Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On Euro election day it looks as though it is all over for the
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On Euro election day it looks as though it is all over for the woman whose only crime was to try to implement the referendum without damaging the economy
With parts of her cabinet now in open revolt it is hard to see how even TMay can now survive. Today being election day at least gives her breathing space ahead of what has appeared likely for some time.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The Chief Whip.
> Kind-of out of the loop here so don't bet on my musings but is she actually going? I mean, she's supposed to be announcing her resignation, but I thought she'd already announced her resignation???
Nothing has changed.
> https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/1131303071441719296
Maybe they'll figure that out during the leadership contest.
She should run again.
> A thought just crossed my mind about why the Labour vote collapse is mirroring the Tory one - regardless of how crap or left wing Corbyn is, if you vote Labour as the non-Tory party, if there is no Tory party, there's no reason to vote Labour.
What a cheering thought!
No Tory Party = No Labour Party
Rarely have we witnessed a leader who so obviously lacked any kind of recognised leadership qualities. Simply painful to watch.
> > @CarlottaVance said:
> > https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/1131303071441719296
>
> Maybe they'll figure that out during the leadership contest.
>
Doubt it - I'm expecting a cavalcade of unicorns.....
> Boris should appoint Theresa May Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
I'm sure she'd tell him where to stick it......
https://www.politico.eu/article/turkey-shows-brexit-uk-britain-that-a-customs-union-can-hurt/
Nah, we have it on good authority from the giant intellectual brains of Brexiteers on here that *anyone* could have done a better job than May, and a leaver in charge would have faced no challenges at all.
Which shows the delusion amongst Brexiteers that led us into the mess.
“New research finds that voters are more likely to support a liberal candidate whose rhetoric reflects conservative values.”
https://psmag.com/news/framing-liberal-policies-within-conservative-values-can-be-uniquely-persuasive
Clearly there are different possible reasons for this result, but the effect is large enough to be interesting.
> "Only crime"? Calling an unnecessary and unwanted general election.
The snap election was a mistake but not a crime. The damn fools in the 1922 who banged the desks in support of Theresa May losing their majority, on the other hand ... and who later her a vote of confidence, are less easily forgiven.
Nah, we have it on good authority from the giant intellectual brains of Brexiteers on here that *anyone* could have done a better job than May, and a leaver in charge would have faced no challenges at all.
>
I'm sure we're looking forward to the miraculous transformation of the WA into a deal that commands the enthusiastic support of parliament in the few remaining weeks before October.....
> "In many ways it would have been better for the party if the July 2016 leadership election had resulted in a leaver taking over the helm of the party though no doubt he or she would have faced the same challenges that TMay has."
>
> Nah, we have it on good authority from the giant intellectual brains of Brexiteers on here that *anyone* could have done a better job than May, and a leaver in charge would have faced no challenges at all.
>
> Which shows the delusion amongst Brexiteers that led us into the mess.
The problem is that first Cameron and then May proceeded without a Leaver-stuffed Royal Commission establishing what Brexit meant and how to get there, and as a side-effect tying the Brexiteers to a single vision of Brexit and path to it. In other words, without slaying the Brexit unicorns.
> An interesting piece of political research:
>
> “New research finds that voters are more likely to support a liberal candidate whose rhetoric reflects conservative values.”
> https://psmag.com/news/framing-liberal-policies-within-conservative-values-can-be-uniquely-persuasive
>
> Clearly there are different possible reasons for this result, but the effect is large enough to be interesting.
Tony Blair?
> Mrs May was always a Lib Dem plant. Too many like her. We were all doomed when this useless woman became PM, without an election
There's no way in the world that Theresa May would ever fit into the Lib Dems. She has nothing much in common with us. I might as well sit here and type that she's a Farage plant and make as much sense as you're doing...
> The problem is that first Cameron and then May proceeded without a Leaver-stuffed Royal Commission establishing what Brexit meant and how to get there, and as a side-effect tying the Brexiteers to a single vision of Brexit and path to it. In other words, without slaying the Brexit unicorns.
