Deathray

Where did this consensus that there'll be a general election this year come from? 70% of parliament have to vote for. The Tories are unlikely to want to as they have a majority and 4 years left on their term.

You're too kind. All I am is a political nerd with too much time on his hands. That said, I hope it all helps! This Tory leadership election is turning into a rogue's gallery. Liam Fox has declared his intention to stand, a man whose frontbench career I thought finished when he got done for his lobbyist friend, and had resorted to being an angry Eurosceptic backbencher. JEREMY HUNT IS CONSIDERING STANDING!!! Never did I think Boris might be the best option... Leadsom again said she's considering her position, and then there's May. Osborne's ruled himself out, which was the only logical step. He may be making overtures to Boris now (ever the career politician) which could be bad news for Theresa. Now Crabbe's stepping in, supposedly in a possible coalition with Sajid Javid as his Chancellor (God help us). Thankfully Priti Patel's name has yet to be uttered, but she's the sort of person who'll say nothing and submit her nomination at 11.59 tomorrow morning, with that smug look on her face. Dr. Sarah Woolaston (the MP who switched from Leave to Remain in the final week) says that it's clear Boris and May are the two most fancied candidates and that everyone else should stop looking to self-interest, it's in the country's interest for a quick election between two candidates and everyone can then move on. There are signs that May's stock is rising, as even some Brexiteers don't like Boris. That said, you then get people like Nicholas Soames, who gave Boris no end of abuse during the referendum, and accused Michael Gove of treason for leaking the Queen's supposed EU views, now announcing that Boris and Gove are a political dream team and everyone should let bygones be bygones and get on board. So who knows what's going to happen. Guess we'll know Thursday morning. On the Labour side, there are questions as to whether Corbyn gets onto the ballot without the support of MPs (unsurprisingly those opposed say their legal advice says he's need nominating, his aides say their legal advice says he's automatically on if he wants to be). You need 50 MPs to be nominated, and while the plan appears to be for a single unity opposing candidate, it is not quite so clear if everyone can agree on who that should be. Eagle is still tipped, but apparently there is support coalescing around Tom Watson, Corbyn's deputy, who frankly might be good at greasing the party machine for smooth running but inspires little more confidence as a future PM than Corbyn does. Eagle at least seems an honest broker and someone the party and the country could possibly see as a counterweight to the Tories. Meanwhile, Pat Glass, the newly-installed Shadow Education Secretary, has written to her local constituency Labour party to announce she will be standing down from Parliament at the next General Election, whenever that may be. Which inspires great confidence in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition... EDIT: Motion of No Confidence in Jeremy Corbyn passes. Of those who voted, there were 4 abstentions, 40 against the motion and just the 172 in favour. Watson and Eagle in the frame to challenge, but not clear which at this time. Still unclear whether Corbyn gets on the ballot automatically, but on those numbers he's still 10 short if every person who voted against the motion of no confidence backs his nomination. I think you're slightly confused. A candidate needs 50 MPs to trigger a leadership contest. Other candidates in that contest need 35 MPs only. Whether Corbyn could must 35 MPs (I'd assume the 40 who voted against the motion of no confidence in him suggests he could) is another question. There is a very real probability, although slightly diminished, that the leadership election could be triggered and Corbyn could win it. I tell you what would be funny... If the Lib Dem rules demanded 50 MPs had to support each leadership candidate. At this rate the fact Labour's do is going to be equally hysterical after the next election. Ignore my last post - apparently it's 50 if there is a leader. If he resigned he could get on the ballot with the 40 who voted for him in the vote of confidence.

You're too kind. All I am is a political nerd with too much time on his hands. That said, I hope it all helps! This Tory leadership election is turning into a rogue's gallery. Liam Fox has declared his intention to stand, a man whose frontbench career I thought finished when he got done for his lobbyist friend, and had resorted to being an angry Eurosceptic backbencher. JEREMY HUNT IS CONSIDERING STANDING!!! Never did I think Boris might be the best option... Leadsom again said she's considering her position, and then there's May. Osborne's ruled himself out, which was the only logical step. He may be making overtures to Boris now (ever the career politician) which could be bad news for Theresa. Now Crabbe's stepping in, supposedly in a possible coalition with Sajid Javid as his Chancellor (God help us). Thankfully Priti Patel's name has yet to be uttered, but she's the sort of person who'll say nothing and submit her nomination at 11.59 tomorrow morning, with that smug look on her face. Dr. Sarah Woolaston (the MP who switched from Leave to Remain in the final week) says that it's clear Boris and May are the two most fancied candidates and that everyone else should stop looking to self-interest, it's in the country's interest for a quick election between two candidates and everyone can then move on. There are signs that May's stock is rising, as even some Brexiteers don't like Boris. That said, you then get people like Nicholas Soames, who gave Boris no end of abuse during the referendum, and accused Michael Gove of treason for leaking the Queen's supposed EU views, now announcing that Boris and Gove are a political dream team and everyone should let bygones be bygones and get on board. So who knows what's going to happen. Guess we'll know Thursday morning. On the Labour side, there are questions as to whether Corbyn gets onto the ballot without the support of MPs (unsurprisingly those opposed say their legal advice says he's need nominating, his aides say their legal advice says he's automatically on if he wants to be). You need 50 MPs to be nominated, and while the plan appears to be for a single unity opposing candidate, it is not quite so clear if everyone can agree on who that should be. Eagle is still tipped, but apparently there is support coalescing around Tom Watson, Corbyn's deputy, who frankly might be good at greasing the party machine for smooth running but inspires little more confidence as a future PM than Corbyn does. Eagle at least seems an honest broker and someone the party and the country could possibly see as a counterweight to the Tories. Meanwhile, Pat Glass, the newly-installed Shadow Education Secretary, has written to her local constituency Labour party to announce she will be standing down from Parliament at the next General Election, whenever that may be. Which inspires great confidence in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition... EDIT: Motion of No Confidence in Jeremy Corbyn passes. Of those who voted, there were 4 abstentions, 40 against the motion and just the 172 in favour. Watson and Eagle in the frame to challenge, but not clear which at this time. Still unclear whether Corbyn gets on the ballot automatically, but on those numbers he's still 10 short if every person who voted against the motion of no confidence backs his nomination. I think you're slightly confused. A candidate needs 50 MPs to trigger a leadership contest. Other candidates in that contest need 35 MPs only. Whether Corbyn could must 35 MPs (I'd assume the 40 who voted against the motion of no confidence in him suggests he could) is another question. There is a very real probability, although slightly diminished, that the leadership election could be triggered and Corbyn could win it.

