RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Lizard wrote: I came across that yesterday. Have their been any similar articles by remain voters that have changed their mind?

I'd be surprised. Leave aren't exactly running a tremendous advertisement for their side right now.

Mind, the polls are still running 52:48 (but in the opposite direction) so it's not like there's been an earth-shattering shift the other way. I think it's become an identity thing now - people are defining themselves by their vote, which makes changing their mind much more unlikely. You're not just changing a vote, but changing an identity, joining a different camp, becoming one of "them". And that means contradictory facts are much more likely to get bounced away with confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance - it's easier to decide the facts are wrong than to decide you are.

Puja

There's the public comments of Liz Truss to trawl through, allegedly she voted remain but as the economy didn’t detonate after the leave vote she's now a leaver. In fairness lots of remain voters probably wanted to leave but voted remain over concerns around the process and outcome of leave

How one works for the treasury and makes comments along the lines of it's going okay look at all these new sources of foreign investment whilst watching actual investment take a nosedive I don't know, you'd have to be biblically stupid. Jeremy Hunt of course thinks very similarly to Liz Truss on this

Biblically stupid or utterly politically amoral, swapping from side to side depending on who appears to be winning. I wouldn't count the public pronouncements of politicians for much.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
I'd be surprised. Leave aren't exactly running a tremendous advertisement for their side right now.

Mind, the polls are still running 52:48 (but in the opposite direction) so it's not like there's been an earth-shattering shift the other way. I think it's become an identity thing now - people are defining themselves by their vote, which makes changing their mind much more unlikely. You're not just changing a vote, but changing an identity, joining a different camp, becoming one of "them". And that means contradictory facts are much more likely to get bounced away with confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance - it's easier to decide the facts are wrong than to decide you are.

Puja

There's the public comments of Liz Truss to trawl through, allegedly she voted remain but as the economy didn’t detonate after the leave vote she's now a leaver. In fairness lots of remain voters probably wanted to leave but voted remain over concerns around the process and outcome of leave

How one works for the treasury and makes comments along the lines of it's going okay look at all these new sources of foreign investment whilst watching actual investment take a nosedive I don't know, you'd have to be biblically stupid. Jeremy Hunt of course thinks very similarly to Liz Truss on this

Biblically stupid or utterly politically amoral, swapping from side to side depending on who appears to be winning. I wouldn't count the public pronouncements of politicians for much.

Puja

Yet here we are. Wholly reliant on them. It’s where we went so wrong. We should’ve left the negotiations in the hands of the pros and away from politicians as much as possible. AFAIK, this is how most FTA’s etc are undertaken, unless you’re Trump. Send in the experts (yes, I know what Gove said) and then bring it back to parliament at a sensible stage(s). As I keep saying, the WA is so close to Lab’s, belatedly arrived at, position the only reason they can’t agree with the it is because it’s seen as May’s deal. If it was seen as Robbins’ I think we’d be out by now.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
There's the public comments of Liz Truss to trawl through, allegedly she voted remain but as the economy didn’t detonate after the leave vote she's now a leaver. In fairness lots of remain voters probably wanted to leave but voted remain over concerns around the process and outcome of leave

How one works for the treasury and makes comments along the lines of it's going okay look at all these new sources of foreign investment whilst watching actual investment take a nosedive I don't know, you'd have to be biblically stupid. Jeremy Hunt of course thinks very similarly to Liz Truss on this

Biblically stupid or utterly politically amoral, swapping from side to side depending on who appears to be winning. I wouldn't count the public pronouncements of politicians for much.

Puja

Yet here we are. Wholly reliant on them. It’s where we went so wrong. We should’ve left the negotiations in the hands of the pros and away from politicians as much as possible. AFAIK, this is how most FTA’s etc are undertaken, unless you’re Trump. Send in the experts (yes, I know what Gove said) and then bring it back to parliament at a sensible stage(s). As I keep saying, the WA is so close to Lab’s, belatedly arrived at, position the only reason they can’t agree with the it is because it’s seen as May’s deal. If it was seen as Robbins’ I think we’d be out by now.

Not sure about that- its a Tory deal either way, and my take is that Labour's party political strategy is spot on (obviously diverging from what's good for the country); let the Tories cop every piece of blame for Brexit whilst pretending to be reluctant leavers (rather than hard Brexit best for Corbyn/McDonnell, Remain best rest of PLP (bar between 30-50 of them) and membership), and ideally force a GE at the right point where lasting blame drops on the Tories.

