Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The WH2016 betting moves a notch back to Hillary on what’s now

2

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,713
    edited November 2016
    619 said:

    taffys said:

    ollege educated women vote the most. Trump is generally down with women overall.

    Are there figures for first time/never voted before voters?

    If there was a trump surge, I guess it would be found there.

    There are signs of increasing early voting with low propenity hispanic voters. Massivley in some cases, as ive said below. Thats not a Trump surge
    Mainly from Clinton rampers but as I said in Colorado the Hispanic population let alone voters is 20% i.e. 80% are not Hispanic. Clinton may benefit from higher Hispanic turnout but Trump will benefit from lower African American turnout and higher white working class turnout
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922
    Pulpstar said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given Trump is doing 8 events in the next 3 days in states ranging from Nevada to North Carolina to Florida to Iowa to New Hampshire and Pennsylvania while Hillary is doing just 4 in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio the momentum will likely be with Trump come polling day. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are now looking real prospects for him for example and both states have not voted GOP since 2000.

    How much difference, if any, do 'events' make at this point ?
    Enthusiasm at public meetings has not correlated well with electoral success for several decades now.
    It gets him acres of local news coverage and some network coverage. That's what each candidate is after at this stage - they're in message broadcast mode.

    Speaking of that - Trump's latest advert

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vST61W4bGm8&feature=youtu.be

    And Scott Adams' analysis re persuasion factor - http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152747601271/trump-the-closer
    Of whom does that advert remind me?
    Who ?
    I hesitate to say this, but there is something of the air of Adolph about it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    edited November 2016
    taffys said:

    ''There is nothing here to suggest that the Art 50 decision was motovated by anything other than the law.''

    Well that's your view and you are entitled to it. The point is, are newspapers entitled to disagree, and disagree violently?

    Some on here say they aren't, but other countries regard the assumption on which their reasoning rests (ie that judges can be politically impartial), as naive.

    I don't think the Court's judgement in this case was politically partisan. I've no reason to believe the Judges were determined to stop Brexit and reasoned backwards from that conclusion.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''It seems to me at least arguable that, according to the High Court, all of this was unlawful—and that, to act lawfully now, we must all behave as if Britain were still in the European Community as it existed on 1 January 1973, before ministers by prerogative “unlawfully” made any changes.''

    Brilliant, and true.

    The fact is that government has ceded power to the EU many times. Has there been a parliamentary vote all those times?

    And yet the one time it cedes power to the electorate, it wants to take that power back.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010

    An interesting view. If Article 50 should be for Parliament then what about the past?

    The list of worrying consequences goes on. What power have ministers ever had to agree in Brussels to EU measures such as Directives that (as the High Court sees it) change the law in this country when adopted? It seems to me at least arguable that, according to the High Court, all of this was unlawful—and that, to act lawfully now, we must all behave as if Britain were still in the European Community as it existed on 1 January 1973, before ministers by prerogative “unlawfully” made any changes. The solution to this conundrum can’t be that Parliament later “cured” ministerial unlawfulness by confirming the changes they’d agreed; if that were the answer, then the government’s planned “great repeal bill” could cure the supposed unlawfulness of article 50 notification.

    https://www.headoflegal.com/2016/11/04/why-the-high-court-got-the-law-wrong-about-brexit/

    One obvious counter-argument might be that ministers agreed to treaty changes on the implicit understanding that primary legislation would be required to give effect to them. The court judgment took it as read that the invocation of Article 50 would be irrevocable, so there could be no such understanding in this case.
  • Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    A very comforting graph. Instead of walking through the streets believing one-in-two of the people I walk past are dimwitted and more than likely racist I now know the figure is only one-in-four.
    Look in the mirror.
    Roger is a Poundshop Pauline Kael.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    taffys said:

    ''It seems to me at least arguable that, according to the High Court, all of this was unlawful—and that, to act lawfully now, we must all behave as if Britain were still in the European Community as it existed on 1 January 1973, before ministers by prerogative “unlawfully” made any changes.''

    Brilliant, and true.

    The fact is that government has ceded power to the EU many times. Has there been a parliamentary vote all those times?

    Yes - this was discussed yesterday. There has always been legislation. That's the foundation of the judgment, in fact.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    taffys said:

    ''We would need a similar Constitution if we were to go down the routeof politically appointed judges. ''

    Alistair Meeks argued that the judges in Britain are politically impartial and their decision should be accepted without question.

    My point is that the American system assumes that judges are never politically impartial.

    One of our American posters stated the real shame of a Clinton win was the effect on the US supreme court.

    Any Clinton nominee to the SCOTUS has to be ratified by a probably Republican Congress, one of the checks in the US Constitution that we do not have.

    If Trump wins then he can build in right wing bias more easily. There will be little restraint on his actions by either Legislature or Judicial arms.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    I don't think the Court's judgement in this case was politically partisan.

    Again, that is not really my point. My point is, are newspapers entitled to strongly state that it was political?

    Alistair argued that they aren't. It is my view that they are.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789

    Mr. Roger, do you believe I'm dimwitted/racist?

    Mr. B, it's akin to a celebrity whose lawyer gets them off a dangerous driving charge due to using a mobile telephone by claiming they were using its dictaphone or calculator function.

    Legally, it's in order. Morally, it stinks.

    We do agree that Cameron's cocked up just about every part of this referendum.

    Mr. kle4, time will tell.

    *plays Red Alert theme*

    It's rarely wise to ask a question if you're not confident about the answer you'll get.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited November 2016
    Gor blimey!

    The same old arguments on Trump and Hillary going round and round and round.

    Only 4 days to go, then on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning this site under OGH will probably go down around 03:00 hrs on Wednesday morning under the weight of info being typed into it, just when PBers are getting their collective teeth into the results.

    I hope Mr Smith and Son have done their duty and attached themselves and this site to a powerful server?
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given Trump is doing 8 events in the next 3 days in states ranging from Nevada to North Carolina to Florida to Iowa to New Hampshire and Pennsylvania while Hillary is doing just 4 in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio the momentum will likely be with Trump come polling day. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are now looking real prospects for him for example and both states have not voted GOP since 2000.

    Not one poll with fieldwork ending in November has Trump ahead in Pennsylvania , average Clinton lead is 3.5
    He was tied in 1 in Colorado though and he is also doing an event there, that would be enough even without Pennsylvania
    Tied in 2 in Colorado in fact and behind in 6 . Look at the polls as a whole and stop cherry picking the odd one that suits you best
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr 619,

    "There is nothing here to suggest that the Art 50 decision was motovated by anything other than the law."

