Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on will there be a Tory leadership contest in 2018

124»

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    MJW said:

    I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.

    This sort of po
    At the same time, we see him as a genuine, nice man (and I'm speaking from personal knowledge) who we think has freshened politics by ending the idea that you have to accept the premises of the centre-right or be permanently excluded from rational debate.

    So when you say he attended event X or socialised with dubious person Y, we shrug - what else is new? When you say he's horrible, we just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
    I read that post and just think you’re morally compromised beyond sensible discussion.
    People who have met him or know him, tend to like him. I disagree with so much that he says and does, but we can’t deny the fact he inspires trust and friendship.
    I don’t see how anyone can be so relaxed about their leader apparently honouring particularly violent terrorists and now lying about it.
    Politicians of varied parties have been unduly friendly with all sorts of nasty people across the globe and across the years, including when in government. Pinochet, Ceaucescu; it's a long list.
    I agree that politicians have sometimes been too friendly with nasty people they should have kept at a distance (Thatcher, when out of power, with Pinochet, for instance) or the general cringe towards Saudi Arabia.

    But there is a difference between having to deal with politicians for raisons d'etat and choosing to befriend and support because you agree with what they say and do. Corbyn falls rather more into the latter category. It is not necessary - in order to support Palestinians dispossessed of their homes - to honour people who murder and castrate innocent athletes at a sports event. Corbyn does not understand this. Nor, apparently, does our own Mr Palmer.

    Nor does Corbyn's likability and ability to make friends really add anything to the discussion. Lots of people with bad moral and political judgment can be nice and have a gift for friendship. So what?
    The fear is that the country is heading for a choice between two potential PMs neither of whom has any morality, integrity or good judgement.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    MJW said:

    I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.

    This sort of po
    At the same time, we see him as a genuine, nice man (and I'm speaking from personal knowledge) who we think has freshened politics by ending the idea that you have to accept the premises of the centre-right or be permanently excluded from rational debate.

    So when you say he attended event X or socialised with dubious person Y, we shrug - what else is new? When you say he's horrible, we just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
    I read that post and just think you’re morally compromised beyond sensible discussion.
    People who have met him or know him, tend to like him. I disagree with so much that he says and does, but we can’t deny the fact he inspires trust and friendship.
    I don’t see how anyone can be so relaxed about their leader apparently honouring particularly violent terrorists and now lying about it.
    Politicians of varied parties have been unduly friendly with all sorts of nasty people across the globe and across the years, including when in government. Pinochet, Ceaucescu; it's a long list.
    I agree that politicians have sometimes been too friendly with nasty people they should have kept at a distance (Thatcher, when out of power, with Pinochet, for instance) or the general cringe towards Saudi Arabia.

    But there is a difference between having to deal with politicians for raisons d'etat and choosing to befriend and support because you agree with what they say and do. Corbyn falls rather more into the latter category. It is not necessary - in order to support Palestinians dispossessed of their homes - to honour people who murder and castrate innocent athletes at a sports event. Corbyn does not understand this. Nor, apparently, does our own Mr Palmer.

    Nor does Corbyn's likability and ability to make friends really add anything to the discussion. Lots of people with bad moral and political judgment can be nice and have a gift for friendship. So what?
    The fear is that the country is heading for a choice between two potential PMs neither of whom has any morality, integrity or good judgement.
    Yup: depressing, isn't it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:



    On first preferences Opinium has Remain ahead, then No Deal then Chequers Deal.

    On second preferences however Chequers Deal comes first, then No Deal, then Remain (p10)

    https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-july-2018-2/

    Is that the right link?
    Following it, I don't get anything with pages, just a link to an excel spreadsheet with data tables (which are exceptionally confusing where the multi-choice referendum is concerned).
    Yet still clearly show Chequers Deal ahead on second preferences if you actually scroll through the spreadsheet to page 10
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited August 2018
    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    MJW said:

    I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.

    This sort of po
    At the same time, we see him as a genuine, nice man (and I'm speaking from personal knowledge) who we think has freshened politics by ending the idea that you have to accept the premises of the centre-right or be permanently excluded from rational debate.

    So just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
    I read that post and just think you’re morally compromised beyond sensible discussion.
    People who have met him or know him, tend to like him. I disagree with so much that he says and does, but we can’t deny the fact he inspires trust and friendship.
    I don’t see how anyone can be so relaxed about their leader apparently honouring particularly violent terrorists and now lying about it.
    Politicians of varied parties have been unduly friendly with all sorts of nasty people across the globe and across the years, including when in government. Pinochet, Ceaucescu; it's a long list.
    I agree that politicians have sometimes been too friendly with nasty people they should have kept at a distance (Thatcher, when out of power, with Pinochet, for instance) or the general cringe towards Saudi Arabia.

    But there is a difference between having to deal with politicians for raisons d'etat and choosing to befriend and support because you agree with what they say and do. Corbyn falls rather more into the latter category. It is not necessary - in order to support Palestinians dispossessed of their homes - to honour people who murder and castrate innocent athletes at a sports event. Corbyn does not understand this. Nor, apparently, does our own Mr Palmer.

    Nor does Corbyn's likability and ability to make friends really add anything to the discussion. Lots of people with bad moral and political judgment can be nice and have a gift for friendship. So what?
    The fear is that the country is heading for a choice between two potential PMs neither of whom has any morality, integrity or good judgement.
    Yup: depressing, isn't it.
    Certainly so. But if it did ever come down to a forced choice between Boris v Corbyn, I would choose Corbyn. I would rather have someone who does believe in some things, even if sometimes the wrong ones, than have someone who only believes in himself (and with no good reason).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    On first preferences Opinium has Remain ahead, then No Deal then Chequers Deal.

    On second preferences however Chequers Deal comes first, then No Deal, then Remain (p10)

    https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-july-2018-2/

    Is that the right link?
    Following it, I don't get anything with pages, just a link to an excel spreadsheet with data tables (which are exceptionally confusing where the multi-choice referendum is concerned).
    Yet still clearly show Chequers Deal ahead on second preferences if you actually scroll through the spreadsheet to page 10
    If you are now requiring people to scroll through ten pages of a spreadsheet in order to ascertain whether there is any logic to your posts, you have truly reached rock bottom....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,558
    edited August 2018
    One of the benefits of leaving Europe - the special relationship...
    https://www.politico.eu/article/woody-johnson-iran-sanctions-uk-us-to-london-back-us-on-iran/

    ‘Back us or face severe consequences...’ - and that from a diplomat.

    Remind me of how we define vassal ?
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    MJW said:

    I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.

    This sort of po
    At the same time, we see him as a genuine, nice man (and I'm speaking from personal knowledge) who we think has freshened politics by ending the idea that you have to accept the premises of the centre-right or be permanently excluded from rational debate.

    So when you say he attended event X or socialised with dubious person Y, we shrug - what else is new? When you say he's horrible, we just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
    I read that post and just think you’re morally compromised beyond sensible discussion.
    People who have met him or know him, tend to like him. I disagree with so much that he says and does, but we can’t deny the fact he inspires trust and friendship.
    I don’t see how anyone can be so relaxed about their leader apparently honouring particularly violent terrorists and now lying about it.
    Politicians of varied parties have been unduly friendly with all sorts of nasty people across the globe and across the years, including when in government. Pinochet, Ceaucescu; it's a long list.
    I agree that politicians have sometimes been too friendly with nasty people they should have kept at a distance (Thatcher, when out of power, with Pinochet, for instance) or the general cringe towards Saudi Arabia.

    But there is a difference between having to deal with politicians for raisons d'etat and choosing to befriend and support because you agree with what they say and do. Corbyn falls rather more into the latter category. It is not necessary - in order to support Palestinians dispossessed of their homes - to honour people who murder and castrate innocent athletes at a sports event. Corbyn does not understand this. Nor, apparently, does our own Mr Palmer.

    Nor does Corbyn's likability and ability to make friends really add anything to the discussion. Lots of people with bad moral and political judgment can be nice and have a gift for friendship. So what?
    The fear is that the country is heading for a choice between two potential PMs neither of whom has any morality, integrity or good judgement.
    We had that in 2017 didn't we?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    On first preferences Opinium has Remain ahead, then No Deal then Chequers Deal.

