument is, if you keep doing what the people don't want, you are building on sand, storing up resentment, and it will all blow up in your face one day and probably in a pretty messy way.

    To borrow a movie analogy, for a bit of fun, the EU is like Skynet in Terminator - it's become self aware and is no longer actually serving the interests of those who created it but is more interested in defending its own existence. If the people want a looser arrangement between democratic states (such as no centralised freedom of movement agreement) why do you need the EU in its present form? You don't. So it's defending itself to the nth degree on "the four freedoms", even though in many ways it might be far more practical to wind back a bit and not be so rigid.
    I've always though that the argument "we can't agree that, because then everyone would want the same" is an odd one. It never seems to occur that that might mean that "everyone" is in the right.

  • Mr. F, how could the numerous peasantry possibly be right and the elite few of the bureaucracy be wrong? You must be mad to suggest such a thing.
  • They would refuse. They've been 100% explicit that the 4 freedoms are indivisible and to offer that would tear the EU apart as other nations would want it.

    Though the fact other nations would want it should if people were rational show its a good idea, not a bad one. But that's not the way they see it. Giving people what they want isn't their idea which is why we're leaving.
    I think the question has to be asked, 'How much would a freedom of movement opt out cost?' Everything has a price surely?
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    I am not sure how the Lib Dems -or Labour -can "oppose Brexit" after it has happened. The next election is in 2022 and we are leaving in 2019.

    it also seems a very odd voter that goes to a polling station and decides "I am going to vote for a party that opposes something that has already happened and which was supported by 52% of voters in a democratic referendum".
  • They would refuse. They've been 100% explicit that the 4 freedoms are indivisible and to offer that would tear the EU apart as other nations would want it.

    Though the fact other nations would want it should if people were rational show its a good idea, not a bad one. But that's not the way they see it. Giving people what they want isn't their idea which is why we're leaving.
    I think the question has to be asked, 'How much would a freedom of movement opt out cost?' Everything has a price surely?
    I dunno. Maybe ask one David Cameron. Who presumably tried to find out the answer when 'negotiating' with EU.

    Tell me he did try...
  • They would refuse. They've been 100% explicit that the 4 freedoms are indivisible and to offer that would tear the EU apart as other nations would want it.

    Though the fact other nations would want it should if people were rational show its a good idea, not a bad one. But that's not the way they see it. Giving people what they want isn't their idea which is why we're leaving.
    I think the question has to be asked, 'How much would a freedom of movement opt out cost?' Everything has a price surely?
    Canada has a trade agreement with the EU without any freedom of movement price being paid.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Once Brexit is out of the way in 12-18 months the Cons are going to be 10+ points clear.

  • TGOHF said:

    Once Brexit is out of the way in 12-18 months the Cons are going to be 10+ points clear.

    That one's a keeper. The fallout from Brexit will still be a major political issue well into the 2030s.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    TGOHF said:

    Once Brexit is out of the way in 12-18 months

    ROFLMAO
  • Really have to wonder why Labour aren't doing better...
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617
    edited February 2018
    stevef said:

    I am not sure how the Lib Dems -or Labour -can "oppose Brexit" after it has happened. The next election is in 2022 and we are leaving in 2019.

    We will be in transition under exactly the same rules & obligations as EU membership (except no voting rights) until at least 2021. Remainers have to either secure an extended transition period or precipitate a general election a year or so earlier than 2022; then it's not impossible to envisage a Labour government to keep us in permanent transition as long as the EU accepts that.
  • Danny565 said:

    I don't know how the EU would respond, but IMO, EEA-minus-free-movement would be very much a goer with the British public, including a crucial segment of Leave voters. As much as some of the Leave elites like Dan Hannan might not like it, the referendum really was all about immigration for a lot of people.
    Evan Davis forgets that being in the customs union means we can not independently negotiate trade agreements with non EU countries - a red line.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    HHemmelig said:

    TGOHF said:

    Once Brexit is out of the way in 12-18 months the Cons are going to be 10+ points clear.

    That one's a keeper. The fallout from Brexit will still be a major political issue well into the 2030s.
    Even if you won't have moved on by then the rest of the nation nearly has. And more importantly the EU will have.

