Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay is the odds-on favourite to win a TV Brexit debate with C

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited November 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay is the odds-on favourite to win a TV Brexit debate with Corbyn

TMay is the betting favourite to overcome Labour leader Corbyn if the two clash in an TV debate on the proposed Brexit deal.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Game on.
  • Can I get odds on Amber Rudd winning the debate?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,035
    If May had shown up in 2017 she might have won a few more seats !
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,422
    It won't get anywhere near 8 million.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.
  • Mr. Pulpstar, or lost even more.
  • Artist said:

    It won't get anywhere near 8 million.

    12% of population must be possible
  • Artist said:

    It won't get anywhere near 8 million.

    12% of population must be possible
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    I can't find this bet on their website.

    How is "winner" defined?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,839

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    I agree with you about the Mail using the word humiliating, it's not what the question asked.
  • RobD said:

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
    He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.

    Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
    - Remain 44%
    - Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
    - Leaving EU with no deal 29%

    ("Britons Back May's Deal")
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    RobD said:

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
    I am certainly not the only one that thinks those two questions about MPs were leading and problematic.

    How would you explain the discrepancy?

    Time was when OGH would have called the Mail out on its behaviour.


  • Q??? Would staying in the EU be humiliating?

    Daily Mail reported this as Yes 47, No 24.
    (But... this question appears not to exist in the Survation poll. At this point, we're way beyond maximising the truth's scope and into outright fabrication)

    Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'

    Agree: 47
    Disagree: 24

    And among Con voters its 60: 20

    You really haven't covered yourself in glory with this Survation poll, have you? First you accused Survation of Push Polling, then you cited a two week old poll as proof the Mail are lying - and now you can't even read the tables when you do have them in front of you....
    The daily mail states it as "it would be humiliating". That's not nearly what the question asks, like the other questions, it's a gross misrepresentation of the data.
    You're the one thats lying.

    The Mail writes: Reversing Brexit would damage our national standing, according to 47 per cent.

    That's a simple abbreviation of the question: Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'

    And when they do editorialise they also cite the question:

    But the public is in no doubt about the potential humiliation caused by any decision to reverse Brexit at the 11th hour – 47 per cent say it would damage our international standing against 24 per cent who disagree.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6435545/British-people-Mays-Brexit-deal-exclusive-poll-finds.html
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234

    RobD said:

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
    He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.

    Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
    - Remain 44%
    - Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
    - Leaving EU with no deal 29%

    ("Britons Back May's Deal")
    I mean, if we ban people for calling out the Daily Mail on its bullshit I don't think we'd have many people left.
  • Hmm. A small arbitrage opportunity. Perhaps.

    Ladbrokes has 6.5 (7 with boost) on a Brexit deal, 11 December, passing. Betfair as 1.25 on Brexit not being approved, but it looks like the terms are looser, covering all December.

    Check for yourself, as a second vote in December passing would, seemingly, make both red.
  • FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    The Mail have been highly selective in the presentation of the data - but the only one thats been lying is you.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346

    RobD said:

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
    He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.

    Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
    - Remain 44%
    - Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
    - Leaving EU with no deal 29%

    ("Britons Back May's Deal")
    I thought accusations of push polling were frowned upon?
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234



    Q??? Would staying in the EU be humiliating?

    Daily Mail reported this as Yes 47, No 24.
    (But... this question appears not to exist in the Survation poll. At this point, we're way beyond maximising the truth's scope and into outright fabrication)

    Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'

    Agree: 47
    Disagree: 24

    And among Con voters its 60: 20

    You really haven't covered yourself in glory with this Survation poll, have you? First you accused Survation of Push Polling, then you cited a two week old poll as proof the Mail are lying - and now you can't even read the tables when you do have them in front of you....
    The daily mail states it as "it would be humiliating". That's not nearly what the question asks, like the other questions, it's a gross misrepresentation of the data.
    You're the one thats lying.

    The Mail writes: Reversing Brexit would damage our national standing, according to 47 per cent.

    That's a simple abbreviation of the question: Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'

    And when they do editorialise they also cite the question:

    But the public is in no doubt about the potential humiliation caused by any decision to reverse Brexit at the 11th hour – 47 per cent say it would damage our international standing against 24 per cent who disagree.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6435545/British-people-Mays-Brexit-deal-exclusive-poll-finds.html
    Look, I know you when to school with May's husband, or something. But not of that excuses the Mail's obfuscation, elisions, misrepresentations and outright lies about what the poll says.

    Survation did not ask people if they thought staying in the EU would be a "humiliation".

    No such question was asked. The Mail is lying through its teeth here.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,363

    RobD said:

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
    He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.

    Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
    - Remain 44%
    - Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
    - Leaving EU with no deal 29%

    ("Britons Back May's Deal")
    The Mail is being no more misleading than most papers are when reporting polls.

    Strictly speaking, they should have said "a plurality support May's deal." (37/35%)
  • It depends what you mean by win.

    Is anybody going to be shocked if Jezza just does it usual schtick, but at the end says he backs a second referendum.

    The media will go wild and it won't matter what careful arguments RoboMay might have put out.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
    He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.

    Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
    - Remain 44%
    - Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
    - Leaving EU with no deal 29%

    ("Britons Back May's Deal")
    I thought accusations of push polling were frowned upon?
    I didn't accuse anyone of push polling. I said a couple of the questions were leading. I'm not implying any malice here. I just think Survation were a bit careless especially as the Mail has a clear agenda here to misrepresent the results as far as possible.
  • Poor Guido, what a knob.

    The Daily Mail has made strong representations that our previous headline “Daily Mail Twists Own Poll Results, Public Opposes May’s Deal, Frontpage Headline Says Opposite” was unfair and untrue. On further reflection we accept that we were quoting from two different polls commissioned by the Daily Mail two weeks apart. We have now changed the headline and the content of this story. We accept that their front page story reflects accurately and truthfully data from the second poll. We apologise in particular


    https://order-order.com/2018/11/28/daily-mail-twists-poll-results-public-opposes-mays-deal-frontpage-headline-say-opposite/
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 32,153
    edited November 2018



    Q??? Would staying in the EU be humiliating?

    Daily Mail reported this as Yes 47, No 24.
    (But... this question appears not to exist in the Survation poll. At this point, we're way beyond maximising the truth's scope and into outright fabrication)

    Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'

    Agree: 47
    Disagree: 24

    And among Con voters its 60: 20

    You really haven't covered yourself in glory with this Survation poll, have you? First you accused Survation of Push Polling, then you cited a two week old poll as proof the Mail are lying - and now you can't even read the tables when you do have them in front of you....
    The daily mail states it as "it would be humiliating". That's not nearly what the question asks, like the other questions, it's a gross misrepresentation of the data.
    You're the one thats lying.

    The Mail writes: Reversing Brexit would damage our national standing, according to 47 per cent.

    That's a simple abbreviation of the question: Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'

    And when they do editorialise they also cite the question:

    But the public is in no doubt about the potential humiliation caused by any decision to reverse Brexit at the 11th hour – 47 per cent say it would damage our international standing against 24 per cent who disagree.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6435545/British-people-Mays-Brexit-deal-exclusive-poll-finds.html
    Survation did not ask people if they thought staying in the EU would be a "humiliation".

    No such question was asked. The Mail is lying through its teeth here.
    The Mail quoted a precis of the question when they editorialised 'humiliation' - its not my fault you can't read.

    But the public is in no doubt about the potential humiliation caused by any decision to reverse Brexit at the 11th hour – 47 per cent say it would damage our international standing against 24 per cent who disagree.
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,306
    RobD said:

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
    Blessed relief for everyone else. I assume (and honestly hope) this is some form of performance art which will next see the light of day at the Turner Prize awards.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
    He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.

    Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
    - Remain 44%
    - Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
    - Leaving EU with no deal 29%

    ("Britons Back May's Deal")
    I thought accusations of push polling were frowned upon?
    I didn't accuse anyone of push polling. I said a couple of the questions were leading. I'm not implying any malice here. I just think Survation were a bit careless especially as the Mail has a clear agenda here to misrepresent the results as far as possible.
    Fair enough. I don’t see them as leading myself, and I suspect you are still climbing down from your stance yesterday based off a week-old poll.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    Sean_F said:



    The Mail is being no more misleading than most papers are when reporting polls.

    Strictly speaking, they should have said "a plurality support May's deal." (37/35%)

    I dispute that. The Mail has tried to build an entire front page narrative around selective misrepresentation of a poll. I know everyone misrepresents polls to some extent, but this seems to me of a different class of fraudulent.

    One thing is certain though, the Mail's behaviour will almost certainly anger Tories and harden opposition to May.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346

    Poor Guido, what a knob.

    The Daily Mail has made strong representations that our previous headline “Daily Mail Twists Own Poll Results, Public Opposes May’s Deal, Frontpage Headline Says Opposite” was unfair and untrue. On further reflection we accept that we were quoting from two different polls commissioned by the Daily Mail two weeks apart. We have now changed the headline and the content of this story. We accept that their front page story reflects accurately and truthfully data from the second poll. We apologise in particular


    https://order-order.com/2018/11/28/daily-mail-twists-poll-results-public-opposes-mays-deal-frontpage-headline-say-opposite/

    Guido has a correction and clarifications dept? :o
  • NotchNotch Posts: 145
    A "Great Brexit Betrayal" march is planned for 9 December, led by UKIP leader Gerard Batten's adviser Tommy Robinson, starting in Park Lane and ending in Whitehall. Is this likely to be a big thing or will it be in the same category as previous events featuring about 20 tattooed middle-aged men shouting? Will Lord Pearson of Leave send his apologies?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346
    matt said:

    RobD said:

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
    Blessed relief for everyone else. I assume (and honestly hope) this is some form of performance art which will next see the light of day at the Turner Prize awards.
    Im honesty surprised the word xenophobe hasn’t appeared in any of their posts on this thread. :p
  • I’ve completed polls by YouGov and Populus on this and the wider Brexit questions.

    I’d expect to see the YouGov in either tomorrow’s edition or Friday’s edition.
  • Putting Emmanuel Macron's low poll ratings into context:

  • Poor Guido, what a knob.

    The Daily Mail has made strong representations that our previous headline “Daily Mail Twists Own Poll Results, Public Opposes May’s Deal, Frontpage Headline Says Opposite” was unfair and untrue. On further reflection we accept that we were quoting from two different polls commissioned by the Daily Mail two weeks apart. We have now changed the headline and the content of this story. We accept that their front page story reflects accurately and truthfully data from the second poll. We apologise in particular


    https://order-order.com/2018/11/28/daily-mail-twists-poll-results-public-opposes-mays-deal-frontpage-headline-say-opposite/

    He has friends on this site.....
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
    He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.

    Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
    - Remain 44%
    - Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
    - Leaving EU with no deal 29%

    ("Britons Back May's Deal")
    I thought accusations of push polling were frowned upon?
    I didn't accuse anyone of push polling. I said a couple of the questions were leading. I'm not implying any malice here. I just think Survation were a bit careless especially as the Mail has a clear agenda here to misrepresent the results as far as possible.
    Fair enough. I don’t see them as leading myself, and I suspect you are still climbing down from your stance yesterday based off a week-old poll.
    If the questions weren't leading, I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation of the discrepancy between how people say they'd vote, and how they want MPs to vote.

    I accept there might be an explanation that doesn't involve leading questions (though so far nobody has indicated what that might be).

    But Occam's Razor suggests the discrepancy is a procedural error. I guess we need more polls to be sure.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,363

    Sean_F said:



    The Mail is being no more misleading than most papers are when reporting polls.

    Strictly speaking, they should have said "a plurality support May's deal." (37/35%)

    I dispute that. The Mail has tried to build an entire front page narrative around selective misrepresentation of a poll. I know everyone misrepresents polls to some extent, but this seems to me of a different class of fraudulent.

    One thing is certain though, the Mail's behaviour will almost certainly anger Tories and harden opposition to May.

    Tory voters are very supportive of May, although I agree that Tory MPs are not.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346
    Notch said:

    A "Great Brexit Betrayal" march is planned for 9 December, led by UKIP leader Gerard Batten's adviser Tommy Robinson, starting in Park Lane and ending in Whitehall. Is this likely to be a big thing or will it be in the same category as previous events featuring about 20 tattooed middle-aged men shouting? Will Lord Pearson of Leave send his apologies?

    The latter, hopefully. Batten is mad.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234



    Q??? Would staying in the EU be humiliating?

    Daily Mail reported this as Yes 47, No 24.
    (But... this question appears not to exist in the Survation poll. At this point, we're way beyond maximising the truth's scope and into outright fabrication)

    Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'

    Agree: 47
    Disagree: 24

    And among Con voters its 60: 20

    You really haven't covered yourself in glory with this Survation poll, have you? First you accused Survation of Push Polling, then you cited a two week old poll as proof the Mail are lying - and now you can't even read the tables when you do have them in front of you....
    The daily mail states it as "it would be humiliating". That's not nearly what the question asks, like the other questions, it's a gross misrepresentation of the data.
    You're the one thats lying.

    The Mail writes: Reversing Brexit would damage our national standing, according to 47 per cent.

    That's a simple abbreviation of the question: Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'

    And when they do editorialise they also cite the question:

    But the public is in no doubt about the potential humiliation caused by any decision to reverse Brexit at the 11th hour – 47 per cent say it would damage our international standing against 24 per cent who disagree.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6435545/British-people-Mays-Brexit-deal-exclusive-poll-finds.html
    Survation did not ask people if they thought staying in the EU would be a "humiliation".

    No such question was asked. The Mail is lying through its teeth here.
    The Mail quoted a precis of the question when they editorialised 'humiliation' - its not my fault you can't read.

    But the public is in no doubt about the potential humiliation caused by any decision to reverse Brexit at the 11th hour – 47 per cent say it would damage our international standing against 24 per cent who disagree.
    Oh, they "editorialised". They didn't lie, they "editorialised".

    This is quite a fun euphemism.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
    He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.

    Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
    - Remain 44%
    - Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
    - Leaving EU with no deal 29%

    ("Britons Back May's Deal")
    I thought accusations of push polling were frowned upon?
    I didn't accuse anyone of push polling. I said a couple of the questions were leading. I'm not implying any malice here. I just think Survation were a bit careless especially as the Mail has a clear agenda here to misrepresent the results as far as possible.
    Fair enough. I don’t see them as leading myself, and I suspect you are still climbing down from your stance yesterday based off a week-old poll.
    If the questions weren't leading, I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation of the discrepancy between how people say they'd vote, and how they want MPs to vote.

    I accept there might be an explanation that doesn't involve leading questions (though so far nobody has indicated what that might be).

    But Occam's Razor suggests the discrepancy is a procedural error. I guess we need more polls to be sure.
    People are idiots.
  • Scott_P said:
    Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

    11 Dec - Deal voted down
    12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
    13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
    Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
    Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
    mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
    late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

    Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.


  • You're the one thats lying.

    The Mail writes: Reversing Brexit would damage our national standing, according to 47 per cent.

    That's a simple abbreviation of the question: Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'

    And when they do editorialise they also cite the question:

    But the public is in no doubt about the potential humiliation caused by any decision to reverse Brexit at the 11th hour – 47 per cent say it would damage our international standing against 24 per cent who disagree.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6435545/British-people-Mays-Brexit-deal-exclusive-poll-finds.html

    The front page (which headed the last thread) says;

    "voters insist staying in the EU would be a humiliation"

    and claims the question is

    "Would staying in EU be humiliating?"

    Surely rather dodgy if Survation never used the words humiliation or humiliating?

  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
    He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.

    Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
    - Remain 44%
    - Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
    - Leaving EU with no deal 29%

    ("Britons Back May's Deal")
    I thought accusations of push polling were frowned upon?
    I didn't accuse anyone of push polling. I said a couple of the questions were leading. I'm not implying any malice here. I just think Survation were a bit careless especially as the Mail has a clear agenda here to misrepresent the results as far as possible.
    Fair enough. I don’t see them as leading myself, and I suspect you are still climbing down from your stance yesterday based off a week-old poll.
    If the questions weren't leading, I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation of the discrepancy between how people say they'd vote, and how they want MPs to vote.

    I accept there might be an explanation that doesn't involve leading questions (though so far nobody has indicated what that might be).

    But Occam's Razor suggests the discrepancy is a procedural error. I guess we need more polls to be sure.
    It’s the fantasy/reality thing.

    We’d all like a job that pays £10 million a year but we’d be happy with a job that pays ‘only’ £250k per year.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,363

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
    He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.

    Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
    - Remain 44%
    - Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
    - Leaving EU with no deal 29%

    ("Britons Back May's Deal")
    I thought accusations of push polling were frowned upon?
    I didn't accuse anyone of push polling. I said a couple of the questions were leading. I'm not implying any malice here. I just think Survation were a bit careless especially as the Mail has a clear agenda here to misrepresent the results as far as possible.
    Fair enough. I don’t see them as leading myself, and I suspect you are still climbing down from your stance yesterday based off a week-old poll.
    If the questions weren't leading, I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation of the discrepancy between how people say they'd vote, and how they want MPs to vote.

    I accept there might be an explanation that doesn't involve leading questions (though so far nobody has indicated what that might be).

    But Occam's Razor suggests the discrepancy is a procedural error. I guess we need more polls to be sure.
    There's little discrepancy., 35-37% support May's deal, 41% want MPs to support it. That's typical of the variance you get in a poll, depending on the question that gets asked.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,715
    Key point about Mail Survation poll is the direction of travel, not the absolute numbers.

    What is clear is that support for the deal is increasing, even if it's still 3rd behind Remain and No Deal.

    The point is there is at least some momentum towards support for the deal - and if that momentum continues then support for the deal could move into 2nd or even 1st place.

    Momentum is important in politics - as we've seen over the last few years.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346
    edited November 2018

    Scott_P said:
    Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

    11 Dec - Deal voted down
    12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
    13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
    Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
    Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
    mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
    late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

    Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
    Is four weeks enough to get it ratified on the EU side?
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
    He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.

    Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
    - Remain 44%
    - Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
    - Leaving EU with no deal 29%

    ("Britons Back May's Deal")
    I thought accusations of push polling were frowned upon?
    I didn't accuse anyone of push polling. I said a couple of the questions were leading. I'm not implying any malice here. I just think Survation were a bit careless especially as the Mail has a clear agenda here to misrepresent the results as far as possible.
    Fair enough. I don’t see them as leading myself, and I suspect you are still climbing down from your stance yesterday based off a week-old poll.
    If the questions weren't leading, I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation of the discrepancy between how people say they'd vote, and how they want MPs to vote.

    I accept there might be an explanation that doesn't involve leading questions (though so far nobody has indicated what that might be).

    But Occam's Razor suggests the discrepancy is a procedural error. I guess we need more polls to be sure.
    People are idiots.
    There is that, though in this case, they all seem to be idiots in the same direction.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,035

    Putting Emmanuel Macron's low poll ratings into context:

    Ils n'aime pas Macron, mais deteste les autres.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,363

    Putting Emmanuel Macron's low poll ratings into context:

    The French really don't like their political leaders.
    RobD said:

    Notch said:

    A "Great Brexit Betrayal" march is planned for 9 December, led by UKIP leader Gerard Batten's adviser Tommy Robinson, starting in Park Lane and ending in Whitehall. Is this likely to be a big thing or will it be in the same category as previous events featuring about 20 tattooed middle-aged men shouting? Will Lord Pearson of Leave send his apologies?

    The latter, hopefully. Batten is mad.
    Will the ERG be joining them?
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
    He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.

    Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
    - Remain 44%
    - Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
    - Leaving EU with no deal 29%

    ("Britons Back May's Deal")
    I thought accusations of push polling were frowned upon?
    I didn't accuse anyone of push polling. I said a couple of the questions were leading. I'm not implying any malice here. I just think Survation were a bit careless especially as the Mail has a clear agenda here to misrepresent the results as far as possible.
    Fair enough. I don’t see them as leading myself, and I suspect you are still climbing down from your stance yesterday based off a week-old poll.
    If the questions weren't leading, I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation of the discrepancy between how people say they'd vote, and how they want MPs to vote.

    I accept there might be an explanation that doesn't involve leading questions (though so far nobody has indicated what that might be).

    But Occam's Razor suggests the discrepancy is a procedural error. I guess we need more polls to be sure.
    It’s the fantasy/reality thing.

    We’d all like a job that pays £10 million a year but we’d be happy with a job that pays ‘only’ £250k per year.
    Chicken feed. /Boris.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    MikeL said:

    Key point about Mail Survation poll is the direction of travel, not the absolute numbers.

    What is clear is that support for the deal is increasing, even if it's still 3rd behind Remain and No Deal.