    On second preferences however Chequers Deal comes first, then No Deal, then Remain (p10)

    https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-july-2018-2/

    Is that the right link?
    Following it, I don't get anything with pages, just a link to an excel spreadsheet with data tables (which are exceptionally confusing where the multi-choice referendum is concerned).
    Yet still clearly show Chequers Deal ahead on second preferences if you actually scroll through the spreadsheet to page 10
    If you are now requiring people to scroll through ten pages of a spreadsheet in order to ascertain whether there is any logic to your posts, you have truly reached rock bottom....
    Yet the fact you cannot be bothered to do so does not change the fact I am right
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    On first preferences Opinium has Remain ahead, then No Deal then Chequers Deal.

    On second preferences however Chequers Deal comes first, then No Deal, then Remain (p10)

    https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-july-2018-2/

    Is that the right link?
    Following it, I don't get anything with pages, just a link to an excel spreadsheet with data tables (which are exceptionally confusing where the multi-choice referendum is concerned).
    Yet still clearly show Chequers Deal ahead on second preferences if you actually scroll through the spreadsheet to page 10
    By "page 10" do you mean the tag "VI_Q3A_Categorical, or VI_Q3B_Categorical (2) ? Because they're the 13th and 14th tabs, and neither provides enough useful information - just how many each got as 1st preference and how many as second preference.
    The latter, of course, needing us to know which first preference each was attached to. After all, there will be a number of voters choosing "No deal" first and "Remain" second, and some for "Remain" first and "No deal" second. I think we've heard from both such in the various discussions so far.

    All I can get is that we have 19% Remain, 16% No Deal, 10% Deal (per tab 13) or 19% Remain, 15% No Deal, 8% Deal (per tab 14), with second preferences a lot vaguer (as we don't know how many of the 4% who chose "No Deal" as a second choice had "Deal" or "Remain" as their first choice, for example).

    Either way, "Deal" would be eliminated in the first round of any such referendum, so second-choice support would be less than helpful.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,957
    The rain radar isn't looking good at the cricket for the next few hours - a band of wetweather coming up form the SW. Set it for animation.

    What muppety captaincy....

    https://www.netweather.tv/live-weather/radar
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited August 2018
    brendan16 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    MJW said:

    I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.

    This .

    So when you say he attended event X or socialised with dubious person Y, we shrug - what else is new? When you say he's horrible, we just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
    I read that post and just think you’re morally compromised beyond sensible discussion.
    People who have met him or know him, tend to like him. I disagree with so much that he says and does, but we can’t deny the fact he inspires trust and friendship.
    I don’t see how anyone can be so relaxed about their leader apparently honouring particularly violent terrorists and now lying about it.
    Politicians of varied parties have been unduly friendly with all sorts of nasty people across the globe and across the years, including when in government. Pinochet, Ceaucescu; it's a long list.
    I agree that politicians have sometimes been too friendly with nasty people they should have kept at a distance (Thatcher, when out of power, with Pinochet, for instance) or the general cringe towards Saudi Arabia.

    But there is a difference between having to deal with politicians for raisons d'etat and choosing to befriend and support because you agree with what they say and do. Corbyn falls rather more into the latter category. It is not necessary - in order to support Palestinians dispossessed of their homes - to honour people who murder and castrate innocent athletes at a sports event. Corbyn does not understand this. Nor, apparently, does our own Mr Palmer.

    Nor does Corbyn's likability and ability to make friends really add anything to the discussion. Lots of people with bad moral and political judgment can be nice and have a gift for friendship. So what?
    The fear is that the country is heading for a choice between two potential PMs neither of whom has any morality, integrity or good judgement.
    We had that in 2017 didn't we?
    Not really. May is a prisoner of circumstances and her own lack of political skills, but even as a non-Tory I wouldn't condemn her to the same extent as charlatans like Boris and Corbyn. The result was actually the right one (insofar as an unfair system can ever deliver such) - the better of the two PMs but denied absolute power.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,760

    The rain radar isn't looking good at the cricket for the next few hours - a band of wetweather coming up form the SW. Set it for animation.

    What muppety captaincy....

    https://www.netweather.tv/live-weather/radar

    The decision to bat this morning was genuinely crazy. What a wasted hour. Hopefully they will get enough play in for it not to make a difference but they have given India a chance they did not deserve.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    No Deal numbers are shrinking. The latest and largest YouGov gives it only 27% on first preferences.

    First preferences don't count as the final choice would be between No Deal and Remain. (And anyway 27% was enough for UKIP to come first in the 2014 European elections).


    Remain would likely win v No Deal (as opposed to Chequers Deal v Remain which Chequers Deal would likely win) but the 'betrayal' narrative of No Deal Brexit supporters would be immense
    "The final choice would be between No Deal and Remain"

    Would it? You've spent the last two days telling us the Chequers plan will unite both sides.
    All the polling indicates in a three way battle between No Deal, Chequers and Remain, No Deal and Remain would be the final two.

    However a referendum on No Deal v Remain lines, Mogg, Boris and Farage v Soubry, Umunna and Cable would be even more polarised than the last referendum and I fear would almost bring the country to a near civil war.

    Chequers Deal terms is the only compromise possible
    Which is why No Deal won't be on any referendum ballot. The only viable choices are a Chequers-style deal or Remain.
    Which also explains why there will not be another referendum once the Chequers Deal becomes the agreed Brexit terms
    No it doesn't. You could ask exactly the same question as last time, but now with a defined Leave deal.
    We have already voted Leave, May can say she is putting forward the Leave Deal that most unites the country, hence no need for another referendum and there will not be another one unless say the LDs by some miracle win the next general election
    Do you think it's credible to say that Chequers unites the country? Good luck on the doorstep.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    On first preferences Opinium has Remain ahead, then No Deal then Chequers Deal.

    On second preferences however Chequers Deal comes first, then No Deal, then Remain (p10)

    https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-july-2018-2/

    Is that the right link?
    Following it, I don't get anything with pages, just a link to an excel spreadsheet with data tables (which are exceptionally confusing where the multi-choice referendum is concerned).
    Yet still clearly show Chequers Deal ahead on second preferences if you actually scroll through the spreadsheet to page 10
    If you are now requiring people to scroll through ten pages of a spreadsheet in order to ascertain whether there is any logic to your posts, you have truly reached rock bottom....
    Yet the fact you cannot be bothered to do so does not change the fact I am right
    Congratulations. Identifying that I can't be bothered is the first piece of good judgement you have made whilst posting here for quite some time.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    edited August 2018
    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    MJW said:

    I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.

    This sort o .... politics by ending the idea that you have to accept the premises of the centre-right or be permanently excluded from rational debate.

    So when you say he attended event X or socialised with dubious person Y, we shrug - what else is new? When you say he's horrible, we just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
    I read that post and just think you’re morally compromised beyond sensible discussion.
    People who have met him or know him, tend to like him. I disagree with so much that he says and does, but we can’t deny the fact he inspires trust and friendship.
    I don’t see how anyone can be so relaxed about their leader apparently honouring particularly violent terrorists and now lying about it.
    Politicians of varied parties have been unduly friendly with all sorts of nasty people across the globe and across the years, including when in government. Pinochet, Ceaucescu; it's a long list.
    I agree that politicians have sometimes been too friendly with nasty people they should have kept at a distance (Thatcher, when out of power, with Pinochet, for instance) or the general cringe towards Saudi Arabia.

    But there is a difference between having to deal with politicians for raisons d'etat and choosing to befriend and support because you agree with what they say and do. Corbyn falls rather more into the latter category. It is not necessary - in order to support Palestinians dispossessed of their homes - to honour people who murder and castrate innocent athletes at a sports event. Corbyn does not understand this. Nor, apparently, does our own Mr Palmer.

    Nor does Corbyn's likability and ability to make friends really add anything to the discussion. Lots of people with bad moral and political judgment can be nice and have a gift for friendship. So what?
    For once I agree with you, which is nice even if the circumstances aren't. Jeremy Corbyn isn't fit to be leader of the Labour party or future prime minister.
  • valleyboyvalleyboy Posts: 605
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    The one exception may be the 1997 Welsh Assembly referendum where only 51% voted in favour but of course Plaid has never won a Welsh vote since showing Wales has little appetite for more devolution

    But by your logic the anti devolutionists should have been constantly pushing for its end rather than impotently & sporadically whining about it (just like Scotland). The turnout of 50% for that referendum fits in just fine with my apathy theory.
    The fact there have been no demands for 'devomax' in Wales to the same extent as there have been in Scotland proves my point
    I was surprised that the Tories rather meekly accepted the narrow 1997 Wales Referendum result by failing to revisit the issue later. I sense that the Assembly is far from popular and that there would be widespread indifference to its disappearance.
    There have been polls which point to the Wales Government (not Assembly) being much more accepted than in 1997, although there does remain a hard core who would like it abolished.
    I was ambivalent back then and voted for essentially as it was Labour policy.
    Since then, like many I have warmed to it, although I fully accept it has a long way to go to be fully embraced by many.
    Again like the majority I do not want full independence, but given the mess the Tories are making of the country even that view is changing.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited August 2018

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    On first preferences Opinium has Remain ahead, then No Deal then Chequers Deal.