That sounds nice in theory but the said Royal Commission would simply have written a nicely bound report recommending unicorns.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-22/warringah-tony-abbott-zali-steggal-get-up/11134502
Mrs June Micklethwaite, a 34 year old housewife and part time dinner lady, spoke exclusively to The Jacobite News Network on Wednesday. In a wide ranging interview and speaking from the parlour of her neat semi-detached home adjacent to the smelting plant in Scunthorpe, June cogently paraphrased a slogan from the European elections :
"Bollocks To May"
Leave only won because they formed a big congregation for leave in 2016 by promising the Earth to everyone: aka lying. A Royal Commission would have restricted those choices, and made the results easier to attack by remainers.
Farage and UKIP wouldn't have fallen into the trap: in fact, if they didn't take part in it, then such a Commission would have been a great target for them: it would have been an "establishment stitch-up".
The game plan is always made more complicated by the presence of the opposing team.
A revision of scores means Michael Rice's song Bigger Than Us only picked up 11 points from Saturday's final.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48375560
> > @JosiasJessop said:
>
> > "In many ways it would have been better for the party if the July 2016 leadership election had resulted in a leaver taking over the helm of the party though no doubt he or she would have faced the same challenges that TMay has."
>
> >
>
> > Nah, we have it on good authority from the giant intellectual brains of Brexiteers on here that *anyone* could have done a better job than May, and a leaver in charge would have faced no challenges at all.
>
> >
>
> > Which shows the delusion amongst Brexiteers that led us into the mess.
>
>
>
> The problem is that first Cameron and then May proceeded without a Leaver-stuffed Royal Commission establishing what Brexit meant and how to get there, and as a side-effect tying the Brexiteers to a single vision of Brexit and path to it. In other words, without slaying the Brexit unicorns.
>
> You keep on saying that, but I think it's wrongheaded. Why would leavers have taken part in such a Royal Commission, when it would have reduced and restricted the options available?
>
> Leave only won because they formed a big congregation for leave in 2016 by promising the Earth to everyone: aka lying. A Royal Commission would have restricted those choices, and made the results easier to attack by remainers.
>
> Farage and UKIP wouldn't have fallen into the trap: in fact, if they didn't take part in it, then such a Commission would have been a great target for them: it would have been an "establishment stitch-up".
Leavers would have served because they wanted to leave. They believed and still do believe in Brexit. They are not, with one or two exceptions, writing two articles and then choosing Brexit cynically as the best path to power. They really do believe that this is the route to the sunlit uplands. Oh and throwing some ermine around might have helped too.
The trouble is that no two Leavers share quite the same vision. And some of them, as we later discovered, even while holding important offices of state and having studied at both Oxford and Cambridge, did not even know that France lay just past Dover, or that Germany was not permitted, as part of the EU, to make independent trade deals on the side.
> > @JosiasJessop said:
>
> > "In many ways it would have been better for the party if the July 2016 leadership election had resulted in a leaver taking over the helm of the party though no doubt he or she would have faced the same challenges that TMay has."
>
> >
>
> > Nah, we have it on good authority from the giant intellectual brains of Brexiteers on here that *anyone* could have done a better job than May, and a leaver in charge would have faced no challenges at all.
>
> >
>
> > Which shows the delusion amongst Brexiteers that led us into the mess.
>
>
>
> The problem is that first Cameron and then May proceeded without a Leaver-stuffed Royal Commission establishing what Brexit meant and how to get there, and as a side-effect tying the Brexiteers to a single vision of Brexit and path to it. In other words, without slaying the Brexit unicorns.
>
> You keep on saying that, but I think it's wrongheaded. Why would leavers have taken part in such a Royal Commission, when it would have reduced and restricted the options available?
>
> Leave only won because they formed a big congregation for leave in 2016 by promising the Earth to everyone: aka lying. A Royal Commission would have restricted those choices, and made the results easier to attack by remainers.
>
> Farage and UKIP wouldn't have fallen into the trap: in fact, if they didn't take part in it, then such a Commission would have been a great target for them: it would have been an "establishment stitch-up".
Ah but it is the classic in politics, if you boycott, you loose all influence. Of course some leavers would have taken part, and once the door had been opened most leaver politiians would want to be on the inside.