    The point is there is at least some momentum towards support for the deal - and if that momentum continues then support for the deal could move into 2nd or even 1st place.

    Momentum is important in politics - as we've seen over the last few years.

    Isn't there some rule of election that only the side who think they're going to lose invoke "momentum"?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,346
    Anorak said:
    Good lord, I hope we get AV on this one. :D
  • Sean_F said:

    Putting Emmanuel Macron's low poll ratings into context:

    The French really don't like their political leaders.
    You have to pay tribute to their judgement.


  • Q??? Would staying in the EU be humiliating?

    Daily Mail reported this as Yes 47, No 24.
    (But... this question appears not to exist in the Survation poll. At this point, we're way beyond maximising the truth's scope and into outright fabrication)

    Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'

    Agree: 47
    Disagree: 24

    And among Con voters its 60: 20

    You really haven't covered yourself in glory with this Survation poll, have you? First you accused Survation of Push Polling, then you cited a two week old poll as proof the Mail are lying - and now you can't even read the tables when you do have them in front of you....
    The daily mail states it as "it would be humiliating". That's not nearly what the question asks, like the other questions, it's a gross misrepresentation of the data.
    You're the one thats lying.

    The Mail writes: Reversing Brexit would damage our national standing, according to 47 per cent.

    That's a simple abbreviation of the question: Q22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'If the UK decided to remain in the EU it would damage the UK's international reputation'

    And when they do editorialise they also cite the question:

    But the public is in no doubt about the potential humiliation caused by any decision to reverse Brexit at the 11th hour – 47 per cent say it would damage our international standing against 24 per cent who disagree.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6435545/British-people-Mays-Brexit-deal-exclusive-poll-finds.html
    Survation did not ask people if they thought staying in the EU would be a "humiliation".

    No such question was asked. The Mail is lying through its teeth here.
    The Mail quoted a precis of the question when they editorialised 'humiliation' - its not my fault you can't read.

    But the public is in no doubt about the potential humiliation caused by any decision to reverse Brexit at the 11th hour – 47 per cent say it would damage our international standing against 24 per cent who disagree.
    Oh, they "editorialised". They didn't lie, they "editorialised".

    This is quite a fun euphemism.
    As I wrote, I can't help it if you can't read. If the Mail had said (as you claimed) that "47% said it would be humiliating" you'd have a point. But they didn't, so you don't.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,425

    Poor Guido, what a knob.

    The Daily Mail has made strong representations that our previous headline “Daily Mail Twists Own Poll Results, Public Opposes May’s Deal, Frontpage Headline Says Opposite” was unfair and untrue. On further reflection we accept that we were quoting from two different polls commissioned by the Daily Mail two weeks apart. We have now changed the headline and the content of this story. We accept that their front page story reflects accurately and truthfully data from the second poll. We apologise in particular


    https://order-order.com/2018/11/28/daily-mail-twists-poll-results-public-opposes-mays-deal-frontpage-headline-say-opposite/

    “We’ve changed the headline and the content”!
  • Mr. Anorak, no option for invading France?

    Gerrymandered ballot paper if ever I saw one.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited November 2018
    @CarlottaVance

    It's right there ON THE FRONT PAGE you monstrous honking great bellend.

    image
  • NotchNotch Posts: 145
    edited November 2018

    Scott_P said:
    Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

    11 Dec - Deal voted down
    12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
    13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
    Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
    Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
    mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
    late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

    Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
    The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,035

    Sean_F said:

    Putting Emmanuel Macron's low poll ratings into context:

    The French really don't like their political leaders.
    You have to pay tribute to their judgement.
    Where are Sarkozy and Juppe ?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,363

    Sean_F said:

    Putting Emmanuel Macron's low poll ratings into context:

    The French really don't like their political leaders.
    You have to pay tribute to their judgement.
    It's striking that they rate Macron very poorly, but think the others are *even worse*
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    To my earlier question, what happens when Bercow finds the government in contempt of Parliament?
  • @CarlottaVance

    It's right there ON THE FRONT PAGE you monstrous honking great bellend.

    And they quote the question accurately.

    I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
  • John McDonnell has almost certainly sunk Theresa May's deal now. The prospect of a second referendum is going to make it most unlikely that unenthused erstwhile Remainers will hold their noses and support it. And the ERG are too dopey to notice that they're enabling their opponents.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,425

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    FPT: On several of the questions, the Mail is to my mind clearly and unambiguously lying.

    I accused Survation of leading questions. And I stand by that: there are a couple of very leading questions, which explains the odd disconnect between how people say they'd vote (remain, no deal) and how they want MPs to vote.

    The Mail's lies and gross misrepresentations notwithstanding, I don't see how else we explain that discrepancy.

    Be careful that you don’t experience the ban hammer.
    He's not accusing a pollster of lying, he's accusing the Daily Fail of misrepresenting poll results. Which they are.

    Q10/11/12. If there was referendum tomorrow, with following 3 options on ballot paper, which would you support? (1st choice option only)
    - Remain 44%
    - Govt Brexit Agreement 22%
    - Leaving EU with no deal 29%

    ("Britons Back May's Deal")
    I thought accusations of push polling were frowned upon?
    I didn't accuse anyone of push polling. I said a couple of the questions were leading. I'm not implying any malice here. I just think Survation were a bit careless especially as the Mail has a clear agenda here to misrepresent the results as far as possible.
    Fair enough. I don’t see them as leading myself, and I suspect you are still climbing down from your stance yesterday based off a week-old poll.
    If the questions weren't leading, I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation of the discrepancy between how people say they'd vote, and how they want MPs to vote.