    On second preferences however Chequers Deal comes first, then No Deal, then Remain (p10)

    https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-july-2018-2/

    Is that the right link?
    Following it, I don't get anything with pages, just a link to an excel spreadsheet with data tables (which are exceptionally confusing where the multi-choice referendum is concerned).
    Yet still clearly show Chequers Deal ahead on second preferences if you actually scroll through the spreadsheet to page 10
    By "page 10" do you mean the tag "VI_Q3A_Categorical, or VI_Q3B_Categorical (2) ? Because they're the 13th and 14th tabs, and neither provides enough useful information - just how many each got as 1st preference and how many as second preference.
    The latter, of course, needing us to know which first preference each was attached to. After all, there will be a number of voters choosing "No deal" first and "Remain" second, and some for "Remain" first and "No deal" second. I think we've heard from both such in the various discussions so far.

    All I can get is that we have 19% Remain, 16% No Deal, 10% Deal (per tab 13) or 19% Remain, 15% No Deal, 8% Deal (per tab 14), with second preferences a lot vaguer (as we don't know how many of the 4% who chose "No Deal" as a second choice had "Deal" or "Remain" as their first choice, for example).

    Either way, "Deal" would be eliminated in the first round of any such referendum, so second-choice support would be less than helpful.
    You are only quoting first rank figures.

    On second rank figures it is Deal 15%, No Deal 7%, Remain 2% (per tab 13) and Deal 15%, No Deal 4%, Remain 2% (per tab 14).

    As I said there will not be a Remain v No Deal referendum as May will negotiate Brexit on Chequers Deal terms
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,957
    DavidL said:

    The rain radar isn't looking good at the cricket for the next few hours - a band of wetweather coming up form the SW. Set it for animation.

    What muppety captaincy....

    https://www.netweather.tv/live-weather/radar

    The decision to bat this morning was genuinely crazy. What a wasted hour. Hopefully they will get enough play in for it not to make a difference but they have given India a chance they did not deserve.
    Makes you wonder whether there has been some pressure to get paying bums on seats for the fifth day....
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    On first preferences Opinium has Remain ahead, then No Deal then Chequers Deal.

    On second preferences however Chequers Deal comes first, then No Deal, then Remain (p10)

    https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-july-2018-2/

    Is that the right link?
    Following it, I don't get anything with pages, just a link to an excel spreadsheet with data tables (which are exceptionally confusing where the multi-choice referendum is concerned).
    Yet still clearly show Chequers Deal ahead on second preferences if you actually scroll through the spreadsheet to page 10
    If you are now requiring people to scroll through ten pages of a spreadsheet in order to ascertain whether there is any logic to your posts, you have truly reached rock bottom....
    Yet the fact you cannot be bothered to do so does not change the fact I am right
    Congratulations. Identifying that I can't be bothered is the first piece of good judgement you have made whilst posting here for quite some time.
    HYUFD seems to have skipped over this result from his poll:

    To what extent do you support or oppose the public having a vote on the final deal that the Government agrees with the EU?

    Strongly support 30 %
    Somewhat support 23 %
    Somewhat oppose 14 %
    Strongly oppose 17 %
    Don’t know / no opinion 16 %

    NET: Support 54 %
    NET: Oppose 31 %
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    MJW said:


    I read that post and just think you’re morally compromised beyond sensible discussion.
    People who have met him or know him, tend to like him. I disagree with so much that he says and does, but we can’t deny the fact he inspires trust and friendship.
    I don’t see how anyone can be so relaxed about their leader apparently honouring particularly violent terrorists and now lying about it.
    Politicians of varied parties have been unduly friendly with all sorts of nasty people across the globe and across the years, including when in government. Pinochet, Ceaucescu; it's a long list.
    I agree that politicians have sometimes been too friendly with nasty people they should have kept at a distance (Thatcher, when out of power, with Pinochet, for instance) or the general cringe towards Saudi Arabia.

    But there is a difference between having to deal with politicians for raisons d'etat and choosing to befriend and support because you agree with what they say and do. Corbyn falls rather more into the latter category. It is not necessary - in order to support Palestinians dispossessed of their homes - to honour people who murder and castrate innocent athletes at a sports event. Corbyn does not understand this. Nor, apparently, does our own Mr Palmer.

    Nor does Corbyn's likability and ability to make friends really add anything to the discussion. Lots of people with bad moral and political judgment can be nice and have a gift for friendship. So what?
    The fear is that the country is heading for a choice between two potential PMs neither of whom has any morality, integrity or good judgement.
    Yup: depressing, isn't it.
    Certainly so. But if it did ever come down to a forced choice between Boris v Corbyn, I would choose Corbyn. I would rather have someone who does believe in some things, even if sometimes the wrong ones, than have someone who only believes in himself (and with no good reason).
    I'd still choose the Meeks option: setting fire to my ballot paper. I tend to the view that those who think they are right and won't change their minds are possibly more dangerous than those who are just vain buffoons. The latter might - just might - be susceptible to changing course. The former often aren't. But it's a Hobson's choice.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Barnesian said:



    The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal).
    The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).

    If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.

    The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.

    Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.


    I disagree. I'd support a vote on the deal as you suggest for reasons such as you suggest (mostly), but getting into pedantic arguments as to why a second vote is ok but a third not is, itself, pretty damn silly. It is the major flaw with any second vote argument, for all I am persuaded to it, I have yet to a hear a credible reason for why a third is not permissible as a result that was not clearly an excuse.
    I think people who argue about whether it's permissible are missing the point. Any referendum is permissible if there is an appetite for it and if there is a compelling reason to have one. Talk about a third or a forth referendum is really just a prediction about whether there would be any appetite for one. I don't think there would be. Even if the Brexit deal were approved by 50.1%, I don't think people would want to revisit it for a long time.
    Ha Ha, if it was 50.1% Remain Farage, Mogg and Boris would be campaigning for a third referendum from 6am the next morning.

    As I said earlier you need to get to 60%+ in a referendum to settle the matter decisively
    hence why there will be indyref 2
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    On first preferences Opinium has Remain ahead, then No Deal then Chequers Deal.

    On second preferences however Chequers Deal comes first, then No Deal, then Remain (p10)

    https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-july-2018-2/

    Is that the right link?
    Following it, I don't get anything with pages, just a link to an excel spreadsheet with data tables (which are exceptionally confusing where the multi-choice referendum is concerned).
    Yet still clearly show Chequers Deal ahead on second preferences if you actually scroll through the spreadsheet to page 10
    If you are now requiring people to scroll through ten pages of a spreadsheet in order to ascertain whether there is any logic to your posts, you have truly reached rock bottom....
    Yet the fact you cannot be bothered to do so does not change the fact I am right
    Congratulations. Identifying that I can't be bothered is the first piece of good judgement you have made whilst posting here for quite some time.
    HYUFD seems to have skipped over this result from his poll:

    To what extent do you support or oppose the public having a vote on the final deal that the Government agrees with the EU?

    Strongly support 30 %
    Somewhat support 23 %
    Somewhat oppose 14 %
    Strongly oppose 17 %
    Don’t know / no opinion 16 %

    NET: Support 54 %
    NET: Oppose 31 %
    Again irrelevant as most Tory voters oppose a second referendum and the Tories are in power and ultimately most voters polled accept Chequers Deal terms
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    On first preferences Opinium has Remain ahead, then No Deal then Chequers Deal.

    On second preferences however Chequers Deal comes first, then No Deal, then Remain (p10)

    https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-july-2018-2/

    Is that the right link?
    Following it, I don't get anything with pages, just a link to an excel spreadsheet with data tables (which are exceptionally confusing where the multi-choice referendum is concerned).
    Yet still clearly show Chequers Deal ahead on second preferences if you actually scroll through the spreadsheet to page 10
    By "page 10" do you mean the tag "VI_Q3A_Categorical, or VI_Q3B_Categorical (2) ? Because they're the 13th and 14th tabs, and neither provides enough useful information - just how many each got as 1st preference and how many as second preference.
    The latter, of course, needing us to know which first preference each was attached to. After all, there will be a number of voters choosing "No deal" first and "Remain" second, and some for "Remain" first and "No deal" second. I think we've heard from both such in the various discussions so far.