    I'm afraid that is naïve. With the best will in the world, we all have unconscious biases. That's why nothing is ever totally objective. I'm not suggesting for a moment that there's deliberate bias, but there will be bias. It might even be towards triggering Art 50.

    Are they human? If yes, there will be bias.

    I see Ken and Owen will vote against Art 50 whatever the debate throws up. Full marks for honesty anyway.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    A very comforting graph. Instead of walking through the streets believing one-in-two of the people I walk past are dimwitted and more than likely racist I now know the figure is only one-in-four.
    Look in the mirror.
    Hush now, we all know a lifetime of recording tampax adverts is an unmistakable mark of intellectual superiority.
    A little whiff of misogynist snobbery methinks.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    nunu said:

    DavidL said:

    619 said:
    This is the way I am seeing it this morning. Until now Hispanics have been one of the least likely to vote segments in the US and any half competent polling model will reflect that. If they turn out in much greater numbers than the models indicate they are sufficiently populous and sufficiently concentrated to swing several sunshine states.
    But.....wwc turnout 55%......college educated white turnout 79%. A trump surge on the day still possible and since most trump first time voters will be normally disengaged voters they won't even know about early voting they will only know about Nov. 8th. And they are better spread out in swing states than hispanics and more of them.
    Indeed. Election day voting tends to be more male, and more middle income. In other words more Trumpy. That the Dems aren't doing better than 2012 in early voting when EV voters are more female and higher income should give pause for thought.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Meanwhile...

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/794442297370886144

    Out of the ten most recent published polls, I make that nine for a No vote and one tie.

    The race is still very close, but there is a definite trend here. First thing that happens if Renzi is beaten, he goes. Second thing, another outbreak of the Eurozone crisis, perhaps?

    Italian public debt is now 2.2 trillion Euros, or 132% of GDP. For comparison, Greece is at 175%. The banking system is wobbly, the southern third of the country is in depression, and the three largest opposition parties are all, to varying degrees, Eurosceptic. There may be trouble ahead...
  • Mr. Rook, one imagines there'll be efforts by those unable to accept democracy when it doesn't go their way to make the Italians vote again.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,756
    edited November 2016
    HYUFD said:


    Mainly from Clinton rampers

    John 8:7

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    More actual rather than imaginary election fraud caught in America again.

    http://thetelegraph.com/news/91835/woman-admits-voting-for-late-husband-says-she-knew-he-wanted-to-vote-trump

    By an election judge no less.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    In today's polling, the LA Times has Trump +5%, IBD has Clinton +3% in a two-way fight, tied in a four-way fight.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    As a union rep, we were told to avoid industrial tribunals whenever possible. Why? Because their judgements could be counter-intuitive and sometimes random. That's the problem with the law, it's not a computer programme.

    Resorting to the law isn't to do with securing Justice always, it's to throw the dice one more time.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    MikeK said:

    Gor blimey!

    The same old arguments on Trump and Hillary going round and round and round.

    Only 4 days to go, then on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning this site under OGH will probably go down around 03:00 hrs on Wednesday morning under the weight of info being typed into it, just when PBers are getting their collective teeth into the results.

    I hope Mr Smith and Son have done their duty and attached themselves and this site to a powerful server?

    We managed fine on Brexit night, and that was one busy time!
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922
    Alistair said:

    More actual rather than imaginary election fraud caught in America again.

    http://thetelegraph.com/news/91835/woman-admits-voting-for-late-husband-says-she-knew-he-wanted-to-vote-trump

    By an election judge no less.

    Interesting indication that Trump could be ahead among the crucial 'deceased' demographic.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr Dancer,

    Don't ask Roger if you're dim-witted, you many not like the answer. When asked most people consider themselves to be above average intelligence and having better than average judgement. Therefore a majority of the others must be below average.


  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    Alistair said:

    More actual rather than imaginary election fraud caught in America again.

    http://thetelegraph.com/news/91835/woman-admits-voting-for-late-husband-says-she-knew-he-wanted-to-vote-trump

    By an election judge no less.

    Interesting indication that Trump could be ahead among the crucial 'deceased' demographic.
    :D
  • Mr. CD13, it is curious. Most people have doubts (at least at times) about their attractiveness, but very few doubt their intelligence.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352


    The race is still very close, but there is a definite trend here. First thing that happens if Renzi is beaten, he goes. Second thing, another outbreak of the Eurozone crisis, perhaps

    As I understand it Renzi has since walked back on those words and said he'd carry on, though of course he could do a Cameron and jump ship anyway.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited November 2016
    Alistair said:

    More actual rather than imaginary election fraud caught in America again.

    http://thetelegraph.com/news/91835/woman-admits-voting-for-late-husband-says-she-knew-he-wanted-to-vote-trump

    By an election judge no less.

    Well you can hardly say she was defrauding the election seeing as they were in Illinois :D
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited November 2016

    Mr. Rook, one imagines there'll be efforts by those unable to accept democracy when it doesn't go their way to make the Italians vote again.

    As we know with referendums and prospect of neverendums, it can be hard to say definitively that people are not allowed to be asked again down the line, since if they can democratically say no they can democratically say yes, after all. If matters are changed slightly, at what point might it be reasonable to ask again? In the case of the EU vote, it is quite improbable that something would change enough to allow arguments to have a rerun to gain more credence (the EU is unlikely to offer an improved deal for instance) but say with the Italian reforms they agreed to drop some of the more controversial aspects, would it be justified to ask again, as the question would be on a different point? Would the Columbian President be allowed to thwart democracy by asking the people again on a peace deal with FARC, if he can tweak the deal a bit?

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Alistair said:

    More actual rather than imaginary election fraud caught in America again.

    http://thetelegraph.com/news/91835/woman-admits-voting-for-late-husband-says-she-knew-he-wanted-to-vote-trump

    By an election judge no less.

    Interesting indication that Trump could be ahead among the crucial 'deceased' demographic.
    Crucial indeed. They frequently determine the outcome in Irish elections.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    CD13 said:

    As a union rep, we were told to avoid industrial tribunals whenever possible. Why? Because their judgements could be counter-intuitive and sometimes random. That's the problem with the law, it's not a computer programme.