    I accept there might be an explanation that doesn't involve leading questions (though so far nobody has indicated what that might be).

    But Occam's Razor suggests the discrepancy is a procedural error. I guess we need more polls to be sure.
    The obvious one is related to the description of the government (I paraphrase because I don’t remember the exact quote):

    “We choose as our government men who will do things that we don’t like and don’t approve of, but know that we must do”

    Basically the public is virtue signalling. But that’s ok. They didn’t ask for the responsibility of being MPs.
  • XenonXenon Posts: 458

    Scott_P said:
    Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

    11 Dec - Deal voted down
    12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
    13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
    Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
    Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
    mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
    late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

    Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
    Didn't the EU say they would extend A50 for a referendum?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 31,853
    edited November 2018
    Weekly corrections on Carole Cadswallop article...

    UPDATE II: The same article has been corrected for a third time, clarifying that the Centre for Policy Studies was not implicated in the Sanni case, and yet again that none of these parties coordinated to vilify Sanni. Two corrections are careless, but three seem deliberately disingenuous…

    https://order-order.com/2018/11/28/carole-correction-cadwalladr/
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234

    @CarlottaVance

    It's right there ON THE FRONT PAGE you monstrous honking great bellend.

    And they quote the question accurately.

    The infographic, that contains the lie, that you say isn't a lie, accurately represents the question, even though the question wasn't asked, because it's an infographic of an "editorialisation" of the truth?

    Trying to understand how the concept of truth works in the world of Maypologism.
  • @CarlottaVance

    It's right there ON THE FRONT PAGE you monstrous honking great bellend.

    image

    Says the man who made a total idiot of himself last night by linking to totally the wrong poll and claiming the Daily Mail totally made up the figures.
  • Notch said:

    Scott_P said:
    Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

    11 Dec - Deal voted down
    12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
    13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
    Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
    Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
    mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
    late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

    Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
    The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. Bercow could also do it on 11 December.
    An amendment to a motion isn't binding. What is binding is the Withdrawal Act that specifies Brexit Day to be 29 March 2019.

    The reality is that it will take *at least* 3 months from initial proposal to vote to hold a referendum because the government has no power to compel local authorities to participate in a referendum; there needs to be an Act of Parliament to do so. There also needs to be time for the campaigning groups to organise and register with the Electoral Commission. You can't simply have a free-for-all without spending limits or accountable individuals. And then after that, you need at least 3 weeks for the campaign itself. A month is not remotely ample time.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,445

    Poor Guido, what a knob.

    The Daily Mail has made strong representations that our previous headline “Daily Mail Twists Own Poll Results, Public Opposes May’s Deal, Frontpage Headline Says Opposite” was unfair and untrue. On further reflection we accept that we were quoting from two different polls commissioned by the Daily Mail two weeks apart. We have now changed the headline and the content of this story. We accept that their front page story reflects accurately and truthfully data from the second poll. We apologise in particular


    https://order-order.com/2018/11/28/daily-mail-twists-poll-results-public-opposes-mays-deal-frontpage-headline-say-opposite/

    He has friends on this site.....
    I'm not a particular fan, but he's always been quick to correct errors openly and obviously.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.



    This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
  • John McDonnell has almost certainly sunk Theresa May's deal now. The prospect of a second referendum is going to make it most unlikely that unenthused erstwhile Remainers will hold their noses and support it. And the ERG are too dopey to notice that they're enabling their opponents.

    Yep - it feels like the ERG are effectively voting to remain now if they block the deal in Parliament.....Amazing they don't get this. And comments from people like Mark Francois are pure virtue signalling - he is the real coward.

  • RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

    11 Dec - Deal voted down
    12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
    13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
    Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
    Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
    mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
    late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

    Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
    Is four weeks enough to get it ratified on the EU side?
    Arguably, it wouldn't need ratifying because there'd be no change to the WA, which had already been ratified. In reality, I expect that the EP would demand a vote, in addition to the Council. Either way, 4 weeks would be sufficient.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234

    @CarlottaVance

    It's right there ON THE FRONT PAGE you monstrous honking great bellend.

    image

    Says the man who made a total idiot of himself last night by linking to totally the wrong poll and claiming the Daily Mail totally made up the figures.
    Turned out it wasn't lying, it was "editorialising" so I guess we're golden.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 9,387
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Putting Emmanuel Macron's low poll ratings into context:

    The French really don't like their political leaders.
    You have to pay tribute to their judgement.
    It's striking that they rate Macron very poorly, but think the others are *even worse*
    Where else could we have heard such a sentiment expressed ... ?
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    If Labour is re-aligning, why are they doing it now?