    All I can get is that we have 19% Remain, 16% No Deal, 10% Deal (per tab 13) or 19% Remain, 15% No Deal, 8% Deal (per tab 14), with second preferences a lot vaguer (as we don't know how many of the 4% who chose "No Deal" as a second choice had "Deal" or "Remain" as their first choice, for example).

    Either way, "Deal" would be eliminated in the first round of any such referendum, so second-choice support would be less than helpful.
    You are only quoting first rank figures.

    On second rank figures it is Deal 15%, No Deal 7%, Remain 2% (per tab 13) and Deal 15%, No Deal 4%, Remain 2% (per tab 14).

    As I said there will not be a Remain v No Deal referendum as May will negotiate Brexit on Chequers Deal terms
    And, as I've said, we don't know which of the second rank figures came from which first rank preference.

    If we get a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, any "Remain-1, Deal-2" preferences won't be counted for Deal, will they? (And that second preference is likely to be greater amongst Remainers than No Deal, I'd guess - although not exclusively so)

    So we can't just add (on page 14) "8% Deal 1st preference plus 15% Deal 2nd preferences equals 23%". We can only add the second preferences of those who would otherwise have voted No Deal. And we don't have those figures there.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    On first preferences Opinium has Remain ahead, then No Deal then Chequers Deal.

    On second preferences however Chequers Deal comes first, then No Deal, then Remain (p10)

    https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-july-2018-2/

    Is that the right link?
    Following it, I don't get anything with pages, just a link to an excel spreadsheet with data tables (which are exceptionally confusing where the multi-choice referendum is concerned).
    Yet still clearly show Chequers Deal ahead on second preferences if you actually scroll through the spreadsheet to page 10
    If you are now requiring people to scroll through ten pages of a spreadsheet in order to ascertain whether there is any logic to your posts, you have truly reached rock bottom....
    Yet the fact you cannot be bothered to do so does not change the fact I am right
    Congratulations. Identifying that I can't be bothered is the first piece of good judgement you have made whilst posting here for quite some time.
    HYUFD seems to have skipped over this result from his poll:

    To what extent do you support or oppose the public having a vote on the final deal that the Government agrees with the EU?

    Strongly support 30 %
    Somewhat support 23 %
    Somewhat oppose 14 %
    Strongly oppose 17 %
    Don’t know / no opinion 16 %

    NET: Support 54 %
    NET: Oppose 31 %
    Again irrelevant as most Tory voters oppose a second referendum and the Tories are in power and ultimately most voters polled accept Chequers Deal terms
    You what?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Barnesian said:



    The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal).
    The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).

    If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.

    The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.

    Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.


    I disagree. I'd support a vote on the deal as you suggest for reasons such as you suggest (mostly), but getting into pedantic arguments as to why a second vote is ok but a third not is, itself, pretty damn silly. It is the major flaw with any second vote argument, for all I am persuaded to it, I have yet to a hear a credible reason for why a third is not permissible as a result that was not clearly an excuse.
    I think people who argue about whether it's permissible are missing the point. Any referendum is permissible if there is an appetite for it and if there is a compelling reason to have one. Talk about a third or a forth referendum is really just a prediction about whether there would be any appetite for one. I don't think there would be. Even if the Brexit deal were approved by 50.1%, I don't think people would want to revisit it for a long time.
    Ha Ha, if it was 50.1% Remain Farage, Mogg and Boris would be campaigning for a third referendum from 6am the next morning.

    As I said earlier you need to get to 60%+ in a referendum to settle the matter decisively
    hence why there will be indyref 2
    In a decade or two as there was in Canada 15 years after the first one just failed to get 60% for No, that won saw a narrow No victory with devomax which will be the eventual solution for Scotland
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,760
    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    MJW said:


    People who have met him or know him, tend to like him. I disagree with so much that he says and does, but we can’t deny the fact he inspires trust and friendship.
    I don’t see how anyone can be so relaxed about their leader apparently honouring particularly violent terrorists and now lying about it.
    Politicians of varied parties have been unduly friendly with all sorts of nasty people across the globe and across the years, including when in government. Pinochet, Ceaucescu; it's a long list.
    I agree that politicians have sometimes been too friendly with nasty people they should have kept at a distance (Thatcher, when out of power, with Pinochet, for instance) or the general cringe towards Saudi Arabia.

    But there is a difference between having to deal with politicians for raisons d'etat and choosing to befriend and support because you agree with what they say and do. Corbyn falls rather more into the latter category. It is not necessary - in order to support Palestinians dispossessed of their homes - to honour people who murder and castrate innocent athletes at a sports event. Corbyn does not understand this. Nor, apparently, does our own Mr Palmer.

    Nor does Corbyn's likability and ability to make friends really add anything to the discussion. Lots of people with bad moral and political judgment can be nice and have a gift for friendship. So what?
    The fear is that the country is heading for a choice between two potential PMs neither of whom has any morality, integrity or good judgement.
    Yup: depressing, isn't it.
    Certainly so. But if it did ever come down to a forced choice between Boris v Corbyn, I would choose Corbyn. I would rather have someone who does believe in some things, even if sometimes the wrong ones, than have someone who only believes in himself (and with no good reason).
    It's a horrific choice that we can only hope never comes to pass but I would choose Boris. Better morally craven than morally corrupt. And, though he hides it well, Boris is not nearly as stupid.

    Bah, surely we can do better than this?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    On first preferences Opinium has Remain ahead, then No Deal then Chequers Deal.

    On second preferences however Chequers Deal comes first, then No Deal, then Remain (p10)

    https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-july-2018-2/

    Is that the right link?
    Following it, I don't get anything with pages, just a link to an excel spreadsheet with data tables (which are exceptionally confusing where the multi-choice referendum is concerned).
    Yet still clearly show Chequers Deal ahead on second preferences if you actually scroll through the spreadsheet to page 10
    If you are now requiring people to scroll through ten pages of a spreadsheet in order to ascertain whether there is any logic to your posts, you have truly reached rock bottom....
    Yet the fact you cannot be bothered to do so does not change the fact I am right
    Congratulations. Identifying that I can't be bothered is the first piece of good judgement you have made whilst posting here for quite some time.
    HYUFD seems to have skipped over this result from his poll:

    To what extent do you support or oppose the public having a vote on the final deal that the Government agrees with the EU?

    Strongly support 30 %
    Somewhat support 23 %
    Somewhat oppose 14 %
    Strongly oppose 17 %
    Don’t know / no opinion 16 %

    NET: Support 54 %
    NET: Oppose 31 %
    Again irrelevant as most Tory voters oppose a second referendum and the Tories are in power and ultimately most voters polled accept Chequers Deal terms
    You what?
    As the poll shows Chequers Deal is the preferred option over Remain or No Deal after preferences
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited August 2018

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    On first preferences Opinium has Remain ahead, then No Deal then Chequers Deal.

    On second preferences however Chequers Deal comes first, then No Deal, then Remain (p10)

    https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-july-2018-2/

    Is that the right link?
    Following it, I don't get anything with pages, just a link to an excel spreadsheet with data tables (which are exceptionally confusing where the multi-choice referendum is concerned).
    Yet still clearly show Chequers Deal ahead on second preferences if you actually scroll through the spreadsheet to page 10
    By "page 10" do you mean the tag "VI_Q3A_Categorical, or VI_Q3B_Categorical (2) ? Because they're the 13th and 14th tabs, and neither provides enough useful information - just how many each got as 1st preference and how many as second preference.
    The latter, of course, needing us to know which first preference each was attached to. After all, there will be a number of voters choosing "No deal" first and "Remain" second, and some for "Remain" first and "No deal" second. I think we've heard from both such in the various discussions so far.

    All I can get is that we have 19% Remain, 16% No Deal, 10% Deal (per tab 13) or 19% Remain, 15% No Deal, 8% Deal (per tab 14), with second preferences a lot vaguer (as we don't know how many of the 4% who chose "No Deal" as a second choice had "Deal" or "Remain" as their first choice, for example).

    Either way, "Deal" would be eliminated in the first round of any such referendum, so second-choice support would be less than helpful.
    You are only quoting first rank figures.

    On second rank figures it is Deal 15%, No Deal 7%, Remain 2% (per tab 13) and Deal 15%, No Deal 4%, Remain 2% (per tab 14).