    Once the EU adjusts to life after Brexit and has to focus on the next budget round - 90% of the sound and fury from the Stockholm syndrome metropolitan journos and fury tweeters will disappear.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    edited February 2018
    I think the EU could compromise on Freedom of Movement. It isn't an all or nothing thing. But the concessions would be limited and would come at a price. Freedom of Movement isn't mainly about visas. It's a requirement on member states to treat nationals of other member states in the same way as your nationals, without discrimination. So the UK would have to identify what kind of discrimination it might want to apply and to demonstrate it wouldn't have any effect on the Single Market and the level playing field.
  • Really have to wonder why Labour aren't doing better...
    I have an idea about that and I’ll explain on Sunday.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/06/soft-brexit-dead-nick-clegg-admits-defeat/

    "Nick Clegg has conceded defeat in his fight to keep Britain in the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union and admitted that ‘soft Brexit’ is dead."
  • tlg86 said:

    Have things changed since June 2017? The first scenario happened at the election and Labour still got 40% of the vote.

    One would best describe Labour's position in the 2017 GE as constructively ambiguous.
  • ... and Lib Dems on the march. :)
  • Sean_F said:

    Who hasn't worn a Nazi uniform at some point?
    image
  • Sean_F said:

    Who hasn't worn a Nazi uniform at some point?
    image
    What u get up to in privacy of your own bedroom is your business, Sunil, and nobody else's.
  • Really have to wonder why Labour aren't doing better...
    Several reasons spring to mind

    1. Nothing has really changed in the last few months - on the macro- stats, the country is doing well, more people in work, GDP up, all the broad brush stuff

    2. Corbyn is, basically, poor at day to day politics. Would agree with tyson in that he don't much care about it. So you've got him at his high water point but no higher.

    3. Two blocs quite split with nothing to change minds so much. This is fairly existential stuff being debated, with the faux outrages that the news produces mere chip paper.

    3b. Think also people want a few years without an election, cheers, thanks, bye.

    This all results in: Nothing is likely to change until either May goes or Brexit stuff finished. Or Corbyn gets eaten by a sex otter or something.
  • Mr. Punter, Max Mosley would agree :p
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    edited February 2018

    Danny565 said:

    I don't know how the EU would respond, but IMO, EEA-minus-free-movement would be very much a goer with the British public, including a crucial segment of Leave voters. As much as some of the Leave elites like Dan Hannan might not like it, the referendum really was all about immigration for a lot of people.
    Evan Davis forgets that being in the customs union means we can not independently negotiate trade agreements with non EU countries - a red line.

    If we are no longer members of the EU we will have to negotiate our trade agreements with non-EU countries whether we are in a customs union with the EU or not. It's a question of what those agreements say. How much are we and third parties likely to want to change those tariffs and deviate from agreements we/they already have with each other through the EU? Making it a red line is stupid.
  • Really have to wonder why Labour aren't doing better...
    I have an idea about that and I’ll explain on Sunday.
    Well I think a huge amount of the Brexit 'froth' is just that: 'froth'. I really don't think it's filtering down to the public at all.

    The end result might, and that's all that really matters.
  • Sean_F said:

    Who hasn't worn a Nazi uniform at some point?
    image
    What u get up to in privacy of your own bedroom is your business, Sunil, and nobody else's.
    That's actually Ed Balls, Peter.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    I'm beginning to think No Deal is becoming more likely. I always assumed there would be an mutual fudge at the end.

    There are too many irreconcilable demands and needs within our national politics and between us and EU.

    In a perverse way it may become easier to reconcile more of these between us and EU from a No Deal position.
  • Mr. H, would Grieve et al. seek to have the 'meaningful vote' on leaving without a deal or remaining, or for a referendum on said terms?
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049

    Really have to wonder why Labour aren't doing better...

    To start with they have a leader with as much interest in leading the opposition or in Brexit for that matter as he has in promoting whiskey or F1.....
  • Doherty, a civil judge sitting in the court of session in Edinburgh, also awarded full costs of the hearing and the case to the UK government, which had opposed the application.

    The seven pro-EU politicians, backed with funding from the Good Law Project set up by Jolyon Maugham QC, will decide whether to appeal.
  • Really have to wonder why Labour aren't doing better...

    Oh, Jeremy Corbyn ...

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited February 2018
    philiph said:

    In a perverse way it may become easier to reconcile more of these between us and EU from a No Deal position.

    Once you've burnt the house down you don't have to worry about damaging the existing structure of the house when you try to build something new.

    I don't advise it as an approach for DIY, or international relations, though.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Theresa May should make it clear that if the deal is rejected in the House of Commons, there will be a General Election. That should give Soubry et al. some food for thought.

    Talk me through the mechanism for this, with especial reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Government ministers, Brexiteers and opposition MPs will easily make up the required two-thirds majority. The election would be in December.