    Resorting to the law isn't to do with securing Justice always, it's to throw the dice one more time.

    Even if you think a case is open and shut, in reality, there's no such thing.
  • Nate Silver has an interesting piece on polling error http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/

    The average over a number of elections as been 2% polling error

    If you look at Silver's latest polls only forecast than a 2% error in Clinton's favour makes things more secure and gives her Florida, NC and Nevada (but not Ohio)

    If there is a 2% error in Trump's favour then Americans could wake up on Wednesday to the following scenario:

    Clinton 268, Trump 266 and it all coming down to a few thousand votes in New Hampshire. Such a scenario would be Bush vs. Gore on steroids. Not only that but you could also then have issues with faithless electors.

    I really hope that whoever wins does so by at least 10 electoral college votes and with no ultra close states for the sake of the USA

  • 'Calm down dear, nothing for you to worry your empty little head about.'

    https://twitter.com/IndigoFast/status/794727953041125376
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    edited November 2016
    Sean_F said:

    In today's polling, the LA Times has Trump +5%, IBD has Clinton +3% in a two-way fight, tied in a four-way fight.

    The chances Trump wins E.C whilst losing popular vote are being underestimated imo.

    She HAS to win a group that have voted Republican for decades no way round that for her minority surge or not.
  • Chris said:

    An interesting view. If Article 50 should be for Parliament then what about the past?

    The list of worrying consequences goes on. What power have ministers ever had to agree in Brussels to EU measures such as Directives that (as the High Court sees it) change the law in this country when adopted? It seems to me at least arguable that, according to the High Court, all of this was unlawful—and that, to act lawfully now, we must all behave as if Britain were still in the European Community as it existed on 1 January 1973, before ministers by prerogative “unlawfully” made any changes. The solution to this conundrum can’t be that Parliament later “cured” ministerial unlawfulness by confirming the changes they’d agreed; if that were the answer, then the government’s planned “great repeal bill” could cure the supposed unlawfulness of article 50 notification.

    https://www.headoflegal.com/2016/11/04/why-the-high-court-got-the-law-wrong-about-brexit/

    One obvious counter-argument might be that ministers agreed to treaty changes on the implicit understanding that primary legislation would be required to give effect to them. The court judgment took it as read that the invocation of Article 50 would be irrevocable, so there could be no such understanding in this case.
    Except Primary legislation was not necessary for the treaties. At least not in the terms set out in the article.
  • IanB2 said:

    MikeK said:

    Gor blimey!

    The same old arguments on Trump and Hillary going round and round and round.

    Only 4 days to go, then on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning this site under OGH will probably go down around 03:00 hrs on Wednesday morning under the weight of info being typed into it, just when PBers are getting their collective teeth into the results.

    I hope Mr Smith and Son have done their duty and attached themselves and this site to a powerful server?

    We managed fine on Brexit night, and that was one busy time!
    Is it a private server?
  • Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    A very comforting graph. Instead of walking through the streets believing one-in-two of the people I walk past are dimwitted and more than likely racist I now know the figure is only one-in-four.
    Roger you can be assured that every time you look in the mirror you are looking at someone who is clearly dim-witted and certainly bigoted if not outright racist.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Richard_Tyndall

    'Roger you can be assured that every time you look in the mirror you are looking at someone who is clearly dim-witted and certainly bigoted if not outright racist.'


    Woger doesn't do mirrors.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    Meanwhile...

    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/794442297370886144

    Out of the ten most recent published polls, I make that nine for a No vote and one tie.

    The race is still very close, but there is a definite trend here. First thing that happens if Renzi is beaten, he goes. Second thing, another outbreak of the Eurozone crisis, perhaps?

    Italian public debt is now 2.2 trillion Euros, or 132% of GDP. For comparison, Greece is at 175%. The banking system is wobbly, the southern third of the country is in depression, and the three largest opposition parties are all, to varying degrees, Eurosceptic. There may be trouble ahead...

    QE debt - whether in Italy, the UK, Japan or the US - will never be pepaid. Which is why the markets charge Italy around 2% to borrow for ten years.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,713
    edited November 2016
    nunu said:

    Sean_F said:

    In today's polling, the LA Times has Trump +5%, IBD has Clinton +3% in a two-way fight, tied in a four-way fight.

    The chances Trump wins E.C whilst losing popular vote are being underestimated imo.

    She HAS to win a group that have voted Republican for decades no way round that for her minority surge or not.
    Trump is much more likely than Clinton to win the popular vote and lose the electoral college in my view. For instance he is likely to make it much closer in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota but fall just short while Hillary narrowly wins states like Colorado and maybe Nevada, Arizona and Florida due almost entirely to the Hispanic vote
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    nunu said:

    Sean_F said:

    In today's polling, the LA Times has Trump +5%, IBD has Clinton +3% in a two-way fight, tied in a four-way fight.

    The chances Trump wins E.C whilst losing popular vote are being underestimated imo.

    She HAS to win a group that have voted Republican for decades no way round that for her minority surge or not.
    college educated whites and increased hispanic turnout, as well as registered Dems.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,585
    taffys said:

    ''It seems to me at least arguable that, according to the High Court, all of this was unlawful—and that, to act lawfully now, we must all behave as if Britain were still in the European Community as it existed on 1 January 1973, before ministers by prerogative “unlawfully” made any changes.''

    Brilliant, and true.

    The fact is that government has ceded power to the EU many times. Has there been a parliamentary vote all those times?

    And yet the one time it cedes power to the electorate, it wants to take that power back.

    Um, yes there has, for instance:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7461918.stm

    If you're going to be outraged, at least get the facts right first.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    edited November 2016

    Chris said:

    An interesting view. If Article 50 should be for Parliament then what about the past?

    The list of worrying consequences goes on. What power have ministers ever had to agree in Brussels to EU measures such as Directives that (as the High Court sees it) change the law in this country when adopted? It seems to me at least arguable that, according to the High Court, all of this was unlawful—and that, to act lawfully now, we must all behave as if Britain were still in the European Community as it existed on 1 January 1973, before ministers by prerogative “unlawfully” made any changes. The solution to this conundrum can’t be that Parliament later “cured” ministerial unlawfulness by confirming the changes they’d agreed; if that were the answer, then the government’s planned “great repeal bill” could cure the supposed unlawfulness of article 50 notification.

    https://www.headoflegal.com/2016/11/04/why-the-high-court-got-the-law-wrong-about-brexit/

    One obvious counter-argument might be that ministers agreed to treaty changes on the implicit understanding that primary legislation would be required to give effect to them. The court judgment took it as read that the invocation of Article 50 would be irrevocable, so there could be no such understanding in this case.
    Except Primary legislation was not necessary for the treaties. At least not in the terms set out in the article.
    The judgment says there was primary legislation for every appropriate treaty change.