    As I said there will not be a Remain v No Deal referendum as May will negotiate Brexit on Chequers Deal terms
    And, as I've said, we don't know which of the second rank figures came from which first rank preference.

    If we get a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, any "Remain-1, Deal-2" preferences won't be counted for Deal, will they? (And that second preference is likely to be greater amongst Remainers than No Deal, I'd guess - although not exclusively so)

    So we can't just add (on page 14) "8% Deal 1st preference plus 15% Deal 2nd preferences equals 23%". We can only add the second preferences of those who would otherwise have voted No Deal. And we don't have those figures there.
    We have the second preference ranking figures which have Deal ahead ie from both Remainers over No Deal and No Deal Leavers over Remain. End of conversation
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited August 2018
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    MJW said:


    People who have met him or know him, tend to like him. I disagree with so much that he says and does, but we can’t deny the fact he inspires trust and friendship.
    I don’t see how anyone can be so relaxed about their leader apparently honouring particularly violent terrorists and now lying about it.
    Politicians of varied parties have been unduly friendly with all sorts of nasty people across the globe and across the years, including when in government. Pinochet, Ceaucescu; it's a long list.
    I agree that politicians have sometimes been too friendly with nasty people they should have kept at a distance (Thatcher, when out of power, with Pinochet, for instance) or the general cringe towards Saudi Arabia.

    But there is a difference between having to deal with politicians for raisons d'etat and choosing to befriend and support because you agree with what they say and do. Corbyn falls rather more into the latter category. It is not necessary - in order to support Palestinians dispossessed of their homes - to honour people who murder and castrate innocent athletes at a sports event. Corbyn does not understand this. Nor, apparently, does our own Mr Palmer.

    Nor does Corbyn's likability and ability to make friends really add anything to the discussion. Lots of people with bad moral and political judgment can be nice and have a gift for friendship. So what?
    The fear is that the country is heading for a choice between two potential PMs neither of whom has any morality, integrity or good judgement.
    Yup: depressing, isn't it.
    Certainly so. But if it did ever come down to a forced choice between Boris v Corbyn, I would choose Corbyn. I would rather have someone who does believe in some things, even if sometimes the wrong ones, than have someone who only believes in himself (and with no good reason).
    It's a horrific choice that we can only hope never comes to pass but I would choose Boris. Better morally craven than morally corrupt. And, though he hides it well, Boris is not nearly as stupid.

    Bah, surely we can do better than this?
    The US, with all its population, wealth and opportunity, suggests that it ain't necessarily so....

    p.s. A relative deficiency in stupidity is of no use to us humble citizens if it is only employed to advance its owner's self-interest. At least Corbyn thinks he is trying to help others.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    edited August 2018
    HYUFD said:



    And, as I've said, we don't know which of the second rank figures came from which first rank preference.

    If we get a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, any "Remain-1, Deal-2" preferences won't be counted for Deal, will they? (And that second preference is likely to be greater amongst Remainers than No Deal, I'd guess - although not exclusively so)

    So we can't just add (on page 14) "8% Deal 1st preference plus 15% Deal 2nd preferences equals 23%". We can only add the second preferences of those who would otherwise have voted No Deal. And we don't have those figures there.

    We have the second preference ranking figures which have Deal ahead ie from both Remainers over No Deal and No Deal Leavers over Remain. End of conversation
    You are seriously clutching at straws there...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,760
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    MJW said:


    People who have met him or know him, tend to like him. I disagree with so much that he says and does, but we can’t deny the fact he inspires trust and friendship.
    I don’t see how anyone can be so relaxed about their leader apparently honouring particularly violent terrorists and now lying about it.
    Politicians of varied parties have been unduly friendly with all sorts of nasty people across the globe and across the years, including when in government. Pinochet, Ceaucescu; it's a long list.
    I agree that politicians have sometimes been too friendly with nasty people they should have kept at a distance (Thatcher, when out of power, with Pinochet, for instance) or the general cringe towards Saudi Arabia.

    But there is a difference between having to deal with politicians for raisons d'etat and choosing to befriend and support because you agree with what they say and do. Corbyn falls rather more into the latter category. It is not necessary - in order to support Palestinians dispossessed of their homes - to honour people who murder and castrate innocent athletes at a sports event. Corbyn does not understand this. Nor, apparently, does our own Mr Palmer.

    Nor does Corbyn's likability and ability to make friends really add anything to the discussion. Lots of people with bad moral and political judgment can be nice and have a gift for friendship. So what?
    The fear is that the country is heading for a choice between two potential PMs neither of whom has any morality, integrity or good judgement.
    Yup: depressing, isn't it.
    Certainly so. But if it did ever come down to a forced choice between Boris v Corbyn, I would choose Corbyn. I would rather have someone who does believe in some things, even if sometimes the wrong ones, than have someone who only believes in himself (and with no good reason).
    It's a horrific choice that we can only hope never comes to pass but I would choose Boris. Better morally craven than morally corrupt. And, though he hides it well, Boris is not nearly as stupid.

    Bah, surely we can do better than this?
    The US, with all its wealth and opportunity, suggests that it ain't necessarily so....
    Very true. I would probably have voted for Hillary but it would have been with a heavy heart and a troubled conscience.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited August 2018

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    On first preferences Opinium has Remain ahead, then No Deal then Chequers Deal.

    On second preferences however Chequers Deal comes first, then No Deal, then Remain (p10)

    https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-july-2018-2/

    Is that the right link?
    Following it, I don't get anything with pages, just a link to an excel spreadsheet with data tables (which are exceptionally confusing where the multi-choice referendum is concerned).
    Yet still clearly show Chequers Deal ahead on second preferences if you actually scroll through the spreadsheet to page 10
    If you are now requiring people to scroll through ten pages of a spreadsheet in order to ascertain whether there is any logic to your posts, you have truly reached rock bottom....
    Yet the fact you cannot be bothered to do so does not change the fact I am right
    Congratulations. Identifying that I can't be bothered is the first piece of good judgement you have made whilst posting here for quite some time.
    HYUFD seems to have skipped over this result from his poll:

    To what extent do you support or oppose the public having a vote on the final deal that the Government agrees with the EU?

    Strongly support 30 %
    Somewhat support 23 %
    Somewhat oppose 14 %
    Strongly oppose 17 %
    Don’t know / no opinion 16 %

    NET: Support 54 %
    NET: Oppose 31 %
    So fewer people want a vote on the deal than want to ban the burka? On that basis we should have a referendum on a burqa ban first on this polling logic if the ebbs and flows of public opinion are what should drive government action?....

    And in fact only 30 per cent of voters strongly support a vote on the deal (ie are really fussed - and I expect few of those are Tories) - although it doesn't actually ask those polled what the referendum question would be anyway (3 way, deal vs no deal, deal vs remain assuming remain is even the status quo now).

    In the end you can have as many polls as you like but May and probably Corbyn given the arithmetic in parliament would have to agree on holding one along with the Lords, agree the question or questions asked which no one seems to have a consensus on and then get it through parliament.

    I don't see any sign May or Corbyn would risk another vote - May couldn't predict the result and Corbyn nearly lost his job on the last one as he doesn't agree with most of his party on Brexit.

    https://news.sky.com/story/sky-data-poll-comparing-women-who-wear-burkas-to-bank-robbers-not-racist-11465688

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:



    People who have met him or know him, tend to like him. I disagree with so much that he says and does, but we can’t deny the fact he inspires trust and friendship.

    I don’t see how anyone can be so relaxed about their leader apparently honouring particularly violent terrorists and now lying about it.
    Politicians of varied parties have been unduly friendly with all sorts of nasty people across the globe and across the years, including when in government. Pinochet, Ceaucescu; it's a long list.
    I agree that politicians have sometimes been too friendly with nasty people they should have kept at a distance (Thatcher, when out of power, with Pinochet, for instance) or the general cringe towards Saudi Arabia.

    But there is a difference between having to deal with politicians for raisons d'etat and choosing to befriend and support because you agree with what they say and do. Corbyn falls rather more into the latter category. It is not necessary - in order to support Palestinians dispossessed of their homes - to honour people who murder and castrate innocent athletes at a sports event. Corbyn does not understand this. Nor, apparently, does our own Mr Palmer.