> > @DecrepitJohnL said:
> > The problem is that first Cameron and then May proceeded without a Leaver-stuffed Royal Commission establishing what Brexit meant and how to get there, and as a side-effect tying the Brexiteers to a single vision of Brexit and path to it. In other words, without slaying the Brexit unicorns.
>
> That sounds nice in theory but the said Royal Commission would simply have written a nicely bound report recommending unicorns.
No. The "said Royal Comission" would have recommended exactly one horse. As we have seen, leavers prefer different horses, so the referendum would probably not have voted for this horse (like the republican/monarchy referendum in Australia 1999). If this horse did win the referendum, then it would have to be this horse presented to the EU, minimising the post referendum squabbles that we have had over the last three years.
> The sensible vote for all remainers is to vote Lib Dem. Give the Tories a good kicking.
Vote for anyone at all. That's the important thing. It is my no doubt flawed understanding of d'Hondt voting is that the number of seats a party wins is more-or-less independent of how the other parties' votes are distributed.
So if the Tories get only one of the five seats in Dunny-on-the-Wold, it does not matter whether opposition voters chose Labour or LibDem, Brexit Party or whatever Chuka's mob are called this week.
> > @JosiasJessop said:
> > > @JosiasJessop said:
> >
> > > "In many ways it would have been better for the party if the July 2016 leadership election had resulted in a leaver taking over the helm of the party though no doubt he or she would have faced the same challenges that TMay has."
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Nah, we have it on good authority from the giant intellectual brains of Brexiteers on here that *anyone* could have done a better job than May, and a leaver in charge would have faced no challenges at all.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Which shows the delusion amongst Brexiteers that led us into the mess.
> >
> >
> >
> > The problem is that first Cameron and then May proceeded without a Leaver-stuffed Royal Commission establishing what Brexit meant and how to get there, and as a side-effect tying the Brexiteers to a single vision of Brexit and path to it. In other words, without slaying the Brexit unicorns.
> >
> > You keep on saying that, but I think it's wrongheaded. Why would leavers have taken part in such a Royal Commission, when it would have reduced and restricted the options available?
> >
> > Leave only won because they formed a big congregation for leave in 2016 by promising the Earth to everyone: aka lying. A Royal Commission would have restricted those choices, and made the results easier to attack by remainers.
> >
> > Farage and UKIP wouldn't have fallen into the trap: in fact, if they didn't take part in it, then such a Commission would have been a great target for them: it would have been an "establishment stitch-up".
>
> Leavers would have served because they wanted to leave. They believed and still do believe in Brexit. They are not, with one or two exceptions, writing two articles and then choosing Brexit cynically as the best path to power. They really do believe that this is the route to the sunlit uplands. Oh and throwing some ermine around might have helped too.
>
> The trouble is that no two Leavers share quite the same vision. And some of them, as we later discovered, even while holding important offices of state and having studied at both Oxford and Cambridge, did not even know that France lay just past Dover, or that Germany was not permitted, as part of the EU, to make independent trade deals on the side.
Boris never believed that Leave would actually win, he wanted to position himself as a "Good Loser" type who after the referendum result could show that he was a team player as "What ho chaps, fought the fight, got beaten but I accept the result, now crack a bottle of Bollie and let's get ratty together" Eton Wall Game.
Still remember the shocked faces of Boris and Govie the morning after the result was announced as it dawned on them what they had gone and done.
>
As the leavers approach their sunlit uplands they have seen that the other side, instead of having green rolling fields, consists of a slag heap, closed down industrial works and land fill sites. "But they are british slag heaps not EU Slägheaps" they cry optimistically. Oh, and it's not sunny, it's raining.
Or, do the classic thing of taking part, constantly arguing with it in the media, and withdrawing before the final report.
> Mrs May was always a Lib Dem plant. Too many like her. We were all doomed when this useless woman became PM, without an election
If this is what passes for reasoned analysis in the overwrought world of the Conservative Party, then the Tories don't have a future and don't deserve one.
The fault, dear Tories, lies not in your leaders but in yourselves....
> > @JosiasJessop said:
>
> > > @JosiasJessop said:
>
> >
>
> > > "In many ways it would have been better for the party if the July 2016 leadership election had resulted in a leaver taking over the helm of the party though no doubt he or she would have faced the same challenges that TMay has."