    [Edit: Here's the relevant bit, from paragraph 46 of the judgment:
    "The ECA 1972 has been amended by primary legislation with each change to the Community Treaties to extend the scope of competence and modes of law-making within the Communities and, as it eventually became, the European Union."
    https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf]
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038
    Sean_F said:

    In today's polling, the LA Times has Trump +5%, IBD has Clinton +3% in a two-way fight, tied in a four-way fight.

    LA Times tracker was at Trump +1 even when Hillary was 10% ahead. If it's anywhere near correct in the end it will be by accident.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited November 2016
    She HAS to win a group that have voted Republican for decades no way round that for her minority surge or not.

    This election feels like one that will be won by a factor the pollsters just aren't picking up right now. If its like Brexit, then its a demographic that is totally ignored normally.

    With 94 million adults out of the work force, and countless more in low paid jobs, there's a giant chunk of America that's been left behind by globalisation.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    'Calm down dear, nothing for you to worry your empty little head about.'

    https://twitter.com/IndigoFast/status/794727953041125376

    Brexit is unwelcome for the First Minister in more ways than one:

    https://twitter.com/NaeBorder/status/794860014821326848

    Europhilia is not a consistent position for a sovereignty movement. Why would one be simultaneously desperate to escape from a British Union that's busy salami-slicing its authority and passing it over on a plate, and desperate to embrace a European Union which is a centralising engine that rarely, if ever, shows any regard for the principle of subsidiarity. Not to mention the fact that trade barriers between the UK and EU are considered a lethal threat, whereas trade barriers between Scotland in the EU and England out of it are not (even though England is a far more important trading partner for Scotland than the whole of the rest of Europe.)

    The official SNP position is a total bloody mess, a complete mass of illogical contradictions. Either sovereignty pooling, for the sake of trade amongst other things, is vital - in which case, the UK single market is more important than anything else and independence is a dead duck. Or sovereignty pooling is undesirable, in which case the position advocated by Jim Sillars - to depart from both Unions and operate as a truly independent state - is the one that makes real sense.

    Euroscepticism is the love that dare not speak its name within the Nationalist movement. If that ceases to be the case then there could be real ructions within the SNP - just like there have been amongst English & Welsh Conservatives for the last several decades.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited November 2016
    There was a time when it wasn't 'the done thing' to criticise the umpire's decision. That was something only the 'great unwashed' of the sub-continent would do.

    This country has now gone well beyond criticising the umpire's deision. We've now moved to impugning the umpires personal integrity including comment on their sexuality.

    ..........and not a word from government.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3901170/The-three-judges-blocked-Brexit.html
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    ITV
    British man bets £37k on Trump win in US election - prompting bookies to slash their odds https://t.co/cMleoM3WNO https://t.co/q7xHws1hZe
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    edited November 2016

    The Brexit court case has led to a very perverse situation:

    * The EU say they won't negotiate without A50 being triggered.

    * The PM cannot trigger A50 without parliament agreeing.

    * Parliament (likely) won't agree without knowing what the plan is.

    * The PM cannot provide this as the negotiations haven't started; any detailed promise would be meaningless.

    * The process cannot start.

    The judges really do seem to have blocked Brexit.

    I don't understand why we can't do what has happened on all the other occasions: The PM makes the treaty change (A50) as long as parliament agrees the final deal. I hope the Supreme Court changes this ruling.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    As an aside, re Italy, it is important to remember that Renzi resigning no more means new elections than Cameron resigning. What it means is another member of the DP becomes PM.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Roger said:

    There was a time when it wasn't 'the done thing' to criticise the umpire's decision. That was something only the 'great unwashed' of the sub-continent would do.

    This country has now gone well beyond criticising the umpire's deision. We've now moved to impugning the umpires personal integrity including comment on their sexuality.

    ..........and not a word from government.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3901170/The-three-judges-blocked-Brexit.html

    I'll be more concerned when (if) the Supreme Court upholds it and the government is similarly quiet. For now, not 'correcting' the erroneous press statements that Brexit was being blocked by the judges is a welcome distraction.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    PlatoSaid said:

    ITV
    British man bets £37k on Trump win in US election - prompting bookies to slash their odds https://t.co/cMleoM3WNO https://t.co/q7xHws1hZe

    Shocking, he could have got around 9-4 on Betfair.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''If you're going to be outraged, at least get the facts right first.''

    Maybe the judges were right, and maybe the Mail was wrong. That is not the point.

    The point is that the Mail is entitled to its opinion. And its entitled to its opinion because other countries, such as the US, have dropped all pretence that judges can be impartial.

    We were completely naive to assume it, even if we ever did, in Roger's sunlit past where people doffed their caps and knew their places, beggin' yer pardon.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,713
    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, re Italy, it is important to remember that Renzi resigning no more means new elections than Cameron resigning. What it means is another member of the DP becomes PM.

    Probably a less charismatic one, more likely to lose to 5* in 2018
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''For now, not 'correcting' the erroneous press statements that Brexit was being blocked by the judges is a welcome distraction.''

    They are erroneous in your opinion. Others hold a different view, and however wrong they are, they are entitled to that view.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,585
    Would it be technically possible for a smart opposition to put up a bill definitively stripping the government of prerogative power to approve A50 ?
    Which would at least give them the parliamentary debate they claim to want.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    taffys said:

    She HAS to win a group that have voted Republican for decades no way round that for her minority surge or not.

    This election feels like one that will be won by a factor the pollsters just aren't picking up right now. If its like Brexit, then its a demographic that is totally ignored normally.

    With 94 million adults out of the work force, and countless more in low paid jobs, there's a giant chunk of America that's been left behind by globalisation.

    Last time - there were 20m registered who didn't vote - what they do this time is anyone's guess.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Last time - there were 20m registered who didn't vote - what they do this time is anyone's guess.''

