This is the calibre of the politicians we’re presently saddled with
Its always worth remembering there is zero qualifying criteria to be a politician. Remembering back to my Modern Studies class, I believe the only thing they need is enough money to cover the deposit.
Most voters couldn't tell you what their MP looked or sounded like unless they happen to be a front bencher or a very vocal back bencher but they are in the minority. The overwhelming majority vote on party lines rather than who the actual candidate is. The various parties could put a shaved ape up for election in strong constituencies and people would blindly vote for them
May’s Brexit deal leads in just two constituencies
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/12/06/mays-brexit-deal-leads-just-two-constituencies-it-
I fear the Maybot will revert to her “no deal better than bad deal” mantra.
You know, the fact that this is even being considered as something that anyone would want to choose is both bizarre and horrifying. We had halfwits including Hatey Cockpins out on the streets campaigning for "no deal" the other day. Is this really what we've come to?
"No deal" isn't something any rational brain should be striving for, it's the worst-case excrement / air cooler interface scenario. What sort of weapons-grade roaster would you have to be to go buy a car, the salesmen says "you're in luck, I've got some great deals today" and you go "hell no, I don't want one of those, full price for me! Hey, can I pay extra, even?"
at the risk of rehashing arguments from 1000 pages ago
I was thinking about something similar this morning.
I keep seeing posts on places like Facebook, "a leaver said this, is it true?" and without fail it's some nonsense about an EU army or some other made-up scaremongering horseshit that's been doing the rounds and soundly debunked months and years ago.
The Leave campaign won on emotions rather than logic. We keep sending these memes back to them with red pen going "see me after class," explaining in great detail how and why it's wrong but the bottom line is that they simply don't care about facts. It's an absolute waste of time, I'd be more productive trying to teach latin to my cat.* It's a large part of why we lost the referendum and two years on we've not learned anything from that. What is it they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
A part of me thinks we'd be better off just making up lies of our own and plastering them all over social media. "The EU will give every household a free car if we stay in the EU!"
(... and I can't speak latin, and don't have a cat.)
May’s Brexit deal leads in just two constituencies
Also suggests a 50:50 split if the choice is between May's approach and remaining an EU member. A country united. Divisions healed. I think May deserves something from us all, we should show our thanks somehow.
Shows a 50:50 split if the choice is between May’s approach and remaining an EU member. A country united.
What does?
I've yet to hear anyone on either side say that the "deal" is their first choice.
What does?
Follow the YouGov link and read the words.
I’ve yet to hear anyone on either side say that the “deal” is their first choice.
Same here. But what if their "first choice", is denied them?
Got the URL, please?
When we remove the Deal as an option and reallocate these preferences in a straight Remain Vs No Deal contest we find that Remain would be slightly ahead, winning 52% to 48%.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/12/06/mays-brexit-deal-leads-just-two-constituencies-it-About a third in (link from previous page above your post)
The calculation for Remain vs the Deal is a lot tighter. Although the vast majority of no dealers swing behind May’s plan, because Remain begins from a much higher starting point the result is a statistical dead heat – with 50% for each option.
It's just polling, but I think it's clear that a clear consensus for anything is far from being reached.
It's also important to realised that in the case of remain vs leave, remain requires no upheaval and no gamble. So even if it were 50/50, remain should still be the choice. Because it's far safer.
This image suggests to me that the hatred of foreigners was not a primary concern for most leavers. I think that most of them thought we could actually be better off and were voting for that. But now they've realised it's not possible, they'd rather remain.
But I also suspect it reflects the reality check many people have had, and the fact they've learned a good deal more about the EU in the last two years.
Holy **** Molgrips.
That will make it even funnier when we crash out. Which we will.
For completeness it's probably worth showing the source for that infographic.
So it is about immigration and a sizeable proportion of the remain camp are idiots as well.
"When we remove the Deal as an option and reallocate these preferences in a straight Remain Vs No Deal contest we find that Remain would be slightly ahead, winning 52% to 48%.
If the Deal is pitted against No Deal, the majority of Remainers swing behind what Theresa May is proposing, meaning it wins 65% to 35%. The calculation for Remain vs the Deal is a lot tighter. Although the vast majority of no dealers swing behind May’s plan, because Remain begins from a much higher starting point the result is a statistical dead heat – with 50% for each option."
I read that as there being more support for the deal among remainers than there is support for just staying, or is it the fact that the remain vote in the deal vs no deal is bolstered by the would be brexiteers who are scared of the full fat brexit?
That to me says, "we want to get rid of the foreigners but not so much that it hurts our pockets". Taking back control or sovereignty was not what they voted for.
I think if we have to hold a referendum on deal vs no deal, Remain needs to abstain. Put the boot in and make the stupid ****s regret it. If leavers want to brexit because of "immigrants", lets make them suffer for it. Maybe once the smoke has cleared, we can then rejoin in a decade.
As I said before, and as RBW's pic makes clear, you can set the outcome of a 2nd ref by choosing what goes on the ballot. And if parliament a) supports remain, b) wants to respect the will of the people and c) has a free vote on what's on the ballot since there's no public mandate for that - then it should be a three-way split which remain would walk.
if you think that will fly you are dumber than I thought, which is quite a high bar.
if you think that will fly you are dumber than I thought, which is quite a high bar.
I think if we have to hold a referendum on deal vs no deal, Remain needs to abstain. Put the boot in and make the stupid **** regret it.
That seems the perfect definition to stick next to "cut off your nose to spite your face".
Even leaving aside the impact on the remainers that still leaves me feeling sorry for the poor sods who believed the lies of the brexit elites that this would make their lives better and, since they werent seeing any upsides from the current political system, thought it was worth a gamble.
then it should be a three-way split which remain would walk.