Course we’ll all be laughin’ at ourselves in 10 years as the Five Eyes 1st Expeditionary Force readies itself at Dover to invade Europe to free its people from civil war between the Brussels Dictariats EU Army and a coalition of various extreme ethno-nationalist guerilla groups.

Lizard wrote:Course we’ll all be laughin’ at ourselves in 10 years as the Five Eyes 1st Expeditionary Force readies itself at Dover to invade Europe to free its people from civil war between the Brussels Dictariats EU Army and a coalition of various extreme ethno-nationalist guerilla groups.

Sheeeit man. Don't even joke. You could probably kick off conflict with an ill considered internet meme at the moment.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
I'd be surprised. Leave aren't exactly running a tremendous advertisement for their side right now.

Mind, the polls are still running 52:48 (but in the opposite direction) so it's not like there's been an earth-shattering shift the other way. I think it's become an identity thing now - people are defining themselves by their vote, which makes changing their mind much more unlikely. You're not just changing a vote, but changing an identity, joining a different camp, becoming one of "them". And that means contradictory facts are much more likely to get bounced away with confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance - it's easier to decide the facts are wrong than to decide you are.

Puja

There's the public comments of Liz Truss to trawl through, allegedly she voted remain but as the economy didn’t detonate after the leave vote she's now a leaver. In fairness lots of remain voters probably wanted to leave but voted remain over concerns around the process and outcome of leave

How one works for the treasury and makes comments along the lines of it's going okay look at all these new sources of foreign investment whilst watching actual investment take a nosedive I don't know, you'd have to be biblically stupid. Jeremy Hunt of course thinks very similarly to Liz Truss on this

Biblically stupid or utterly politically amoral, swapping from side to side depending on who appears to be winning. I wouldn't count the public pronouncements of politicians for much.

Puja

Is political morality a barometer of intelligence? I think most of us would allow intelligence and morality needn't be linked. And I'd hope most of us would be worried about the fall in investment whichever way they voted or would vote if presented with a second referendum. I suspect I should also allow Truss made comments on the back of some daft comments from the remain campaign around just how damaging a vote to leave would be

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
Biblically stupid or utterly politically amoral, swapping from side to side depending on who appears to be winning. I wouldn't count the public pronouncements of politicians for much.

Puja

Yet here we are. Wholly reliant on them. It’s where we went so wrong. We should’ve left the negotiations in the hands of the pros and away from politicians as much as possible. AFAIK, this is how most FTA’s etc are undertaken, unless you’re Trump. Send in the experts (yes, I know what Gove said) and then bring it back to parliament at a sensible stage(s). As I keep saying, the WA is so close to Lab’s, belatedly arrived at, position the only reason they can’t agree with the it is because it’s seen as May’s deal. If it was seen as Robbins’ I think we’d be out by now.

Not sure about that- its a Tory deal either way, and my take is that Labour's party political strategy is spot on (obviously diverging from what's good for the country); let the Tories cop every piece of blame for Brexit whilst pretending to be reluctant leavers (rather than hard Brexit best for Corbyn/McDonnell, Remain best rest of PLP (bar between 30-50 of them) and membership), and ideally force a GE at the right point where lasting blame drops on the Tories.

Yeh. You’re probably right.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Yet here we are. Wholly reliant on them. It’s where we went so wrong. We should’ve left the negotiations in the hands of the pros and away from politicians as much as possible. AFAIK, this is how most FTA’s etc are undertaken, unless you’re Trump. Send in the experts (yes, I know what Gove said) and then bring it back to parliament at a sensible stage(s). As I keep saying, the WA is so close to Lab’s, belatedly arrived at, position the only reason they can’t agree with the it is because it’s seen as May’s deal. If it was seen as Robbins’ I think we’d be out by now.

Not sure about that- its a Tory deal either way, and my take is that Labour's party political strategy is spot on (obviously diverging from what's good for the country); let the Tories cop every piece of blame for Brexit whilst pretending to be reluctant leavers (rather than hard Brexit best for Corbyn/McDonnell, Remain best rest of PLP (bar between 30-50 of them) and membership), and ideally force a GE at the right point where lasting blame drops on the Tories.

Yeh. You’re probably right.

Cripes. Did you not get the memo about agreeing in this forum

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: Not sure about that- its a Tory deal either way, and my take is that Labour's party political strategy is spot on (obviously diverging from what's good for the country); let the Tories cop every piece of blame for Brexit whilst pretending to be reluctant leavers (rather than hard Brexit best for Corbyn/McDonnell, Remain best rest of PLP (bar between 30-50 of them) and membership), and ideally force a GE at the right point where lasting blame drops on the Tories.