    I notice the Clintonettes are happy to highlight surges in Latino voting, but on what's happening in other low propensity groups, they are strangely quiet.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, re Italy, it is important to remember that Renzi resigning no more means new elections than Cameron resigning. What it means is another member of the DP becomes PM.

    Probably a less charismatic one, more likely to lose to 5* in 2018
    Quite possibly, although 5* is struggling with the mayoralty of Rome.

    What Italy needs is for the right (Forza Italia, Lega Nodra, Us with Savlini) to merge, as the current 'bonus' structure really stuffs them.
  • Chris said:

    Chris said:

    An interesting view. If Article 50 should be for Parliament then what about the past?

    The list of worrying consequences goes on. What power have ministers ever had to agree in Brussels to EU measures such as Directives that (as the High Court sees it) change the law in this country when adopted? It seems to me at least arguable that, according to the High Court, all of this was unlawful—and that, to act lawfully now, we must all behave as if Britain were still in the European Community as it existed on 1 January 1973, before ministers by prerogative “unlawfully” made any changes. The solution to this conundrum can’t be that Parliament later “cured” ministerial unlawfulness by confirming the changes they’d agreed; if that were the answer, then the government’s planned “great repeal bill” could cure the supposed unlawfulness of article 50 notification.

    https://www.headoflegal.com/2016/11/04/why-the-high-court-got-the-law-wrong-about-brexit/

    One obvious counter-argument might be that ministers agreed to treaty changes on the implicit understanding that primary legislation would be required to give effect to them. The court judgment took it as read that the invocation of Article 50 would be irrevocable, so there could be no such understanding in this case.
    Except Primary legislation was not necessary for the treaties. At least not in the terms set out in the article.
    The judgment says there was primary legislation for every appropriate treaty change.

    [Edit: Here's the relevant bit, from paragraph 46 of the judgment:
    "The ECA 1972 has been amended by primary legislation with each change to the Community Treaties to extend the scope of competence and modes of law-making within the Communities and, as it eventually became, the European Union."
    https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf]
    The point being that that primary legislation in each case did not come until after the treaty had been signed. Heath signed us into the EEC before any legislation had been laid before Parliament. Unless we were then to break our treaty obligations and be forced out of the EEC or EU then in each case Parliament had no real say in the matter it was simply rubber stamping. In fact what is proposed under the Brexit arrangements has far more involvement from Parliament than any of the previous treaties.

    The most recent example of course is the CETA treaty with Canada which was signed last week and for which there has been no legislation laid before Parliament.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    I'm starting to wonder which aspect of the constitution is going to be next in the firing line for the extreme Brexiteers. They've done the sovereignty of Parliament and the independence of the judiciary. Whatever next? Let's hope the Queen doesn't say anything nice about foreigners in the next few days ...
  • Mr. B, smart in the sense of trying to permanently drive the working class vote away from Labour?
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    pre-election views of 2 parties, HuffPostPollster averages: GOP 34% fav, 57% unfav; Dems 46% fav, 48% unfav. party ID: 37% D, 29% R, 29% Ind
  • PlatoSaid said:

    taffys said:

    She HAS to win a group that have voted Republican for decades no way round that for her minority surge or not.

    This election feels like one that will be won by a factor the pollsters just aren't picking up right now. If its like Brexit, then its a demographic that is totally ignored normally.

    With 94 million adults out of the work force, and countless more in low paid jobs, there's a giant chunk of America that's been left behind by globalisation.

    Last time - there were 20m registered who didn't vote - what they do this time is anyone's guess.
    Vast majority will not vote this time either.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    taffys said:

    ''Last time - there were 20m registered who didn't vote - what they do this time is anyone's guess.''

    I notice the Clintonettes are happy to highlight surges in Latino voting, but on what's happening in other low propensity groups, they are strangely quiet.

    coolio. Post the facts about this then. They are statistics on both.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,713
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, re Italy, it is important to remember that Renzi resigning no more means new elections than Cameron resigning. What it means is another member of the DP becomes PM.

    Probably a less charismatic one, more likely to lose to 5* in 2018
    Quite possibly, although 5* is struggling with the mayoralty of Rome.

    What Italy needs is for the right (Forza Italia, Lega Nodra, Us with Savlini) to merge, as the current 'bonus' structure really stuffs them.
    Yes and the weakness of the right allows 5* to capitalise and become the main focus point of opposition to the government
  • Bar Council wants Truss to back judges:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37883576
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    Trump: I hate illegal immigrants.
    Melania: 'I hate cyber bullies'
    *look at each other longingly*
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,544
    edited November 2016
    taffys said:

    ''For now, not 'correcting' the erroneous press statements that Brexit was being blocked by the judges is a welcome distraction.''

    They are erroneous in your opinion. Others hold a different view, and however wrong they are, they are entitled to that view.

    Even if they did get it wrong (*), then the way some newspapers have framed the debate has been disgraceful. The tone gives the impression that they purposefully came to an incorrect decision in order to frustrate the public will.

    Also: how many of the people who thing they got it wrong think so not because of a point or points of law, but just because they disagree with the implications for Brexit?

    (*) IANAL, but their arguments makes sense to me.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774



    The point being that that primary legislation in each case did not come until after the treaty had been signed. Heath signed us into the EEC before any legislation had been laid before Parliament. Unless we were then to break our treaty obligations and be forced out of the EEC or EU then in each case Parliament had no real say in the matter it was simply rubber stamping. In fact what is proposed under the Brexit arrangements has far more involvement from Parliament than any of the previous treaties.

    The most recent example of course is the CETA treaty with Canada which was signed last week and for which there has been no legislation laid before Parliament.

    It's the nature of customs unions to outsourced trade arrangements, and we gave up the need to consent in 1973 in the ECA.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, re Italy, it is important to remember that Renzi resigning no more means new elections than Cameron resigning. What it means is another member of the DP becomes PM.

    Probably a less charismatic one, more likely to lose to 5* in 2018
    Quite possibly, although 5* is struggling with the mayoralty of Rome.

    What Italy needs is for the right (Forza Italia, Lega Nodra, Us with Savlini) to merge, as the current 'bonus' structure really stuffs them.
    Yes and the weakness of the right allows 5* to capitalise and become the main focus point of opposition to the government
    5* has lost 5-6% of support in Italy since the summer, so it's not been all one way.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010

    Chris said:

    Chris said:


    One obvious counter-argument might be that ministers agreed to treaty changes on the implicit understanding that primary legislation would be required to give effect to them. The court judgment took it as read that the invocation of Article 50 would be irrevocable, so there could be no such understanding in this case.