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Nah, we have it on good authority from the giant intellectual brains of Brexiteers on here that *anyone* could have done a better job than May, and a leaver in charge would have faced no challenges at all.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Which shows the delusion amongst Brexiteers that led us into the mess.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The problem is that first Cameron and then May proceeded without a Leaver-stuffed Royal Commission establishing what Brexit meant and how to get there, and as a side-effect tying the Brexiteers to a single vision of Brexit and path to it. In other words, without slaying the Brexit unicorns.
>
> >
>
> > You keep on saying that, but I think it's wrongheaded. Why would leavers have taken part in such a Royal Commission, when it would have reduced and restricted the options available?
>
> >
>
> > Leave only won because they formed a big congregation for leave in 2016 by promising the Earth to everyone: aka lying. A Royal Commission would have restricted those choices, and made the results easier to attack by remainers.
>
> >
>
> > Farage and UKIP wouldn't have fallen into the trap: in fact, if they didn't take part in it, then such a Commission would have been a great target for them: it would have been an "establishment stitch-up".
>
>
>
> Ah but it is the classic in politics, if you boycott, you loose all influence. Of course some leavers would have taken part, and once the door had been opened most leaver politiians would want to be on the inside.
>
> I disagree. Whilst some would have taken part, the sizeable number of no-dealers would have realised that there was no way the Commission would grant them their wish, because it is insanity. And rather than have their name on something they disagreed with, it'd be easier to fight it from outside.
>
> Or, do the classic thing of taking part, constantly arguing with it in the media, and withdrawing before the final report.
That assumes the Brexiteers did not actually want to leave the EU, merely to rail against it. Not all Leavers can be Russian trolls.
> An interesting piece of political research:
>
> “New research finds that voters are more likely to support a liberal candidate whose rhetoric reflects conservative values.”
> https://psmag.com/news/framing-liberal-policies-within-conservative-values-can-be-uniquely-persuasive
>
> Clearly there are different possible reasons for this result, but the effect is large enough to be interesting.
Hmmmmm
Which Democratic candidate can speak of his military service in Afghanistan, and appears very comfortable in his Christianity...
Which one...
> On topic, Mike, I’m not sure that her “only crime” was trying to implement the referendum result. She committed multiple “crimes” (odd word) in *how* she worked. For example, trying to play the referendum result for narrow partisan gain.
>
> Rarely have we witnessed a leader who so obviously lacked any kind of recognised leadership qualities. Simply painful to watch.
That was exactly my thought Stuart. She has inherited a difficult situation and turned it into a total quagmire. The epitome of this was only yesterday when, to the fury of much of her own party and cabinet, she gave Labour everything that they were asking for with a bow on the top only to be met by derision. To quote herself nothing had changed and her deal is still doomed to failure.
I find it incredibly frustrating because her deal was in fact a good one and with a different leader it might well have been a compromise to bring this country back together. Instead we are down to 2 completely unsatisfactory choices. We either trash our democracy and revoke alienating a large percentage of our population from the democratic process or we leave in an unnecessarily damaging way hurting relations with our major trading partners for some time to come.
She is intelligent, hard working, willing to master the detail, conscientious and has a strong sense of duty. But she is totally incapable of building a consensus, leading, inspiring or finding a way to a compromise that a majority can live with. Its sad for her but it has been a disaster for the country.
Nice to see you posting again by the way.
> “New research finds that voters are more likely to support a liberal candidate whose rhetoric reflects conservative values.”
KLOBUCHAR!
> > @Nigelb said:
> > An interesting piece of political research:
> >
> > “New research finds that voters are more likely to support a liberal candidate whose rhetoric reflects conservative values.”
> > https://psmag.com/news/framing-liberal-policies-within-conservative-values-can-be-uniquely-persuasive
> >
> > Clearly there are different possible reasons for this result, but the effect is large enough to be interesting.
>
> Hmmmmm
>
> Which Democratic candidate can speak of his military service in Afghanistan, and appears very comfortable in his Christianity...
>
> Which one...
Was it John Kerry before he was swift-boated?