    I’m not looking forward to it either.
    Opposition MPs will not be supportive on this occasion. They have a direct route to power that does not require a general election.
    Mr Meeks, you know perfectly well that political reality dictates that opposition parties cannot oppose an early election. The taunting and mockery of the government would be unending, and I don’t think you’ve looked at Jeremy Corbyn very carefully if you think he would ever turn down an opportunity to campaign against a Tory government. It’s what he lives for, and it enlivens him.
    You're missing the point. In a hung Parliament with the government party in such disarray that it cannot get its flagship policy through its own party, the opposition could properly insist on taking over the reins without a general election. It has no reason to co-operate with Theresa May, the more so since that would help her enforce discipline on her own party. I'd expect to hear lines like "if you can't govern, move aside and let us do the job".
    How can the Queen possibly invite Corbyn to Buckingham Palace when the parliamentary arithmetic means he cannot win a vote of confidence?

    Even if you are right, Corbyn would be unable to govern. He would need to call an election almost straight away.
    I'd expect the Conservatives to abstain on votes of confidence in those circumstances until they were in a fit state to oppose.

    This is not a new idea. David Herdson suggested the same thing last summer.
    It crossed my mind the day after the last general election that if May resigned and no new leader could establish themselves that we might get a minority Labour government. It didn't seem likely but it wasn't impossible. It still isn't.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,589

    dr_spyn said:

    https://twitter.com/PA/status/960835569411555328

    A cynic might wonder, but the trial has ended.

    Why would the trial end rather than be suspended?
    Public interest vs value for money? I thought September 3rd had been pencilled in for a retrial?
  • TGOHF said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/06/soft-brexit-dead-nick-clegg-admits-defeat/

    "Nick Clegg has conceded defeat in his fight to keep Britain in the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union and admitted that ‘soft Brexit’ is dead."

    You wouldn't see Bill Cash admitting defeat if the roles were reversed. Why are so many Remainer politicians whiny soft pushovers?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Doherty, a civil judge sitting in the court of session in Edinburgh, also awarded full costs of the hearing and the case to the UK government, which had opposed the application.

    The seven pro-EU politicians, backed with funding from the Good Law Project set up by Jolyon Maugham QC, will decide whether to appeal.
    I could have told them they would take a dim view of spoilt Southerners court shopping ..
  • Doherty, a civil judge sitting in the court of session in Edinburgh, also awarded full costs of the hearing and the case to the UK government, which had opposed the application.

    The seven pro-EU politicians, backed with funding from the Good Law Project set up by Jolyon Maugham QC, will decide whether to appeal.
    Jo is a perfectly good lawyer, he must have known and must know that on conventional principles the case is doomed to fail, however strong the argument that "MPs must know".
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    edited February 2018
    If Brexit could somehow be more directly associated the IRA, beards, Unions, Palestine, nuclear bombs, anti Americanism, Hugo Chavez, the Internationale, or anything to with trains or drainpipe covers....something along those lines...then maybe someone could raise Corbyn from his lethargy....

    I just don't think talking about trade deals, customs unions, tariffs and the single market floats his boat one iota. To be brutally honest any discussion about trade is fucking tedious mind...it's why we have no-one in Britain except Richard Tyndall or Nebavi perhaps who have an interest here. You have to be at the extreme end of the spectrum.....and although Jezza is on the spectrum, his obsessions are lettuces and 70's lefty nostalgia politics and trains....
  • tyson said:

    If Brexit could somehow be more directly associated the IRA, beards, Unions, Palestine, nuclear bombs, anti Americanism, Hugo Chavez, the Internationale....something along those lines...then maybe someone could raise Corbyn from his lethargy....

    I just don't think talking about trade deals, customs unions, tariffs and the single market floats his boat one iota. To be brutally honest any discussion about trade is fucking tedious mind...it's why we have no-one in Britain except Richard Tyndall or Nebavi perhaps who have an interest here. You have to be at the extreme end of the spectrum.....and although Jezza is on the spectrum, his obsessions are lettuces and 70's lefty nostalgia politics.....

    I don't think he (and momentum) get economics and business full stop. Business is just there to extract the maximum tax from.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870
    TGOHF said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/06/soft-brexit-dead-nick-clegg-admits-defeat/

    "Nick Clegg has conceded defeat in his fight to keep Britain in the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union and admitted that ‘soft Brexit’ is dead."

    Clegg managed to obliterate the Liberal Democrats after a 30-year run of success under other leaders, while enabling a bunch of Conservative policies entirely antithetical to his own supporters and his manifesto, so I'm not greatly inclined to trust his political judgement.