    Nor does Corbyn's likability and ability to make friends really add anything to the discussion. Lots of people with bad moral and political judgment can be nice and have a gift for friendship. So what?
    The fear is that the country is heading for a choice between two potential PMs neither of whom has any morality, integrity or good judgement.
    Yup: depressing, isn't it.
    Certainly so. But if it did ever come down to a forced choice between Boris v Corbyn, I would choose Corbyn. I would rather have someone who does believe in some things, even if sometimes the wrong ones, than have someone who only believes in himself (and with no good reason).
    I'd still choose the Meeks option: setting fire to my ballot paper. I tend to the view that those who think they are right and won't change their minds are possibly more dangerous than those who are just vain buffoons. The latter might - just might - be susceptible to changing course. The former often aren't. But it's a Hobson's choice.
    Boris would be quickly dispatched by his party the minute he became a liability. Corbyn’s not going anywhere, if and when he stands aside he’ll nominate his own replacement and the Faithful will all back a different face in the same suit.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    HYUFD said:



    And, as I've said, we don't know which of the second rank figures came from which first rank preference.

    If we get a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, any "Remain-1, Deal-2" preferences won't be counted for Deal, will they? (And that second preference is likely to be greater amongst Remainers than No Deal, I'd guess - although not exclusively so)

    So we can't just add (on page 14) "8% Deal 1st preference plus 15% Deal 2nd preferences equals 23%". We can only add the second preferences of those who would otherwise have voted No Deal. And we don't have those figures there.

    We have the second preference ranking figures which have Deal ahead ie from both Remainers over No Deal and No Deal Leavers over Remain. End of conversation
    You are seriously clutching at straws there...
    If his straw-clutching has become more serious, that is at least progress of sorts... ?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    brendan16 said:

    I don't see any sign May or Corbyn would risk another vote - May couldn't predict the result and Corbyn nearly lost his job on the last one as he doesn't agree with most of his party on Brexit.

    If it's a vote on the deal or Remain, May won't really care too much what the result is. She wins either way, and if it causes problems for Corbyn, so much the better.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    By "page 10" do you mean the tag "VI_Q3A_Categorical, or VI_Q3B_Categorical (2) ? Because they're the 13th and 14th tabs, and neither provides enough useful information - just how many each got as 1st preference and how many as second preference.
    The latter, of course, needing us to know which first preference each was attached to. After all, there will be a number of voters choosing "No deal" first and "Remain" second, and some for "Remain" first and "No deal" second. I think we've heard from both such in the various discussions so far.

    All I can get is that we have 19% Remain, 16% No Deal, 10% Deal (per tab 13) or 19% Remain, 15% No Deal, 8% Deal (per tab 14), with second preferences a lot vaguer (as we don't know how many of the 4% who chose "No Deal" as a second choice had "Deal" or "Remain" as their first choice, for example).

    Either way, "Deal" would be eliminated in the first round of any such referendum, so second-choice support would be less than helpful.

    You are only quoting first rank figures.

    On second rank figures it is Deal 15%, No Deal 7%, Remain 2% (per tab 13) and Deal 15%, No Deal 4%, Remain 2% (per tab 14).

    As I said there will not be a Remain v No Deal referendum as May will negotiate Brexit on Chequers Deal terms
    And, as I've said, we don't know which of the second rank figures came from which first rank preference.

    If we get a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, any "Remain-1, Deal-2" preferences won't be counted for Deal, will they? (And that second preference is likely to be greater amongst Remainers than No Deal, I'd guess - although not exclusively so)

    So we can't just add (on page 14) "8% Deal 1st preference plus 15% Deal 2nd preferences equals 23%". We can only add the second preferences of those who would otherwise have voted No Deal. And we don't have those figures there.
    We have the second preference ranking figures which have Deal ahead ie from both Remainers over No Deal and No Deal Leavers over Remain. End of conversation
    What?
    Seriously?
    You have no idea what the figures even mean, do you?

    You're explicitly counting Remain-1, Chequers Deal-2 choices as voting for the Chequers Deal over Remain. That does NOT mean Chequers would beat Remain. It rather means the exact opposite.

    I quit even trying to engage with you on polling or numbers. Total waste of anyone's time.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Mo Salah putting an early claim on the Premier league top goal scorer award for 2019.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:



    People who have met him or know

    I don’t see how anyone can be so relaxed about their leader apparently honouring particularly violent terrorists and now lying about it.
    Politicians of varied parties have been unduly friendly with all sorts of nasty people across the globe and across the years, including when in government. Pinochet, Ceaucescu; it's a long list.
    I agree that politicians have sometimes been too friendly with nasty people they should have kept at a distance (Thatcher, when out of power, with Pinochet, for instance) or the general cringe towards Saudi Arabia.

    But there is a difference between having to deal with politicians for raisons d'etat and choosing to befriend and support because you agree with what they say and do. Corbyn falls rather more into the latter category. It is not necessary - in order to support Palestinians dispossessed of their homes - to honour people who murder and castrate innocent athletes at a sports event. Corbyn does not understand this. Nor, apparently, does our own Mr Palmer.

    Nor does Corbyn's likability and ability to make friends really add anything to the discussion. Lots of people with bad moral and political judgment can be nice and have a gift for friendship. So what?
    The fear is that the country is heading for a choice between two potential PMs neither of whom has any morality, integrity or good judgement.
    Yup: depressing, isn't it.
    Certainly so. But if it did ever come down to a forced choice between Boris v Corbyn, I would choose Corbyn. I would rather have someone who does believe in some things, even if sometimes the wrong ones, than have someone who only believes in himself (and with no good reason).
    I'd still choose the Meeks option: setting fire to my ballot paper. I tend to the view that those who think they are right and won't change their minds are possibly more dangerous than those who are just vain buffoons. The latter might - just might - be susceptible to changing course. The former often aren't. But it's a Hobson's choice.
    Boris would be quickly dispatched by his party the minute he became a liability. Corbyn’s not going anywhere, if and when he stands aside he’ll nominate his own replacement and the Faithful will all back a different face in the same suit.
    He's already a liability. And the Tories' renowned ruthlessness with lame leaders is beginning to look a bit dated?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited August 2018

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    By "page 10" do you mean the tag "VI_Q3A_Categorical, or VI_Q3B_Categorical (2) ? Because they're the 13th and 14th tabs, and neither provides enough useful information - just how many each got as 1st preference and how many as second preference.
    The latter, of course, needing us to know which first preference each was attached to. After all, there will be a number of voters choosing "No deal" first and "Remain" second, and some for "Remain" first and "No deal" second. I think we've heard from both such in the various discussions so far.

    All I can get is that we have 19% Remain, 16% No Deal, 10% Deal (per tab 13) or 19% Remain, 15% No Deal, 8% Deal (per tab 14), with second preferences a lot vaguer (as we don't know how many of the 4% who chose "No Deal" as a second choice had "Deal" or "Remain" as their first choice, for example).

    Either way, "Deal" would be eliminated in the first round of any such referendum, so second-choice support would be less than helpful.

    You are only quoting first rank figures.

    On second rank figures it is Deal 15%, No Deal 7%, Remain 2% (per tab 13) and Deal 15%, No Deal 4%, Remain 2% (per tab 14).

    As I said there will not be a Remain v No Deal referendum as May will negotiate Brexit on Chequers Deal terms
    And, as I've said, we don't know which of the second rank figures came from which first rank preference.

    If we get a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, any "Remain-1, Deal-2" preferences won't be counted for Deal, will they? (And that second preference is likely to be greater amongst Remainers than No Deal, I'd guess - although not exclusively so)

    So we can't just add (on page 14) "8% Deal 1st preference plus 15% Deal 2nd preferences equals 23%". We can only add the second preferences of those who would otherwise have voted No Deal. And we don't have those figures there.
    We have the second preference ranking figures which have Deal ahead ie from both Remainers over No Deal and No Deal Leavers over Remain. End of conversation
    What?
    Seriously?
    You have no idea what the figures even mean, do you?

    You're explicitly counting Remain-1, Chequers Deal-2 choices as voting for the Chequers Deal over Remain. That does NOT mean Chequers would beat Remain. It rather means the exact opposite.

    I quit even trying to engage with you on polling or numbers. Total waste of anyone's time.
    No, you are an ideological Remainer who refuses to accept any attempt at a compromise in your determination to overturn the Leave vote.

    And given No Deal plus Deal combined beat Remain on first preferences anyway even your point on that is wrong
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited August 2018
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:


    Politicians of varied parties have been unduly friendly with all sorts of nasty people across the globe and across the years, including when in government. Pinochet, Ceaucescu; it's a long list.