    Do you think Labour might support the PV amendment?
  • Notch said:

    Scott_P said:
    Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

    11 Dec - Deal voted down
    12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
    13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
    Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
    Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
    mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
    late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

    Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
    The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.
    Could some learned posters here clarify what I think I read that Bercow might allow amendments to the "deal" bill after the substantive motion is lost ? Is that possible ? Or, did I misunderstand it .
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 3,273

    Scott_P said:
    Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

    11 Dec - Deal voted down
    12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
    13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
    Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
    Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
    mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
    late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

    Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
    Seems an eminently plausible series of events. If they happen we will end up with Deal, as Labour and other opposition parties will back it above No Deal.
    However, what happens Dec 12 is key. Almost anything could. Would be very surprised if there were not 48 letters. May might resign. The grey suits may call time. The govt may lose a VONC. The EU or May or both may not re open negotiations. Then all subsequent actions proceed along a very different decision tree.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,035

    If Labour is re-aligning, why are they doing it now?

    Do you think Labour might support the PV amendment?

    Does that get enough Tory rebels to pass ?
  • @CarlottaVance

    It's right there ON THE FRONT PAGE you monstrous honking great bellend.

    And they quote the question accurately.

    The infographic, that contains the lie, that you say isn't a lie, accurately represents the question, even though the question wasn't asked, because it's an infographic of an "editorialisation" of the truth?

    Trying to understand how the concept of truth works in the world of Maypologism.
    Because "Humiliating' is shorter than 'Damage Britain's International Standing' to fit in a graphic or headline?

    What other precis of the question would have satisfied you? (None I'm guessing...)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,263
    edited November 2018

    John McDonnell has almost certainly sunk Theresa May's deal now. The prospect of a second referendum is going to make it most unlikely that unenthused erstwhile Remainers will hold their noses and support it. And the ERG are too dopey to notice that they're enabling their opponents.

    Yep - it feels like the ERG are effectively voting to remain now if they block the deal in Parliament.....Amazing they don't get this. And comments from people like Mark Francois are pure virtue signalling - he is the real coward.
    Who says they don't get it? It's perfectly rational for them to prefer Remain as an outcome over what Daniel Hannan called "the sort of deal that a defeated nation signs under duress" and others have called "perpetual humiliation".
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 21,750

    It depends what you mean by win.

    Is anybody going to be shocked if Jezza just does it usual schtick, but at the end says he backs a second referendum.

    The media will go wild and it won't matter what careful arguments RoboMay might have put out.

    If he was smart (he's not) and unprincipled (he's not) that's exactly what he should do Waffle along with his usual quasi-Marxist bollocks, but then drop that bomb at the end: We want a 2nd vote. It would cat the pigeons.

    I reckon the chances of a new referendum are now greater than 50%. I can't see any other obvious way out of the impasse. No Deal really would be calamitous (tho we'd recover - eventually), TMay's Deal is worse than Remaining, by a distance. A GE solves zero.

    IF we had a 2nd vote and it was TMay's deal versus Remain I'd vote Remain.

    A vote between No Deal and Remain, I dunno.

  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234

    @CarlottaVance

    It's right there ON THE FRONT PAGE you monstrous honking great bellend.

    And they quote the question accurately.

    The infographic, that contains the lie, that you say isn't a lie, accurately represents the question, even though the question wasn't asked, because it's an infographic of an "editorialisation" of the truth?

    Trying to understand how the concept of truth works in the world of Maypologism.
    Because "Humiliating' is shorter than 'Damage Britain's International Standing' to fit in a graphic or headline?

    What other precis of the question would have satisfied you? (None I'm guessing...)
    It's shorter, and also has a different meaning. Hence "lie".
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 9,387

    McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.



    This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.

    Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,363

    Notch said:

    Scott_P said:
    Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

    11 Dec - Deal voted down
    12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
    13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
    Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
    Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
    mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
    late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

    Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
    The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. Bercow could also do it on 11 December.
    An amendment to a motion isn't binding. What is binding is the Withdrawal Act that specifies Brexit Day to be 29 March 2019.

    The reality is that it will take *at least* 3 months from initial proposal to vote to hold a referendum because the government has no power to compel local authorities to participate in a referendum; there needs to be an Act of Parliament to do so. There also needs to be time for the campaigning groups to organise and register with the Electoral Commission. You can't simply have a free-for-all without spending limits or accountable individuals. And then after that, you need at least 3 weeks for the campaign itself. A month is not remotely ample time.
    I can't help thinking that demands for a Second Referendum., pivoting to Norway + or Canada -, renegotiating the WA, getting rid of May etc. are just different forms of displacement activity.

    MP's set everything in motion when they voted to trigger A50.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    Sean_F said:

    Notch said:

    Scott_P said:
    Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

    11 Dec - Deal voted down
    12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
    13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
    Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
    Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
    mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
    late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

    Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
    The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. Bercow could also do it on 11 December.
    An amendment to a motion isn't binding. What is binding is the Withdrawal Act that specifies Brexit Day to be 29 March 2019.

    The reality is that it will take *at least* 3 months from initial proposal to vote to hold a referendum because the government has no power to compel local authorities to participate in a referendum; there needs to be an Act of Parliament to do so. There also needs to be time for the campaigning groups to organise and register with the Electoral Commission. You can't simply have a free-for-all without spending limits or accountable individuals. And then after that, you need at least 3 weeks for the campaign itself. A month is not remotely ample time.
    I can't help thinking that demands for a Second Referendum., pivoting to Norway + or Canada -, renegotiating the WA, getting rid of May etc. are just different forms of displacement activity.