    Except Primary legislation was not necessary for the treaties. At least not in the terms set out in the article.
    The judgment says there was primary legislation for every appropriate treaty change.

    [Edit: Here's the relevant bit, from paragraph 46 of the judgment:
    "The ECA 1972 has been amended by primary legislation with each change to the Community Treaties to extend the scope of competence and modes of law-making within the Communities and, as it eventually became, the European Union."
    https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf]
    The point being that that primary legislation in each case did not come until after the treaty had been signed. Heath signed us into the EEC before any legislation had been laid before Parliament. Unless we were then to break our treaty obligations and be forced out of the EEC or EU then in each case Parliament had no real say in the matter it was simply rubber stamping. In fact what is proposed under the Brexit arrangements has far more involvement from Parliament than any of the previous treaties.

    The most recent example of course is the CETA treaty with Canada which was signed last week and for which there has been no legislation laid before Parliament.
    Yes, I know what the arguments are on both sides. I just quoted that part of the judgment because it sounded as though you weren't aware of it.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    Chris said:

    I'm starting to wonder which aspect of the constitution is going to be next in the firing line for the extreme Brexiteers. They've done the sovereignty of Parliament and the independence of the judiciary. Whatever next? Let's hope the Queen doesn't say anything nice about foreigners in the next few days ...

    Or Prince Phillip, that'd really do them....
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905


    The race is still very close, but there is a definite trend here. First thing that happens if Renzi is beaten, he goes. Second thing, another outbreak of the Eurozone crisis, perhaps

    As I understand it Renzi has since walked back on those words and said he'd carry on, though of course he could do a Cameron and jump ship anyway.
    It might be better for his own party if he kept his word. Flip-flopping and dishonesty is not a good look with the voters, and they are not that far ahead of M5S in the polls.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,756
    edited November 2016


    Europhilia is not a consistent position for a sovereignty movement. Why would one be simultaneously desperate to escape from a British Union that's busy salami-slicing its authority and passing it over on a plate, and desperate to embrace a European Union which is a centralising engine that rarely, if ever, shows any regard for the principle of subsidiarity. Not to mention the fact that trade barriers between the UK and EU are considered a lethal threat, whereas trade barriers between Scotland in the EU and England out of it are not (even though England is a far more important trading partner for Scotland than the whole of the rest of Europe.)

    The official SNP position is a total bloody mess, a complete mass of illogical contradictions. Either sovereignty pooling, for the sake of trade amongst other things, is vital - in which case, the UK single market is more important than anything else and independence is a dead duck. Or sovereignty pooling is undesirable, in which case the position advocated by Jim Sillars - to depart from both Unions and operate as a truly independent state - is the one that makes real sense.

    Euroscepticism is the love that dare not speak its name within the Nationalist movement. If that ceases to be the case then there could be real ructions within the SNP - just like there have been amongst English & Welsh Conservatives for the last several decades.

    The SNP is a totalitarian, on-message cult..err, no, the other one..a hopelssly divided party on the cusp of schism.

    Tricky for all those armchair SNPbad experts keeping on message.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784

    PlatoSaid said:

    taffys said:

    She HAS to win a group that have voted Republican for decades no way round that for her minority surge or not.

    This election feels like one that will be won by a factor the pollsters just aren't picking up right now. If its like Brexit, then its a demographic that is totally ignored normally.

    With 94 million adults out of the work force, and countless more in low paid jobs, there's a giant chunk of America that's been left behind by globalisation.

    Last time - there were 20m registered who didn't vote - what they do this time is anyone's guess.
    Vast majority will not vote this time either.
    and a good percentage of them seem to be hispanics voting early
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Nate Silver has an interesting piece on polling error http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/

    The average over a number of elections as been 2% polling error

    If you look at Silver's latest polls only forecast than a 2% error in Clinton's favour makes things more secure and gives her Florida, NC and Nevada (but not Ohio)

    If there is a 2% error in Trump's favour then Americans could wake up on Wednesday to the following scenario:

    Clinton 268, Trump 266 and it all coming down to a few thousand votes in New Hampshire. Such a scenario would be Bush vs. Gore on steroids. Not only that but you could also then have issues with faithless electors.

    I really hope that whoever wins does so by at least 10 electoral college votes and with no ultra close states for the sake of the USA

    A clear result would obviously be best. A very narrow Trump defeat greatly increases the likelihood of his not accepting the result, and/or widespread tinfoilhattery over the eligibility of some of the electorate. Many pictures of queues of Hispanics at the polling stations, with captions suggesting that the Democrats have been indulging in demographic gerrymandering by wilfully importing a load of Mexicans, are what immediately springs to mind.

    Things could get a lot nastier very, very quickly.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,713
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, re Italy, it is important to remember that Renzi resigning no more means new elections than Cameron resigning. What it means is another member of the DP becomes PM.

    Probably a less charismatic one, more likely to lose to 5* in 2018
    Quite possibly, although 5* is struggling with the mayoralty of Rome.

    What Italy needs is for the right (Forza Italia, Lega Nodra, Us with Savlini) to merge, as the current 'bonus' structure really stuffs them.
    Yes and the weakness of the right allows 5* to capitalise and become the main focus point of opposition to the government
    5* has lost 5-6% of support in Italy since the summer, so it's not been all one way.
    If Renzi loses his referendum that will shoot back up again
  • Puir, wee timerous Michael Fallon being bullied by a nasty Jock journo. Lucky his SPAD was there to save his ass.

    https://youtu.be/fxtNeZJn0VM
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    Cicero said:

    I cant help feeling that if Sir Keir Starmee was leading the Labour Party, that the Tories would be looking down the barrel of a gun. The frankly disgraceful headlines in most of the off shore owned UK media seem to have outraged a lot more than the "Establishment elite". I think the backlash to the backlash is in any event going to harm Theresa May quite badly in the longer term. Personally I am so disgusted with the feral press and their extremist anger, that I would even vote Corbyn tactically to punish the Tories for the damage they have already done to the country.

    If it's damage arising from Brexit chaos, I'm afraid it wasn't just the Tories who did that it was tons of labour and lib dem voters too. Which is not to say the headlines have not been bloody silly, as they have been even accepting no one expects a headline to summarise a legal judgement very well, but free press and speech will always entail the acceptance of a certain level of worthless and opprobrious commentary. You may also find corbynites are hardly good examples of avoiding extremist anger.