    He is one of these people, like Blair, who would be best advised to realise that you have your hour in the sun and that the baton then moves on to others.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870
    FF43 said:

    I think the EU could compromise on Freedom of Movement. It isn't an all or nothing thing. But the concessions would be limited and would come at a price. Freedom of Movement isn't mainly about visas. It's a requirement on member states to treat nationals of other member states in the same way as your nationals, without discrimination. So the UK would have to identify what kind of discrimination it might want to apply and to demonstrate it wouldn't have any effect on the Single Market and the level playing field.
    This solution already exists, of course, because Liechtenstein has it: EFTA membership without Freedom of Movement.
  • philiph said:

    I'm beginning to think No Deal is becoming more likely. I always assumed there would be an mutual fudge at the end.

    There are too many irreconcilable demands and needs within our national politics and between us and EU.

    In a perverse way it may become easier to reconcile more of these between us and EU from a No Deal position.

    Replace the Good Friday Agreement instead?
  • ‪Just how bad do you have to be to be just one point ahead in the polls of a party run by wealthy, ex-public school Marxists who embrace anti-Semites and the fascist left while standing shoulder to shoulder with any despotic regime that opposes the West?‬
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    stevef said:

    I am not sure how the Lib Dems -or Labour -can "oppose Brexit" after it has happened. The next election is in 2022 and we are leaving in 2019.

    it also seems a very odd voter that goes to a polling station and decides "I am going to vote for a party that opposes something that has already happened and which was supported by 52% of voters in a democratic referendum".

    Well that's how democracy works. If you want something you join together with like minded people in a party to achieve what you want at the ballot box. If a party puts rejoining in its manifesto and wins the election we can rejoin. Preferably in 2022. But it is going to happen at some point.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049

    tyson said:

    If Brexit could somehow be more directly associated the IRA, beards, Unions, Palestine, nuclear bombs, anti Americanism, Hugo Chavez, the Internationale....something along those lines...then maybe someone could raise Corbyn from his lethargy....

    I just don't think talking about trade deals, customs unions, tariffs and the single market floats his boat one iota. To be brutally honest any discussion about trade is fucking tedious mind...it's why we have no-one in Britain except Richard Tyndall or Nebavi perhaps who have an interest here. You have to be at the extreme end of the spectrum.....and although Jezza is on the spectrum, his obsessions are lettuces and 70's lefty nostalgia politics.....

    I don't think he (and momentum) get economics and business full stop. Business is just there to extract the maximum tax from.
    But he's an expert on Victorian drainpipe covers and train timetables.....

    but talking about businesses is really, really dull
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776

    ‪Just how bad do you have to be to be just one point ahead in the polls of a party run by wealthy, ex-public school Marxists who embrace anti-Semites and the fascist left while standing shoulder to shoulder with any despotic regime that opposes the West?‬

    This bad?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    edited February 2018
    On topic, I see that the current approach to Brexit appeals to nearly nobody, Remainer or Brexiteer.


    https://twitter.com/AndrewSparrow/status/960843620575268864
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,723

    TGOHF said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/06/soft-brexit-dead-nick-clegg-admits-defeat/

    "Nick Clegg has conceded defeat in his fight to keep Britain in the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union and admitted that ‘soft Brexit’ is dead."

    You wouldn't see Bill Cash admitting defeat if the roles were reversed. Why are so many Remainer politicians whiny soft pushovers?
    Accept the political reality and you're a whiny soft pushover. Refise to accept it and you're a denier of democracy, traitor or something like that.

    Why can't you just accept that someone has given up their attempt to derail you and your friends efforts to wreck the British economy and ruin British industry.

    Not that I think he should have!
  • ‪Just how bad do you have to be to be just one point ahead in the polls of a party run by wealthy, ex-public school Marxists who embrace anti-Semites and the fascist left while standing shoulder to shoulder with any despotic regime that opposes the West?‬

    Don't you mean "how on earth can 40% of the electorate support ex-public school Marxists who embrace anti-Semites and the fascist left while standing shoulder to shoulder with any despotic regime that opposes the West"?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,589

    ‪Just how bad do you have to be to be just one point ahead in the polls of a party run by wealthy, ex-public school Marxists who embrace anti-Semites and the fascist left while standing shoulder to shoulder with any despotic regime that opposes the West?‬

    Don't you mean "how on earth can 40% of the electorate support ex-public school Marxists who embrace anti-Semites and the fascist left while standing shoulder to shoulder with any despotic regime that opposes the West"?