    MP's set everything in motion when they voted to trigger A50.
    Parliament has to do something. Even if that something achieves nothing but generate waste heat.
  • NotchNotch Posts: 145
    edited November 2018

    To my earlier question, what happens when Bercow finds the government in contempt of Parliament?

    The recent case of the serjeant-at-arms, the hotel, and Ted Kramer, chairman of Six4Three, is relevant. The SAA arrived at the hotel and ordered Kramer to hand over the documents within two hours. Kramer refused. He was then escorted to the Palace of Westminster and informed that if he didn't hand them over he could be fined or imprisoned.

    *wonders what No.10's hinges are like*
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,445

    Mr. Anorak, no option for invading France?

    Gerrymandered ballot paper if ever I saw one.

    We'll be marching back through France with our plundered flamenco dancers and sherry. Should be the work of a long-weekend to incorporate then into the new Great Biscay Empire.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 31,853
    edited November 2018
    SeanT said:

    It depends what you mean by win.

    Is anybody going to be shocked if Jezza just does it usual schtick, but at the end says he backs a second referendum.

    The media will go wild and it won't matter what careful arguments RoboMay might have put out.

    If he was smart (he's not) and unprincipled (he's not) that's exactly what he should do Waffle along with his usual quasi-Marxist bollocks, but then drop that bomb at the end: We want a 2nd vote. It would cat the pigeons.

    I reckon the chances of a new referendum are now greater than 50%. I can't see any other obvious way out of the impasse. No Deal really would be calamitous (tho we'd recover - eventually), TMay's Deal is worse than Remaining, by a distance. A GE solves zero.

    IF we had a 2nd vote and it was TMay's deal versus Remain I'd vote Remain.

    A vote between No Deal and Remain, I dunno.

    He is a total num-nut, and hasn't even read the agreement, but I think he will be swayed by his advisers that this is the way to screw the Tories, win a GE and gain power in order to enact his socialist paradise. In the same way as he was convinced to lie about Trident Renewal and waffling about capping immigration during the GE, despite then being caught out on the phone to Seamus saying how the first was just bollocks.

    To me it is just like it was clear they would offer free uni, in the lead up they kept hinting they would and I am fairly sure for a new GE campaign they will promise to legalize weed in some form or other (probably "medical" licensing that they had in places like California for ages).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 22,057
    edited November 2018
    Nigelb said:

    McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.



    This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.

    Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?

    A No Deal Brexit that they blame on the Tories suits them rather nicely.... They can (with some validity) point to the stupidity of not planning for an outcome that had a significant threat of actually happening. All the chaos that then ensues belongs the Tories.....

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,263
    Nigelb said:

    McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.



    This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.

    Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?
    It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,363
    Notch said:

    To my earlier question, what happens when Bercow finds the government in contempt of Parliament?

    The recent case of the serjeant-at-arms, the hotel, and Ted Kramer, chairman of Six4Three, is relevant. The SAA arrived at the hotel and ordered Kramer to hand over the documents within two hours. When he refused, Kramer was escorted to the Palace of Westminster and informed that if he didn't hand them over he could be fined or imprisoned.

    *wonders what No.10's hinges are like*
    Since WWI analogies are now popular, it's like trying to come up with alternatives once the ultimatums have been sent and the armies mobilised.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,425
    Notch said:

    Scott_P said:
    Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

    11 Dec - Deal voted down
    12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
    13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
    Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
    Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
    mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
    late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

    Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
    The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.
    The “meaningful vote” is not primary legislation

    A referendum requires that
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 22,057

    Nigelb said:

    McDonnell now saying that a second referendum is 'inevitable'.



    This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.

    Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?
    It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.
    No Deal is very, very easy. It needs no "engineering". Just no Plan B that enough can be forced to get behind.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,035
    Labour are becoming very adept at dangling the carrot in front of their remain base whilst doing everything they can to ensure maximum damage to the Tories.
    Not that it's very hard to outsmart the Tories right now.
  • borisnut said:

    Notch said:

    Scott_P said:
    Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

    11 Dec - Deal voted down
    12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
    13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
    Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
    Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
    mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
    late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

    Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
    The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.
    Could some learned posters here clarify what I think I read that Bercow might allow amendments to the "deal" bill after the substantive motion is lost ? Is that possible ? Or, did I misunderstand it .
    No, it's not possible.

    He could - and probably will - allow relevant amendments to the motion to be tabled. These will be voted on before the motion itself (whether amended or as originally tabled). Only if that passes will there be a subsequent Bill. Obviously, if there is such a Bill, then MPs are free to table amendments as normal.
  • Notch said:

    Scott_P said:
    Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:

    11 Dec - Deal voted down
    12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate
    13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement.
    Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate).
    Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions.
    mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'.
    late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.

    Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
    The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.
    Wrong on almost every point.

    1.The Speaker cannot allow a binding amendment to a non binding motion.

    2. There are minimum times set down by the Electoral Commission for the various stages of referendum planning. Do you really want to have the EC saying that your Referendum Rerun does not meet basic electoral standards and should not be considered safe?

    You can be pretty sure if there is any meaningful cut into the time for developing the balanced question (12 weeks) or for picking the sides and allowing them to prepare for the referendum (10 weeks) then the EC will be making some pretty loud noises about rigging the vote.

    3. Even if you get to the vote you then have to deal with the legal challenges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Which will be all the more powerful if they can point to the referendum being rushed.


This discussion has been closed.