Yeh. You’re probably right.

Cripes. Did you not get the memo about agreeing in this forum

It wasn’t a memo, it was a missive.

With everything that is going on in the world at the moment I am starting to think that the meek will not inherit the world after all.

PMQs. Asked specifically about the full week of negotiations... "My position has not changed"


Later...
FFS.
Conservative cabinet minister (Chloe Smith) just likened "voter fraud" to rape, because it's rare (and therefore we need voter ID, coincidentally disenfranchising immigrants, poor people, disabled and transgender people)

For clarity, voter fraud estimated at 1 in 1.6M votes cast, so on average 1 vote per 16 constituencies!

Which Tyler wrote:PMQs. Asked specifically about the full week of negotiations... "My position has not changed"


Later...
FFS.
Conservative cabinet minister (Chloe Smith) just likened "voter fraud" to rape, because it's rare (and therefore we need voter ID, coincidentally disenfranchising immigrants, poor people, disabled and transgender people)

For clarity, voter fraud estimated at 1 in 1.6M votes cast, so on average 1 vote per 16 constituencies!

Wow.

Puja

Nearly all actual voting fraud pertains to postal votes. So if they want to address fraud they don't need to target poor people they can reduce the vast part of whatever the problem is by significantly reducing the grounds for receiving a postal vote

Digby wrote:Nearly all actual voting fraud pertains to postal votes. So if they want to address fraud they don't need to target poor people they can reduce the vast part of whatever the problem is by significantly reducing the grounds for receiving a postal vote

Yet the majority of postal voters back remain...

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:Nearly all actual voting fraud pertains to postal votes. So if they want to address fraud they don't need to target poor people they can reduce the vast part of whatever the problem is by significantly reducing the grounds for receiving a postal vote

Yet the majority of postal voters back remain...

I would have thought all postal voters would back remain as it requires the ability to read and write.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:Nearly all actual voting fraud pertains to postal votes. So if they want to address fraud they don't need to target poor people they can reduce the vast part of whatever the problem is by significantly reducing the grounds for receiving a postal vote

Yet the majority of postal voters back remain...

I've no idea what the supposed rate of fraud might be in postal voting but I do recall the stats bear out it's by far the biggest risk for fraudulent voting, and just from a common sense point of view it's the area most likely to be abused.

And yet oddly whenever we hear about a need to act against voter fraud it's methods that would accidentally disenfranchise poor voters at a much greater rate. I'll withdraw my concerns if whatever ID is deemed necessary for receiving a ballot is provided for free to anyone earning less than £50k per annum, and I'd also be more worried about fraud that isn't postal if returning officers started reporting significant numbers arriving at a polling station to be told they'd already voted

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:Nearly all actual voting fraud pertains to postal votes. So if they want to address fraud they don't need to target poor people they can reduce the vast part of whatever the problem is by significantly reducing the grounds for receiving a postal vote

Yet the majority of postal voters back remain...

I've no idea what the supposed rate of fraud might be in postal voting but I do recall the stats bear out it's by far the biggest risk for fraudulent voting, and just from a common sense point of view it's the area most likely to be abused.

And yet oddly whenever we hear about a need to act against voter fraud it's methods that would accidentally disenfranchise poor voters at a much greater rate. I'll withdraw my concerns if whatever ID is deemed necessary for receiving a ballot is provided for free to anyone earning less than £50k per annum, and I'd also be more worried about fraud that isn't postal if returning officers started reporting significant numbers arriving at a polling station to be told they'd already voted

LOVE the idea that anybody earning under £50k is poor.

I’m also surprised you’re defending their right to vote given that you were merrily stating earlier in this thread that poor people didn’t know what they were voting for.

Further, if you have a look at what ID is accepted, those poor buggers on circa £40k per annum can use their benefits statement as ID. (At least they can where I live).

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
Yet the majority of postal voters back remain...

I've no idea what the supposed rate of fraud might be in postal voting but I do recall the stats bear out it's by far the biggest risk for fraudulent voting, and just from a common sense point of view it's the area most likely to be abused.

And yet oddly whenever we hear about a need to act against voter fraud it's methods that would accidentally disenfranchise poor voters at a much greater rate. I'll withdraw my concerns if whatever ID is deemed necessary for receiving a ballot is provided for free to anyone earning less than £50k per annum, and I'd also be more worried about fraud that isn't postal if returning officers started reporting significant numbers arriving at a polling station to be told they'd already voted

LOVE the idea that anybody earning under £50k is poor.