    I agree that politicians have sometimes been too friendly with nasty people they should have kept at a distance (Thatcher, when out of power, with Pinochet, for instance) or the general cringe towards Saudi Arabia.

    But there is a difference between having to deal with politicians for raisons d'etat and choosing to befriend and support because you agree with what they say and do. Corbyn falls rather more into the latter category. It is not necessary - in order to support Palestinians dispossessed of their homes - to honour people who murder and castrate innocent athletes at a sports event. Corbyn does not understand this. Nor, apparently, does our own Mr Palmer.

    Nor does Corbyn's likability and ability to make friends really add anything to the discussion. Lots of people with bad moral and political judgment can be nice and have a gift for friendship. So what?
    The fear is that the country is heading for a choice between two potential PMs neither of whom has any morality, integrity or good judgement.
    Yup: depressing, isn't it.
    Certainly so. But if it did ever come down to a forced choice between Boris v Corbyn, I would choose Corbyn. I would rather have someone who does believe in some things, even if sometimes the wrong ones, than have someone who only believes in himself (and with no good reason).
    I'd still choose the Meeks option: setting fire to my ballot paper. I tend to the view that those who think they are right and won't change their minds are possibly more dangerous than those who are just vain buffoons. The latter might - just might - be susceptible to changing course. The former often aren't. But it's a Hobson's choice.
    Boris would be quickly dispatched by his party the minute he became a liability. Corbyn’s not going anywhere, if and when he stands aside he’ll nominate his own replacement and the Faithful will all back a different face in the same suit.
    He's already a liability. And the Tories' renowned ruthlessness with lame leaders is beginning to look a bit dated?
    He’s very much a liability, couldn’t agree more. The difference is that the Conservative MPs can fire the leader, as opposed to Labour MPs who have to defer to the wider membership (and the entryists).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    brendan16 said:

    I don't see any sign May or Corbyn would risk another vote - May couldn't predict the result and Corbyn nearly lost his job on the last one as he doesn't agree with most of his party on Brexit.

    If it's a vote on the deal or Remain, May won't really care too much what the result is. She wins either way, and if it causes problems for Corbyn, so much the better.
    Actually a very astute observation. The question is whether Mrs M's ability to play four dimensional chess is myth or reality?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    brendan16 said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    On first preferences Opinium has Remain ahead, then No Deal then Chequers Deal.

    On second preferences however Chequers Deal comes first, then No Deal, then Remain (p10)

    https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-july-2018-2/

    Is that the right link?
    Following it, I don't get anything with pages, just a link to an excel spreadsheet with data tables (which are exceptionally confusing where the multi-choice referendum is concerned).
    Yet still clearly show Chequers Deal ahead on second preferences if you actually scroll through the spreadsheet to page 10
    If yotom....
    Yet the fact you cannot be bothered to do so does not change the fact I am right
    Congratulations. Identifying that I can't be bothered is the first piece of good judgement you have made whilst posting here for quite some time.
    HYUFD seems to have skipped over this result from his poll:

    To what extent do you support or oppose the public having a vote on the final deal that the Government agrees with the EU?

    Strongly support 30 %
    Somewhat support 23 %
    Somewhat oppose 14 %
    Strongly opp 31 %
    So fewer people want a vote on the deal than want to ban the burka? On that basis we should have a referendum on a burqa ban first on this polling logic if the ebbs and flows of public opinion are what should drive government action?....

    And in fact only 30 per cent of voters strongly support a vote on the deal (ie are really fussed - and I expect few of those are Tories) - although it doesn't actually ask those polled what the referendum question would be anyway (3 way, deal vs no deal, deal vs remain assuming remain is even the status quo now).

    In the end you can have as many polls as you like but May and probably Corbyn given the arithmetic in parliament would have to agree on holding one along with the Lords, agree the question or questions asked which no one seems to have a consensus on and then get it through parliament.

    I don't see any sign May or Corbyn would risk another vote - May couldn't predict the result and Corbyn nearly lost his job on the last one as he doesn't agree with most of his party on Brexit.

    https://news.sky.com/story/sky-data-poll-comparing-women-who-wear-burkas-to-bank-robbers-not-racist-11465688

    Yes, people are allowed referendums, so long as they will move the country in a more liberal direction, referendums which will move the country in a more populist or conservative direction are a complete no no for the liberal elite
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited August 2018
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:


    Politicians of varied parties have been unduly friendly with all sorts of nasty people across the globe and across the years, including when in government. Pinochet, Ceaucescu; it's a long list.

    I agree that politicians have sometimes been too friendly with nasty people they should have kept at a distance (Thatcher, when out of power, with Pinochet, for instance) or the general cringe towards Saudi Arabia.

    But there is a difference between having to deal with politicians for raisons d'etat and choosing to befriend and support because you agree event. Corbyn does not understand this. Nor, apparently, does our own Mr Palmer.

    Nor does Corbyn's likability and ability to make friends really add anything to the discussion. Lots of people with bad moral and political judgment can be nice and have a gift for friendship. So what?
    The fear is that the country is heading for a choice between two potential PMs neither of whom has any morality, integrity or good judgement.
    Yup: depressing, isn't it.
    Certainly so. But if it did ever come down to a forced choice between Boris v Corbyn, I would choose Corbyn. I would rather have someone who does believe in some things, even if sometimes the wrong ones, than have someone who only believes in himself (and with no good reason).
    I'd still choose the Meeks option: setting fire to my ballot paper. I tend to the view that those who think they are right and won't change their minds are possibly more dangerous than those who are just vain buffoons. The latter might - just might - be susceptible to changing course. The former often aren't. But it's a Hobson's choice.
    Boris would be quickly dispatched by his party the minute he became a liability. Corbyn’s not going anywhere, if and when he stands aside he’ll nominate his own replacement and the Faithful will all back a different face in the same suit.
    He's already a liability. And the Tories' renowned ruthlessness with lame leaders is beginning to look a bit dated?
    He’s very much a liability, couldn’t agree more. The difference is that the Conservative MPs can fire the leader, as opposed to Labour MPs who have to defer to the wider membership (and the entryists).
    Question is why would they choose a liabilty in the first place.? I sense Tory MPs don't like the blonde ego very much. Hence OGH is right in suggesting he'll not get to the top job.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    And, as I've said, we don't know which of the second rank figures came from which first rank preference.

    If we get a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, any "Remain-1, Deal-2" preferences won't be counted for Deal, will they? (And that second preference is likely to be greater amongst Remainers than No Deal, I'd guess - although not exclusively so)

    So we can't just add (on page 14) "8% Deal 1st preference plus 15% Deal 2nd preferences equals 23%". We can only add the second preferences of those who would otherwise have voted No Deal. And we don't have those figures there.

    We have the second preference ranking figures which have Deal ahead ie from both Remainers over No Deal and No Deal Leavers over Remain. End of conversation
    What?
    Seriously?
    You have no idea what the figures even mean, do you?

    You're explicitly counting Remain-1, Chequers Deal-2 choices as voting for the Chequers Deal over Remain. That does NOT mean Chequers would beat Remain. It rather means the exact opposite.

    I quit even trying to engage with you on polling or numbers. Total waste of anyone's time.
    No, you are an ideological Remainer who refuses to accept any attempt at a compromise in your determination to overturn the Leave vote.

    And given No Deal plus Deal combined beat Remain on first preferences anyway even your point on that is wrong
    Amusingly, in a 3-way EEA versus Remain versus No Deal referendum, I'd certainly vote EEA as 1
    In a Chequers versus No Deal versus Remain referendum, I genuinely don't know what I'd vote as 1.
    In a referendum where the choice for Remain was Remain-plus-euro-membership, that one would certainly come last.

    You can't simply add "No Deal" plus "Deal" and say "Hey, the Deal would win!"
    Neither polling nor voting work that way.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122

    Jonathan said:

    MJW said:

    I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.

    This sort of post illustrates the problem. Most of us in Labour are perfectly well aware that Corbyn has embraced all kinds of leftist Third World causes as an apparently permanent backbencher and that some of them were errors of judgment. He admits it himself. We think it unlikely that as PM he'd be doing much in that line, though clearly he'd be more distant from Trump's United States than Mrs May, and (many of us think) a good thing too.

    At the same time, we see him as a genuine, nice man (and I'm speaking from personal knowledge) who we think has freshened politics by ending the idea that you have to accept the premises of the centre-right or be permanently excluded from rational debate.