Point of order: May failed spectacularly to try and bring colleagues with her, she was high-handed and not necessarily renowned for absolute honesty, she called an unnecessary election and managed to blow a 20 point lead, she had worse than worse case scenario local results and, as polling day dawns, the EU election looks set to complete her trio of electoral catastrophes.
That's before we get to Hinckley Point, her seeming preference for Huawei, and, most importantly, that she knew what the job entailed, wanted it, and buggered it up.
I do agree with Dan Hodges, however, that whilst May is a terrible PM, the Commons is terrible too. They need to agree something. Instead they just oppose every outcome.
Pineapple on pizza? Or is there now a settled view on that?
Did I mention that I'd seen a pub menu with pineapple AND Egg on gammon?
> An interesting piece of political research:
>
> “New research finds that voters are more likely to support a liberal candidate whose rhetoric reflects conservative values.”
> https://psmag.com/news/framing-liberal-policies-within-conservative-values-can-be-uniquely-persuasive
>
> Clearly there are different possible reasons for this result, but the effect is large enough to be interesting.
People like to virtue signal, whilst not actually supporting lefty ideas
> > @Nigelb said:
> > “New research finds that voters are more likely to support a liberal candidate whose rhetoric reflects conservative values.”
>
> KLOBUCHAR!
Her performance in such a swing state as MN is impressive
I'd been planning to give ChUK a sympathy vote, but now the day is here I'm just not sure I can go through with it. I'll be voting Lib Dem today for the third time today to try and reduce the size of Farage's grin on Sunday night
> Mrs May was always a Lib Dem plant. Too many like her. We were all doomed when this useless woman became PM, without an election
When she invoked Article 50 in the face of opposition from Remainers, you all cheered her.
. The epitome of this was only yesterday when, to the fury of much of her own party and cabinet, she gave Labour everything that they were asking for with a bow on the top only to be met by derision. To quote herself nothing had changed and her deal is still doomed to failure.
She certainly did not give Labour everything they were asking for. Offering to have a vote on ref 2 whilst ensuring the vote fails is hardly what Labour were looking for.
> On topic, Mike, I’m not sure that her “only crime” was trying to implement the referendum result. She committed multiple “crimes” (odd word) in *how* she worked. For example, trying to play the referendum result for narrow partisan gain.
>
> Rarely have we witnessed a leader who so obviously lacked any kind of recognised leadership qualities. Simply painful to watch.
Very true. She made no attempt to reconcile Remainers. Quite the contrary her election campaign lost her 48% of the country who became her mortal enemies and pitted her ex colleagues in the EU against her.
A person without sensitivity. She redeemed herself slightly over the last few months rather as a Shakespearean tragic hero does in the pathos of their death throes.
> > @Nigelb said:
> > An interesting piece of political research:
> >
> > “New research finds that voters are more likely to support a liberal candidate whose rhetoric reflects conservative values.”
> > https://psmag.com/news/framing-liberal-policies-within-conservative-values-can-be-uniquely-persuasive
> >
> > Clearly there are different possible reasons for this result, but the effect is large enough to be interesting.
>
> People like to virtue signal, whilst not actually supporting lefty ideas
A few, sometimes, do exact the opposite.
> > @StuartDickson said:
> > On topic, Mike, I’m not sure that her “only crime” was trying to implement the referendum result. She committed multiple “crimes” (odd word) in *how* she worked. For example, trying to play the referendum result for narrow partisan gain.
> >
> > Rarely have we witnessed a leader who so obviously lacked any kind of recognised leadership qualities. Simply painful to watch.
>
> Very true. She made no attempt to reconcile Remainers. Quite the contrary her election campain lost her 48% of the country who became her mortal enemies and pitted her ex colleagues in the EU against her.
>
> A person without sensitivity. She redeemed herself slightly over the last few months rather as a Shakespearean tragic hero does in the pathos of their death throes.
I too think the lead misses the mark with that “only”.
I also don’t agree things would have been better with a dogmatic Leaver in her place. What was needed was an earlier recognition of the inevitable compromise, and someone willing to tell some hard lessons to colleagues. Banging the hard Brexit drum harder would simply have got us to the point of impossibility somewhat sooner.
> > @Nigelb said:
> > An interesting piece of political research:
> >
> > “New research finds that voters are more likely to support a liberal candidate whose rhetoric reflects conservative values.”