I’m also surprised you’re defending their right to vote given that you were merrily stating earlier in this thread that poor people didn’t know what they were voting for.

Further, if you have a look at what ID is accepted, those poor buggers on circa £40k per annum can use their benefits statement as ID. (At least they can where I live).

Most of the people proposing voter ID laws want photo ID, which'd be driving licence or passport.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
I've no idea what the supposed rate of fraud might be in postal voting but I do recall the stats bear out it's by far the biggest risk for fraudulent voting, and just from a common sense point of view it's the area most likely to be abused.

And yet oddly whenever we hear about a need to act against voter fraud it's methods that would accidentally disenfranchise poor voters at a much greater rate. I'll withdraw my concerns if whatever ID is deemed necessary for receiving a ballot is provided for free to anyone earning less than £50k per annum, and I'd also be more worried about fraud that isn't postal if returning officers started reporting significant numbers arriving at a polling station to be told they'd already voted

LOVE the idea that anybody earning under £50k is poor.

I’m also surprised you’re defending their right to vote given that you were merrily stating earlier in this thread that poor people didn’t know what they were voting for.

Further, if you have a look at what ID is accepted, those poor buggers on circa £40k per annum can use their benefits statement as ID. (At least they can where I live).

Most of the people proposing voter ID laws want photo ID, which'd be driving licence or passport.

Puja

Not sure where you got you’re polling from and, regardless, they can propose what they like. The fact is that that isn’t what is being trialled in my neck of the woods. From what I’ve read, there are loads of different trials and options, the vast majority of which aren’t photo ID. Even for the photo ID, it stretches far beyond driving licence and passport.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: LOVE the idea that anybody earning under £50k is poor.

I’m also surprised you’re defending their right to vote given that you were merrily stating earlier in this thread that poor people didn’t know what they were voting for.

Further, if you have a look at what ID is accepted, those poor buggers on circa £40k per annum can use their benefits statement as ID. (At least they can where I live).

Most of the people proposing voter ID laws want photo ID, which'd be driving licence or passport.

Puja

Not sure where you got you’re polling from and, regardless, they can propose what they like. The fact is that that isn’t what is being trialled in my neck of the woods. From what I’ve read, there are loads of different trials and options, the vast majority of which aren’t photo ID. Even for the photo ID, it stretches far beyond driving licence and passport.

If only the UK had an ID card system...you know, to make this kind of thing easier...and making travel easier...and allowing you to carry your right to travel in your wallet...

But I guess then we wouldn't have the Daily Mail or Blue passports made in France.

6 more months of this to go!

So the new date is Halloween... Though we can leave earlier if an actual deal is passed.

May insists we can leave without hosting European elections, up until May 31st, a full week after those elections are due to take place...


The idea that it's a fudge is a bit ridiculous, it's a compromise. May could (but won't) learn a thing or two from that. Compromise means two parties starting from different points, and meeting somewhere in the middle. Demanding the complete capitulation of one side or another is really not a good way to build consensus, even if it's how both of our major parties are accustomed to acting.


As for the European elections, idencorage everyone to vote, especially the younger generation who may not know that they need to register (by May 6th) and to remember that it's proportional representation, do tactical voting is pointless. We're due to send some lame ducks for 5 months, do this can be a single-issue vote (probably should be).

If you object to the way the Conservatives have run brexit, just vote anyone-but-con.

If you object to the way labour have handled their side, vote anyone-but-lab.

If you want to remain, vote Lib Dem.

If you want to leave with no deal, vote UKIP.


We may not get a 3rd referendum, but this election will sure as hell be taken as being indicative, and will send a real message about where public opinion is - whether you vote or not.

Which Tyler wrote: May insists we can leave without hosting European elections, up until May 31st, a full week after those elections are due to take place...

Everything I’ve read agrees with her. For all elections, those who win the ballot don’t immediately take their seat. There is always a delay until the new parliament/council is formed. I’m guessing for the EU that delay is a week.

If people want vote no deal they should vote for Farage’s Brexit Party. They are polling above UKIP and neck and neck with the Lib Dems (Westminster voting intentions).

Lizard wrote:6 more months of this to go!

Up to.

Banquo wrote:

Lizard wrote:6 more months of this to go!

Up to.

Love the optimism.