    But it's not easy to know who to vote for thesedays admittedly. Best hope you have really nice, effective constituency MP I guess.
    I don't think the 'tons of labour and LibDem voters' line will wash, in the long run - it was Tory MPs, the Tory press, and mostly Tory defectors to UKIP, that kept stirring up the EU issue for years, it was the Tories who gave us what history will probably see as an unnecessary referendum, and it was almost all Tories, plus Farage, who were the big players in the leave campaign. In years to come Hoey and Stuart will be forgotten. Everyone knows that without Tory opposition to EU we would not be where we are,

    .
    Doesn't matter if it will 'wash' or not, it's still true. We can all claim we followed where they led so it's their fault, but the Tories are not the pied piper, everyone, including those millions of labour and lib dem voters, had a choice. If Brexit does become a disaster I could hardly claim no one told me it woukd be so, so it doesn't matter if the Tories are tied to it more than the others in terms of actual blame.

    In the end, it will be the voters fault. If someone needs punishing it will indeed be the Tories, particularly since they are in government, but a cross party spectrum made it happen.
    Errrm, if you think voters won't punish somebody else for their own mistakes you may not have been paying attention.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    nunu said:

    Chris said:

    I'm starting to wonder which aspect of the constitution is going to be next in the firing line for the extreme Brexiteers. They've done the sovereignty of Parliament and the independence of the judiciary. Whatever next? Let's hope the Queen doesn't say anything nice about foreigners in the next few days ...

    Or Prince Phillip, that'd really do them....
    I think you're entering the realms of fantasy here.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    The tone gives the impression that they purposefully came to an incorrect decision in order to frustrate the public will. ''

    The Mail may well be incorrect, but it is entitled to its view, and given the size and depth of the demos, entitled to express it very vehemently.

    Judges deliver political judgements all the time around the world, and as we have seen from the US example, some democratic systems do not even pretend otherwise.

    Your argument seems to rest upon the notion that we're British, doncha know, and that sort of thing doesn;t happen in the country that invented cricket.
  • DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    Dadge said:

    Sean_F said:

    In today's polling, the LA Times has Trump +5%, IBD has Clinton +3% in a two-way fight, tied in a four-way fight.

    LA Times tracker was at Trump +1 even when Hillary was 10% ahead. If it's anywhere near correct in the end it will be by accident.
    Or most of the others shared a bias. Historically, the LA Times is more accurate than YouGov, Rasmussen and Gallup, as accurate as CBS/NYT and ABC News/WP, and slightly less accurate than NBC News/WSJ.
  • 619 said:

    Trump: I hate illegal immigrants.
    Melania: 'I hate cyber bullies'
    *look at each other longingly*


    Was Melania an illegal immigrant?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,585

    Mr. B, smart in the sense of trying to permanently drive the working class vote away from Labour?

    There is that, of course... but they are demanding a debate in parliament.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, re Italy, it is important to remember that Renzi resigning no more means new elections than Cameron resigning. What it means is another member of the DP becomes PM.

    Probably a less charismatic one, more likely to lose to 5* in 2018
    Quite possibly, although 5* is struggling with the mayoralty of Rome.

    What Italy needs is for the right (Forza Italia, Lega Nodra, Us with Savlini) to merge, as the current 'bonus' structure really stuffs them.
    Yes and the weakness of the right allows 5* to capitalise and become the main focus point of opposition to the government
    5* has lost 5-6% of support in Italy since the summer, so it's not been all one way.
    If Renzi loses his referendum that will shoot back up again
    Possibly

  • The Brexit court case has led to a very perverse situation:

    * The EU say they won't negotiate without A50 being triggered.

    * The PM cannot trigger A50 without parliament agreeing.

    * Parliament (likely) won't agree without knowing what the plan is.

    * The PM cannot provide this as the negotiations haven't started; any detailed promise would be meaningless.

    * The process cannot start.

    The judges really do seem to have blocked Brexit.

    I don't understand why we can't do what has happened on all the other occasions: The PM makes the treaty change (A50) as long as parliament agrees the final deal. I hope the Supreme Court changes this ruling.

    Judges have not blocked Brexit. They are enforcing parliament's law.

    Cameron has blocked Brexit by making the referendum advisory instead of parliament agreeing the result would be automatically implemented (either way).
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    edited November 2016
    Really, I think this stuff about the government acting illegally by agreeing to EU treaties before parliament has passed the necessary legislation is complete tripe.

    Here's a "FactSheet" from 2010 published by the House of Commons Information Office:
    "All EU treaties require legislation for their implementation in the UK and are therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Treaty of Rome is given effect in the UK by the European
    Communities Act 1972. Any amendment has to be given effect by UK legislation, thus the
    enlargements of the EC to include Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland and Sweden required amending Acts of Parliament in Britain."
    https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf

    There's nothing new about the court's view. Obviously, the government's agreement to EU treaties has been conditional on Parliament passing the necessary legislation, in just the same way as for a treaty requiring parliamentary ratification.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784

    619 said:

    Trump: I hate illegal immigrants.
    Melania: 'I hate cyber bullies'
    *look at each other longingly*


    Was Melania an illegal immigrant?
    story from last night was that she was when she first came to the country
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''I'm starting to wonder which aspect of the constitution is going to be next in the firing line for the extreme Brexiteers. ''

    To paraphrase to the best thing ever written on Brexit, by Cameron's old tutor Bogdanor.

    1. The arguments and tactics being used to frustrate Brexit are the same as those used to frustrate the extension of the franchise in 1832.

    2. If Brexit is not implemented, the people voting for it might very well conclude the system of government they have does not serve them.

    Under those circumstances, is it any wonder there is an outcry against our institutions. The only surprise is it is not greater.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,544
    taffys said:

    The tone gives the impression that they purposefully came to an incorrect decision in order to frustrate the public will. ''

    The Mail may well be incorrect, but it is entitled to its view, and given the size and depth of the demos, entitled to express it very vehemently.

    Judges deliver political judgements all the time around the world, and as we have seen from the US example, some democratic systems do not even pretend otherwise.

    Your argument seems to rest upon the notion that we're British, doncha know, and that sort of thing doesn;t happen in the country that invented cricket.