    So when you say he attended event X or socialised with dubious person Y, we shrug - what else is new? When you say he's horrible, we just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
    I read that post and just think you’re morally compromised beyond sensible discussion.
    People who have met him or know him, tend to like him. I disagree with so much that he says and does, but we can’t deny the fact he inspires trust and friendship.
    I don’t see how anyone can be so relaxed about their leader apparently honouring particularly violent terrorists and now lying about it.
    It is easy to see - bith NP and JC project 'nice guy images' deliberately - but they are among the most dangerous characters on the political scene in recent times. Amongst their first targets pro electoral success will be freedom of speech and next will come the minorities that serve no useful purpose. It is beyond irony that Owen Jones - an openly gay man allies himself with those who ally themselves with groups who throw gay people from rooftops.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122
    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MJW said:

    I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.

    This sort of post illustrates the problem. Most of us in Labour are perfectly well aware that Corbyn has embraced all kinds of leftist Third World causes as an apparently permanent backbencher and that some of them were errors of judgment. He admits it himself.
    As a matter of interest, has he admitted that honouring the murderers of Israeli athletes was an error of judgment?

    As far as I'm aware, he has denied placing a wreath at their grave and praying for them, which is not quite the same thing.
    As a matter of interest, has he admitted honouring the murderers of Israel athletes? I think not.

    He has claimed he was honouring the victims of the Israeli attack on the PLO HQ in Tunisia on 1st October 1985.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wooden_Leg

    "In the United Nations Security Council Resolution 573 (1985), the Security Council voted (with the United States abstaining) to condemn the attack on Tunisian territory as a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and considered that Tunisia had the right to appropriate reparations."

    As the wreath laying occasion was on the anniversary of that attack, his explanation seems plausible. It also seems plausible that there would be other graves in that Palestinian graveyard that the Daily Mail has discovered and tried to link to Corbyn in a rehash of an old story.
    There was no 'trying to' involved.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Barnesian said:



    The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal).
    The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).

    If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.

    The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.

    Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.


    I disagree. I'd support a vote on the deal as you suggest for reasons such as you suggest (mostly), but getting into pedantic arguments as to why a second vote is ok but a third not is, itself, pretty damn silly. It is the major flaw with any second vote argument, for all I am persuaded to it, I have yet to a hear a credible reason for why a third is not permissible as a result that was not clearly an excuse.
    I think people who argue about whether it's permissible are missing the point. Any referendum is permissible if there is an appetite for it and if there is a compelling reason to have one. Talk about a third or a forth referendum is really just a prediction about whether there would be any appetite for one. I don't think there would be. Even if the Brexit deal were approved by 50.1%, I don't think people would want to revisit it for a long time.
    Ha Ha, if it was 50.1% Remain Farage, Mogg and Boris would be campaigning for a third referendum from 6am the next morning
    Not if the other 49.9% had voted for a Brexit deal they hated anyway and it was clear there was no appetite to go through it again.
    No as they would shift to No Deal given almost every poll gives No Deal over 40% and sees Remain under 60% head to head between them
    No Deal numbers are shrinking. The latest and largest YouGov gives it only 27% on first preferences.

    Edit: Just to add that among Tory voters, Remain is more popular than Chequers.
    Chequers Plus No Deal are miles ahead of Remain with Tory voters
    But No Deal isn't going to happen, so the real question is whether No Dealers prefer Chequers or Remain.
    Since when did FTA Brexit, the great brexit dream, stop becoming an option and preferred option of all leavers? You are spinning it to suit yourself.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Very O/T, a PB brains trust query. An elderly uncle has asked me to sort out a problem that he's had hanging around for 40 years. Back in the 70s, he bought as a vaguely environmental investment a plot of Lanarkshire woodland from a company which promptly went bust (cartland Muir). The company's interests are still at least nominally represented by a firm of solicitors, who are communicative enough - they say efforts to sell the land are continuing, but buyers are deterred by the multiplicity of plot owners, many of whom are no longer in touch, and some of whose plots control access to the site. Nobody is looking after the site.

    Those owners who remain in touch are naturally keen to sell at almost any price, as the land is simply sitting there and of no value to anyone except possibly walkers. But the solicitor sees the lack of contact with some sellers as a potential permanent block.

    This can't be the first time the question of disappearing ownership has arisen. Is there a procedure for an administrator to take over and sell unclaimed land, the proceeds to be in trust for when and if the owners reappear, or will the forest simply quietly decay forever?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    IanB2 said:

    ?
    The fear is that the country is heading for a choice between two potential PMs neither of whom has any morality, integrity or good judgement.
    Yup: depressing, isn't it.
    Certainly so. But if it did ever come down to a forced choice between Boris v Corbyn, I would choose Corbyn. I would rather have someone who does believe in some things, even if sometimes the wrong ones, than have someone who only believes in himself (and with no good reason).
    I'd still choose the Meeks option: setting fire to my ballot paper. I tend to the view that those who think they are right and won't change their minds are possibly more dangerous than those who are just vain buffoons. The latter might - just might - be susceptible to changing course. The former often aren't. But it's a Hobson's choice.
    Boris would be quickly dispatched by his party the minute he became a liability. Corbyn’s not going anywhere, if and when he stands aside he’ll nominate his own replacement and the Faithful will all back a different face in the same suit.
    He's already a liability. And the Tories' renowned ruthlessness with lame leaders is beginning to look a bit dated?
    He’s very much a liability, couldn’t agree more. The difference is that the Conservative MPs can fire the leader, as opposed to Labour MPs who have to defer to the wider membership (and the entryists).
    Question is why would they choose a liabilty in the first place.? I sense Tory MPs don't like the blonde ego very much. Hence OGH is right in suggesting he'll not get to the top job.
    He’d get there in the first place if the MPs screw up and leave Boris v Amber Rudd or Dominic Grieve for the members to decide. Remember that any candidate only needs a proposer and seconder to get into the MPs’ voting rounds.

    It could be argued that they messed up last time, placing Leadsom in second ahead of Gove.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Very O/T, a PB brains trust query. An elderly uncle has asked me to sort out a problem that he's had hanging around for 40 years. Back in the 70s, he bought as a vaguely environmental investment a plot of Lanarkshire woodland from a company which promptly went bust (cartland Muir). The company's interests are still at least nominally represented by a firm of solicitors, who are communicative enough - they say efforts to sell the land are continuing, but buyers are deterred by the multiplicity of plot owners, many of whom are no longer in touch, and some of whose plots control access to the site. Nobody is looking after the site.

    Those owners who remain in touch are naturally keen to sell at almost any price, as the land is simply sitting there and of no value to anyone except possibly walkers. But the solicitor sees the lack of contact with some sellers as a potential permanent block.

    This can't be the first time the question of disappearing ownership has arisen. Is there a procedure for an administrator to take over and sell unclaimed land, the proceeds to be in trust for when and if the owners reappear, or will the forest simply quietly decay forever?

    That sounds very much like what was done deliberately by an environmental group a few years ago, with parcels of land lying in the way of the new Heathrow runway.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387

    Very O/T, a PB brains trust query. An elderly uncle has asked me to sort out a problem that he's had hanging around for 40 years. Back in the 70s, he bought as a vaguely environmental investment a plot of Lanarkshire woodland from a company which promptly went bust (cartland Muir). The company's interests are still at least nominally represented by a firm of solicitors, who are communicative enough - they say efforts to sell the land are continuing, but buyers are deterred by the multiplicity of plot owners, many of whom are no longer in touch, and some of whose plots control access to the site. Nobody is looking after the site.

    Those owners who remain in touch are naturally keen to sell at almost any price, as the land is simply sitting there and of no value to anyone except possibly walkers. But the solicitor sees the lack of contact with some sellers as a potential permanent block.

    This can't be the first time the question of disappearing ownership has arisen. Is there a procedure for an administrator to take over and sell unclaimed land, the proceeds to be in trust for when and if the owners reappear, or will the forest simply quietly decay forever?

    If the original intention was for a single purchaser to buy out the land held by many investors, what was the agreement between investors as to when it might be sold? Was it originally possible for a single investor, holding a key plot, to frustrate the scheme?
  • NEW THREAD

  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Liverpool to win the PL 4-1 at WH one third the odds 1st 2 is a bet.
    The next Tory leader market makes it a 4-way fight.Gove,Javid,Johnson and Mogg are within a point or so of each other and different books have 4 different favs..Narrowing it down further,it will only go to someone who has experienced the highest offices of state,which rules out Gove and Mogg.Both Johnson and Javid are available at 6-1 so a nice 250% profit is available if you back them both in a Dutch bet.

This discussion has been closed.