> > https://psmag.com/news/framing-liberal-policies-within-conservative-values-can-be-uniquely-persuasive
> >
> > Clearly there are different possible reasons for this result, but the effect is large enough to be interesting.
>
> People like to virtue signal, whilst not actually supporting lefty ideas
Other way round surely? Voters prefer lefty policies but right wing speeches.
Stay losing liberals.
> > @StuartDickson said:
> > On topic, Mike, I’m not sure that her “only crime” was trying to implement the referendum result. She committed multiple “crimes” (odd word) in *how* she worked. For example, trying to play the referendum result for narrow partisan gain.
> >
> > Rarely have we witnessed a leader who so obviously lacked any kind of recognised leadership qualities. Simply painful to watch.
>
> That was exactly my thought Stuart. She has inherited a difficult situation and turned it into a total quagmire. The epitome of this was only yesterday when, to the fury of much of her own party and cabinet, she gave Labour everything that they were asking for with a bow on the top only to be met by derision. To quote herself nothing had changed and her deal is still doomed to failure.
>
> I find it incredibly frustrating because her deal was in fact a good one and with a different leader it might well have been a compromise to bring this country back together. Instead we are down to 2 completely unsatisfactory choices. We either trash our democracy and revoke alienating a large percentage of our population from the democratic process or we leave in an unnecessarily damaging way hurting relations with our major trading partners for some time to come.
>
> She is intelligent, hard working, willing to master the detail, conscientious and has a strong sense of duty. But she is totally incapable of building a consensus, leading, inspiring or finding a way to a compromise that a majority can live with. Its sad for her but it has been a disaster for the country.
>
> Nice to see you posting again by the way.
-----------------------------------------------
"May's Deal" (actually the EU's, and a prerequisite to the deal,not the deal itself) was a reasonable bit of damage limitation. Remainers and Leavers from their different perspectives saw no reason for damage limitation. It had nothing to do with May's admittedly poor salesmanship.
Friji did a white chocolate milkshake that was incredible, unfortunately I'll be wasting my vote on a political party instead...
I do like coffee fudge, if you're passing a confectionery shop.
> > @DavidL said:
> . The epitome of this was only yesterday when, to the fury of much of her own party and cabinet, she gave Labour everything that they were asking for with a bow on the top only to be met by derision. To quote herself nothing had changed and her deal is still doomed to failure.
>
> She certainly did not give Labour everything they were asking for. Offering to have a vote on ref 2 whilst ensuring the vote fails is hardly what Labour were looking for.
My take is that - as rumoured - she wanted to be bold and put the referendum into the Bill as the default, but was blocked by Cabinet. May was aware that simply offering a vote in its place would rightly be seen as a worthless gift, since any MP can put an amendment down.
So someone (probably a helpful advisor) came up with writing some very specific words about the steps that would follow an MP vote for a referendum into the Bill - and it is the tone of these words that has so upset Cabinet. Objectively they make little difference since clearly if parliament voted for a referendum amendment there would have to be a referendum Bill. But the combination of the words in the Bill and the prominence in May’s speech left cabinet with the impression she was trying to overcome their objection.
> Incidentally, if anyone wants to try persuading me, I still don't know what I'll be scrawling on my ballot paper.
Can I suggest an "x"?
> Choices, choices - who to vote for? - whittled it down to Lib Dem, Green or ChUK...
Every vote today sends a message-except one for Labour.
Because uniquely they are the only party who no one has the faintest idea what they stand for.
> Incidentally, if anyone wants to try persuading me, I still don't know what I'll be scrawling on my ballot paper.
“Carthago delenda est” surely?
No coffee fudge though.
Edit: What kind of monster likes coffee flavoured things?
> Weather looks good today here, sunny and warm, perhaps suggesting turnout might be at the higher end of some predictions.
>
> I'd been planning to give ChUK a sympathy vote, but now the day is here I'm just not sure I can go through with it. I'll be voting Lib Dem today for the third time today to try and reduce the size of Farage's grin on Sunday night
Yep. It’s already the case that a Tory vote or a Labour vote is a Wasted Vote. Now it looks like a CUK vote would be wasted also. Respect to anyone who votes Green, but for expressing a clear Remain position today it has to be the LibDems.