    Don't be a silly sausage. My argument does not rest on that: it rests on my (admittedly inexpert) reading of the judgement, the arguments either way on here, and the fact the government seems to think their own side got it majorly wrong.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    taffys said:

    ''I'm starting to wonder which aspect of the constitution is going to be next in the firing line for the extreme Brexiteers. ''

    To paraphrase to the best thing ever written on Brexit, by Cameron's old tutor Bogdanor.

    1. The arguments and tactics being used to frustrate Brexit are the same as those used to frustrate the extension of the franchise in 1832.

    2. If Brexit is not implemented, the people voting for it might very well conclude the system of government they have does not serve them.

    Under those circumstances, is it any wonder there is an outcry against our institutions. The only surprise is it is not greater.

    So you mean democracy itself will be next in the firing line?

  • Europhilia is not a consistent position for a sovereignty movement. Why would one be simultaneously desperate to escape from a British Union that's busy salami-slicing its authority and passing it over on a plate, and desperate to embrace a European Union which is a centralising engine that rarely, if ever, shows any regard for the principle of subsidiarity. Not to mention the fact that trade barriers between the UK and EU are considered a lethal threat, whereas trade barriers between Scotland in the EU and England out of it are not (even though England is a far more important trading partner for Scotland than the whole of the rest of Europe.)

    The official SNP position is a total bloody mess, a complete mass of illogical contradictions. Either sovereignty pooling, for the sake of trade amongst other things, is vital - in which case, the UK single market is more important than anything else and independence is a dead duck. Or sovereignty pooling is undesirable, in which case the position advocated by Jim Sillars - to depart from both Unions and operate as a truly independent state - is the one that makes real sense.

    Euroscepticism is the love that dare not speak its name within the Nationalist movement. If that ceases to be the case then there could be real ructions within the SNP - just like there have been amongst English & Welsh Conservatives for the last several decades.

    The SNP is a totalitarian, on-message cult..err, no, the other one..a hopelssly divided party on the cusp of schism.

    Tricky for all those armchair SNPbad experts keeping on message.
    Actually the point is that the SNP is an on-message cult following a message that makes no sense. Its inherent contradictions of being both nationalist and Europhile are blatant to everyone who hasn't drank the kool-aid.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, re Italy, it is important to remember that Renzi resigning no more means new elections than Cameron resigning. What it means is another member of the DP becomes PM.

    Probably a less charismatic one, more likely to lose to 5* in 2018
    Quite possibly, although 5* is struggling with the mayoralty of Rome.

    What Italy needs is for the right (Forza Italia, Lega Nodra, Us with Savlini) to merge, as the current 'bonus' structure really stuffs them.
    Raggi in Rome is proving that 5 Star couldn't manage a piss up in a brewery...typical, tawdry populists...all talk.

    I think the last thing Italy needs quite frankly RCS is a resurgent right wing. 20 years of Berlusconi changed Italy into a basket case.

    Renzi is a Christian Democrat in all but name.....if the PD goes left a la Corbyn if he loses, I could quite easily see him try and create some kind of centre party.
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    John Kenyon

    Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/brexit-court-ruling-calls-for-theresa-may-to-calm-backlash-1-4278843#comments-area

    The anger would be less if a major cause of Brexit hadn't been systematic public disenchantment with an out-of-touch and traitorous elite constantly ignoring them and rubbishing their views. And it would also be less if those now using the Victorian doctrine of "parliamentary sovereignty" as a tool to thwart a democratic decision had also opposed the draining away of that same parliamentary sovereignty over recent decades both to EU institutions (where whole swathes of powers which Westminster cannot over-rule now lie) and to the courts (which have declared Westminster's decisions "unlawful" on everything from terrorist control orders to aspects of welfare reform). People can see when a tricky and hypocritical elite is desperately trying to "steal" the outcome of a democratic process on which both the government and the majority of voters are agreed. And the blame for that anger lies with the anti-democrats. (2) (0)

    Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/brexit-court-ruling-calls-for-theresa-may-to-calm-backlash-1-4278843#comments-area
  • DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    Nate Silver's model has raised the probability of no overall majority in the EC to 1.4%, with 0.8% of that accounted for by a 269-269 tie. The assumption is probably that no electors will vote faithlessly, which is unlikely to be true.

    There's GOTV, and then there's GOTVITEC.
  • Can it be long before the Sun is doing features on falling indigenous white populations? I mean, we can't have the Poles getting too comfy, can we?.

    https://twitter.com/AngrySalmond/status/794466700410454016
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    The SNP is a totalitarian, on-message cult..err, no, the other one..a hopelssly divided party on the cusp of schism.

    Tricky for all those armchair SNPbad experts keeping on message.

    SNP politicians need to stay on message in order to paper over the obvious differences between them. Discipline and small-c conservatism on key planks of policy is how they manage to keep so many disparate voters on side at the same time: keep taxes reasonably stable, focus on managerialism, keep denying any setbacks or blaming them on Westminster, and burnish your radical credentials with distractions like land reform that 97% of the country doesn't give two hoots about. When Sturgeon eventually falls off that tightrope, one or more parts of her electoral coalition will start to desert and SNP support will decline.

    All that unites that party is its core goal of secession from the United Kingdom. Beneath the surface, it is riven by faction: republican socialists vs tartan Tories, £ Sterling vs £ Scots, pro-EU vs anti, liberal vs authoritarian. And especially once Scotland becomes a lot more responsible for raising as well as spending its taxes, the SNP won't be able to keep riding several horses at once. It cannot advance a leftist agenda to please its primary target - the crumbling Labour vote in the central belt - and keep right-leaning supporters in the Borders and the North East happy at the same time. Yes country will fall to them, No country will gradually be carved up by the Tories and Liberal Democrats. This seems more a matter of when than if.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,544
    taffys said:

    ''I'm starting to wonder which aspect of the constitution is going to be next in the firing line for the extreme Brexiteers. ''

    To paraphrase to the best thing ever written on Brexit, by Cameron's old tutor Bogdanor.

    1. The arguments and tactics being used to frustrate Brexit are the same as those used to frustrate the extension of the franchise in 1832.

    2. If Brexit is not implemented, the people voting for it might very well conclude the system of government they have does not serve them.

    Under those circumstances, is it any wonder there is an outcry against our institutions. The only surprise is it is not greater.

    Do you have a link to that please? It looks like an interesting read.
This discussion has been closed.