    ‪Just how bad do you have to be to be just one point ahead in the polls of a party run by wealthy, ex-public school Marxists who embrace anti-Semites and the fascist left while standing shoulder to shoulder with any despotic regime that opposes the West?‬

    Don't you mean "how on earth can 40% of the electorate support ex-public school Marxists who embrace anti-Semites and the fascist left while standing shoulder to shoulder with any despotic regime that opposes the West"?
    It is an interesting conundrum, explained only by the fact the alternative is so abject! A plague on both their houses!
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,545
    TGOHF said:

    Once Brexit is out of the way in 12-18 months the Cons are going to be 10+ points clear.

    in third?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    I see Britain First have said they'll "turn their cannons" on anyone harassing Jacob Rees-Mogg. One thing Rees-Mogg seems to share with Trump is an ability to inspire intense loyalty in some unsavoury people.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    They have just been having a phone-in on what is the biggest advancement for women in the last hundred years....the vote...the pill....the abortion act .....gender equality

    ........and a man called in and suggested sat-nav
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676

    dr_spyn said:

    https://twitter.com/PA/status/960835569411555328

    A cynic might wonder, but the trial has ended.

    Ernest Saunders rides again!
    Usual stitch up for the chums, when do rich people ever get convicted
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    If Brexit could somehow be more directly associated the IRA, beards, Unions, Palestine, nuclear bombs, anti Americanism, Hugo Chavez, the Internationale....something along those lines...then maybe someone could raise Corbyn from his lethargy....

    I just don't think talking about trade deals, customs unions, tariffs and the single market floats his boat one iota. To be brutally honest any discussion about trade is fucking tedious mind...it's why we have no-one in Britain except Richard Tyndall or Nebavi perhaps who have an interest here. You have to be at the extreme end of the spectrum.....and although Jezza is on the spectrum, his obsessions are lettuces and 70's lefty nostalgia politics.....

    I don't think he (and momentum) get economics and business full stop. Business is just there to extract the maximum tax from.
    But he's an expert on Victorian drainpipe covers and train timetables.....

    but talking about businesses is really, really dull
    To be fair to Corbyn he is in tune I suspect with the British public that they want Brexit done, dusted and to move on to something more interesting.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    Roger said:

    They have just been having a phone-in on what is the biggest advancement for women in the last hundred years....the vote...the pill....the abortion act .....gender equality

    ........and a man called in and suggested sat-nav

    That's very funny.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    On the day that some women got the vote 100 years ago, it is worth recalling John McDonnell's comments about lynching a female politician he disagrees with.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87v0XvS8gMs

    John McDonnell tries to wriggle out by saying he was only quoting. But if you quote someone in a speech without condemning that quote, then you are tacitly agreeing with it. imagine if a Tory MP quoted the Ku Klux Klan when talking about a black Labour MP, without condemning it.. McDonnell would rightly be up in arms.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    FF43 said:

    I think the EU could compromise on Freedom of Movement. It isn't an all or nothing thing. But the concessions would be limited and would come at a price. Freedom of Movement isn't mainly about visas. It's a requirement on member states to treat nationals of other member states in the same way as your nationals, without discrimination. So the UK would have to identify what kind of discrimination it might want to apply and to demonstrate it wouldn't have any effect on the Single Market and the level playing field.
    This solution already exists, of course, because Liechtenstein has it: EFTA membership without Freedom of Movement.
    Liechtenstein is the size of a pocket handkerchief and is mostly mountain. It's as populous as Bridgewater or Camberley. It can justify its exemption.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,723
    Roger said:

    They have just been having a phone-in on what is the biggest advancement for women in the last hundred years....the vote...the pill....the abortion act .....gender equality

    ........and a man called in and suggested sat-nav

    Either brave or for a bet.
  • NEW THREAD

  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    Roger said:

    They have just been having a phone-in on what is the biggest advancement for women in the last hundred years....the vote...the pill....the abortion act .....gender equality

    ........and a man called in and suggested sat-nav


    Excellent....
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    dr_spyn said:

    https://twitter.com/PA/status/960835569411555328

    A cynic might wonder, but the trial has ended.

    It will be a retrial when he is better - not a declaration of innocence
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    HHemmelig said:

    stevef said:

    I am not sure how the Lib Dems -or Labour -can "oppose Brexit" after it has happened. The next election is in 2022 and we are leaving in 2019.

    then it's not impossible to envisage a Labour government to keep us in permanent transition as long as the EU accepts that.
    You can check out but you can never leave?
This discussion has been closed.