Their payoff for being so steadfast and clear has been a long time coming.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1131446238707109888
> That assumes the Brexiteers did not actually want to leave the EU, merely to rail against it. Not all Leavers can be Russian trolls.
>
> The problem is one of definition: what does 'leave' mean? For many, May's deal equates to leave. For the Faragists, it means only a 'pure' fuck-the-country no-deal.
Exactly. That is why we needed -- and still do need, and will need even with a new prime minister in February 2022 when Theresa May finally retires -- a commission to establish what precisely is our Brexit goal. Then we can try to achieve it.
Nothing else happening today, is there?
> A substantial proportion of the 48% were never amenable to May or anyone else reaching out and formulating a leave that would be acceptable to them, because no kind of leave is.
Leave only needed a third of Remainers to hop on board the Brexit bus to get a solid two thirds of the population backing a consensus. They haven’t persuaded any Remainers and indeed seem to be losing ground.
Leavers need to take a long hard look at themselves and ask why they were unable to build even a grudging consensus as to the way forward. I can supply answers (and have), but I fear they will continue to meet the consumer resistance they always have.
Edit: Oh, you mean against whose name? No idea.
> Good morning, everyone.
>
>
> Morning. Monaco Thursday practice today, the only time of the season that Thursday sees F1 cars running at an event. Forecast looking very wet on Saturday, which should be fun.
>
> Nothing else happening today, is there?
Something about coffee-flavoured milkshakes, I think.
Mr. Meeks, and yet, the Third Punic War was a bit pathetic from Rome's perspective.
Mr. Jezziah, Morris Dancer is not a monster. And coffee-flavoured things are delightful.
Mr. Sandpit, cheers for that, I forgot about Monaco's oddness in that regard.
The BBC weather forecast, which seems less useful than it did a few years ago, has it 90% or so dry on Saturday.
> > @JosiasJessop said:
> > That assumes the Brexiteers did not actually want to leave the EU, merely to rail against it. Not all Leavers can be Russian trolls.
> >
> > The problem is one of definition: what does 'leave' mean? For many, May's deal equates to leave. For the Faragists, it means only a 'pure' fuck-the-country no-deal.
>
> Exactly. That is why we needed -- and still do need, and will need even with a new prime minister in February 2022 when Theresa May finally retires -- a commission to establish what precisely is our Brexit goal. Then we can try to achieve it.
The original mistake is of course Cameron’s, for never considering that he might lose and hence not giving a moment’s thought as to how best to go about it. Had he told the leavers to go away and come up with an agreed proposition for the referendum, they’d probably still be arguing about it. Or, more likely, they would themselves have tacked to centre in order to better their chances in the vote, and we wouldn’t be having these arguments now.
> > @thecommissioner said:
> > A substantial proportion of the 48% were never amenable to May or anyone else reaching out and formulating a leave that would be acceptable to them, because no kind of leave is.
>
> Leave only needed a third of Remainers to hop on board the Brexit bus to get a solid two thirds of the population backing a consensus. They haven’t persuaded any Remainers and indeed seem to be losing ground.
>
> Leavers need to take a long hard look at themselves and ask why they were unable to build even a grudging consensus as to the way forward. I can supply answers (and have), but I fear they will continue to meet the consumer resistance they always have.
The process has been in the hands of a remainer parliament with 400-500 pre-declared Remainers. That's why things haven't progressed as they should.
Parliament has not been representative of the people.
May has made the mistake of believing people might compromise, but they haven't and they won't.
As soon as one demand is met, another is presented.
I could draw an elf, though. I also drew a reasonable dragon a while ago but I think it'd take too long in the polling booth.
https://twitter.com/MorrisF1/status/1007918228918751232
> Mr. Jezziah, I don't drink milkshakes.
>
> I do like coffee fudge, if you're passing a confectionery shop.
>
> Well I walked into that one...
>
> No coffee fudge though.
>
> Edit: What kind of monster likes coffee flavoured things?
I like all coffee flavoured things - except for coffee itself which I can't stand.