There is no way in hell that "no deal" should be presented as something that the electorate could vote for, that's bottled insanity even by our current government's standards. No deal is what happens when everything goes wrong, not something you willingly choose.
The only sensible vote would be whether to accept the deal now we know what it is, or call the whole thing off.
3 way questions are very tricky. It could be done as a staged question possibly - leave / remain as question one and if you vote leave then you get Deal or no deal
No deal has no majority in parliament and would be a disaster. Mays deal is the best available in many ways and the EU have gone a lot further than I thought they would so for me a second referendum should be remain or leave with mays deal. Simple question.
The only sensible vote would be whether to accept the deal now we know what it is, or call the whole thing off.
I am not sure that really works though. I know its about as sensible as playing Russian roulette with a semi auto after chambering a round but some want to do so (and not just because they see big profits whilst living in Monaco or wherever).
Which is the entire problem. Its jumping out of the plane without a parachute and then going "so ermm whats the plan?".
People will need giving a choice between the options but how to do that sensible is beyond me and, not being arrogant here and overestimating my own skills, I think beyond anyone except possibly Saint Farage and sadly I think he is a bit distracted by thoughts of the Muller commission.
that still leaves me feeling sorry for the poor sods who believed the lies of the brexit elites that this would make their lives better and, since they werent seeing any upsides from the current political system, thought it was worth a gamble.
**** them
Another referendum with the option of no deal is a terrible idea. Everyone with half a brain knows it would be a disaster. But we have already established there are enough idiots and racists out there to possibly vote it through.
Decisions like this should be made by people who know what they are talking about, and not left to a public vote.
Decisions like this should be made by people who know what they are talking about, and not left to a public vote.
You mean Rees-Mogg, Johnson and Bone don't you?
At this point the only issue to be resolved is whether we actually go through with the referendum. If there's only one sane option, not much point asking. We already saw what can happen when you put a stupid option on the ballot paper.
3 way questions are very tricky.
Not at all. it's the basis of the single transferrable vote system. You give your 1st 2nd and 3rd choices. If there is no clear winner on 1st choice then 2nd and possibly 3rd choices come into play. In the example of the yougov survey above the 1st choice result is a clear win for remain with no need to go to 2nd choice.
Actually that survey showed remain getting a little under 50% of first preferences, and only winning by a negligible margin (well under margin of error) if no deal was eliminated in a transferable vote system.
A second referendum is a bad idea, it's too risky.
Yes I know people should be able to have a say, but a lot of people are ignorant and irrational, some read the daily express for example. That's why we have the houses of Parliament.
Brexit needs to be reversed for the good of all, and it should be done by logic and reason by parliament. That's thier job.
May's deal will get destroyed, then we will be at a legal impasse.
We'll then have the choice between the status quo or economic suicide.
I think things really need to get to critical mass before that can be publicly spoken about by MPs as most are wanting to protect thier interests over and above doing thier duty.
Trouble with parliament reversing it is that the right wing press will be up in arms and the right wing nutters will have a grievance they can use for leverage. "undemocratic" "Stealing brexit" etc etc
Let them be up in arms... It's the much lesser of two evils.
I'd rather the second referendum which I am fairly confident about.
I really think if parliament stop it they will be in big trouble whichever party tries it. all the right wing press on their backs, far right will go on the rampage. etcetc
Yeh I understand your point but there's too much risk.
Turning it around in legal and practical points could present new opportunities in regard to the right wing media. They could be curtailed in terms of their incitement of hatred and thier anti democratic stances.
Let's not forget they pedalled the untruths that swung the vote.
a lot of people are ignorant and irrational
Don't be so hard on yourself.
mattyfez
...Let’s not forget they pedalled the untruths that swung the vote.
It's important to remember just how dishonest the leave campaign was.
It's fashionable amongst some to label the people who voted leave as frothing racists etc, but when their previously trusted sources of information were blatantly lying to them, what other result was going to happen?
One result I'd like to see is a break up of media ownership so we never again have the situation where a few foreign billionaires play the British public to the benefit of their pockets.
if you think that will fly you are dumber than I thought, which is quite a high bar.
Quite a claim from May's Cheif apologist on stw....
I am not sure why you chose to punctuate that with an ellipsis, did you fail to come up with yet another banal opinion which you feel the need to pollute this site with, a second ray of sunshine.
previously trusted sources
molgrips,
your map is interesting, however the bar graph data covers up what was happening in Northern Ireland.
There needs to be four choices:-
1) Remain
2) No Deal
3) Deal
4) Never, never, never!!!
Let them be up in arms… It’s the much lesser of two evils.
Agree. All you need is for parliament as a whole to vote on the "sod it, we are staying in" option and the brexiters will then have to be unhappy with parliament rather than individual parties. They can then all turn to UKIP for help in the future but they may need to stock up on Nazi paraphenalia such is the way that party is going.
Would many people care much about what the press, who previously blatantly lied outright and have now been exposed for doing so, have to say?
I know the die-hards would, but would the man in the street?
Unfortunately they do. Also broadcast media follow the press
Now Rudd going for Norway option.
Confusing?
If the leavers I work with are any indication, a second referendum with no deal as an option is a very bad idea indeed. Several of them have always wanted no deal, but even the more moderate leavers seem to think that no deal is better than May’s deal.
Not a single one of them can come up with a reason for leaving other than Neanderthal “EU bad” rhetoric with no cogent arguments to back it up.
cchris2lou
Now Rudd going for Norway option.
And Norway has made it very clear they don't want us in their club.