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > @thecommissioner said:
> > > A substantial proportion of the 48% were never amenable to May or anyone else reaching out and formulating a leave that would be acceptable to them, because no kind of leave is.
> >
> > Leave only needed a third of Remainers to hop on board the Brexit bus to get a solid two thirds of the population backing a consensus. They haven’t persuaded any Remainers and indeed seem to be losing ground.
> >
> > Leavers need to take a long hard look at themselves and ask why they were unable to build even a grudging consensus as to the way forward. I can supply answers (and have), but I fear they will continue to meet the consumer resistance they always have.
>
> The process has been in the hands of a remainer parliament with 400-500 pre-declared Remainers. That's why things haven't progressed as they should.
>
> Parliament has not been representative of the people.
>
> May has made the mistake of believing people might compromise, but they haven't and they won't.
>
> As soon as one demand is met, another is presented.
>
>
I really don’t think that the absence of a consensus is down to saboteurs (the MPs,incidentally, were elected after the referendum result). It’s down to a vile referendum campaign, followed by Leavers competing to set purity tests and whip up paranoia about traitors and quislings. But most of all it is down to Leavers being utterly clueless about what they do want as opposed to what they don’t want.
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > @thecommissioner said:
> > > A substantial proportion of the 48% were never amenable to May or anyone else reaching out and formulating a leave that would be acceptable to them, because no kind of leave is.
> >
> > Leave only needed a third of Remainers to hop on board the Brexit bus to get a solid two thirds of the population backing a consensus. They haven’t persuaded any Remainers and indeed seem to be losing ground.
> >
> > Leavers need to take a long hard look at themselves and ask why they were unable to build even a grudging consensus as to the way forward. I can supply answers (and have), but I fear they will continue to meet the consumer resistance they always have.
>
> The process has been in the hands of a remainer parliament with 400-500 pre-declared Remainers. That's why things haven't progressed as they should.
>
> Parliament has not been representative of the people.
>
> May has made the mistake of believing people might compromise, but they haven't and they won't.
>
> As soon as one demand is met, another is presented.
>
>
All May needed to do was to get her deal through by every Tory voting for it.
The fact the more fanatical wing of the Party decided it wasn't good enough isn't the fault of any MP in Parliament except the ERG...
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/05/22/windows_zero_day/
> If we are going to do a little push for our own parties, vote Labour the only party that can realistically beat the Brexit party (on some polls they can, on others nobody can)
Nationally nobody can. So the better bet is to give them a run for their money in each region, to reduce their advantage under D’Hondt. In relatively few regions is Labour the sensible choice.
> More like "Shoots fish in barrel":
>
> https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1131446238707109888
CHUK have helped the Lib Dems more than people seem to realise. They opened the door to the idea that some serious people were prepared to move away from the turgid choice of Tory and Labour. Their time will come. Indeed in time they could be the chief benefactors of a victory for the centre ground.
Words speak louder than actions apparently.
Still, despite the obituaries, she is still a decent price to step down before July
> > @thecommissioner said:
> > > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > > @thecommissioner said:
> > > > A substantial proportion of the 48% were never amenable to May or anyone else reaching out and formulating a leave that would be acceptable to them, because no kind of leave is.
> > >
> > > Leave only needed a third of Remainers to hop on board the Brexit bus to get a solid two thirds of the population backing a consensus. They haven’t persuaded any Remainers and indeed seem to be losing ground.
> > >
> > > Leavers need to take a long hard look at themselves and ask why they were unable to build even a grudging consensus as to the way forward. I can supply answers (and have), but I fear they will continue to meet the consumer resistance they always have.
> >
> > The process has been in the hands of a remainer parliament with 400-500 pre-declared Remainers. That's why things haven't progressed as they should.
> >
> > Parliament has not been representative of the people.
> >
> > May has made the mistake of believing people might compromise, but they haven't and they won't.
> >
> > As soon as one demand is met, another is presented.
> >
> >
>
> All May needed to do was to get her deal through by every Tory voting for it.
>
> The fact the more fanatical wing of the Party decided it wasn't good enough isn't the fault of any MP in Parliament except the ERG...
And it’s not just the votes. Their reaction to and relentless public trashing of the deal poisoned any prospect the deal might have had of getting broad support, particularly within their own party.