Fucking French always ready to ruin the British Isles dreams. Won't get to see that passport waving now..

To be fair general elections and local council elections have never been truly democratic so an actually democratic vote is a shock to the system for many.

Ireland v England mwhahahaha. If that happens and the fans don't sing "Do you need one of these?" and wave their passports at the England fans I'll be sorely disappointed.

We desperately need a proprtional representation system which would allow the factions of the major parties to split off from eachother effectively, as they already seem to be doing.

Christ that is dangerous.Trying to veto democracy has always been able to rile the British people up in history! It's going to be highly ironic when Scotland forces us to need the EU's help to leave the EU. I'd assume David Cameron is currently on the phone to Nicola Sturgeon informing that doing such would be a blatant disregard for democracy and telling her to hold the second referendum and fuck off.

Nicola Sturgeon has vowed to refuse to give legislative consent to Brexit. Constitutional crisis imminent. There's many amendments that need to be made to ensure Scotland can leave the EU under the treaties of the United Kingdom and so on. Apparently Sturgeon can block Brexit. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/26/nicola-sturgeon-new-scottish-referendum-brexit

Looks as though it'll be taken down soon.

Take a couple of weeks off. I found the post but it was slightly misinterpreted originally hence the reason I decided not to ban. Changed my mind and banned you for a fortnight. One more f**k up, and it will be sine die. Thank fuck for that.

First of the polls for Indy 2 has it at 59% including don't knows and 63% excluding them. Trigger will be pulled this week if other polls replicate those numbers. Cameron won't give the nod.

No need for the sigh. It matters. Having sex with a willing teenager should never, ever be equated with having sex with a prepubescent child. As for your second point, yes, quite likely. Particularly in the US, where the age of consent varies and is or has been as high as 21 in some states. It's always been really common for girls to want to have "underage" sex when (a) nature decides they're ready for it and (b ) they find someone they want to have sex with. There's nothing pervy about it. Yup. This stuff is completely different to the Jimmy Savile stuff. There's some truly horrifying clips from childrens TV shows on youtube in which Jimmy Savile is rather overtly making in-jokes about his fetishes to other presenters in front of large groups of children that I came across by accident. No I'm not searching for them. There's one of Gary Glitter on this is your life that's equally as blatant.

I didn't mean the out vote should be overturned or anything so ridiculous. Just that I personally think it's an absolutely horrendous decision, and will be applying for my Irish passport soon to retain my own freedom of movement rights when we're forced to leave the single market by Germany and France. For some reason you're entire post is in bold, so I've underlined the bits I'm replying too: Firstly you're spot on about the entitlement sentiment. I take issue with you picking out Newcastle, the area was only very marginally for remain and whilst there's an image of the north east by many southerners is one of no immigration it's wrong. It's not as high as some other areas but at a 13% of the population being foreigners in 2011 (and that doesn't count migrant children) migration pressure does affect the area. Which is why it was a wafer thin majority for remain and all the areas surrounding voted out (non-UK born residents went up 74% across the region in those 10 years betwen 2001 and 2011). The big issue I have with Brexit is not thinking it's xenophobic or racist, but for the next ten years we'll be wrangling to fix gaps in legislation left by withdrawal, try and pull trade deals together, rework our foreign relations and argue about independence for the colonies. The immigration pressure will remain if not get worse as we're now unable to deport them to their EU country of entry and finally I'm genuinely worried about my own job prospects as a quite possibly soon-to-be low-skilled minimum wage worker in an economy that's take a hit at the top - as we all know when confidence decreases spending decreases and there's less people needed in those jobs. There may be long term positives to Brexit, such as less housing pressure meaning cheaper rent and housing but those things aren't much use to me, like everyone else in the country I voted with self-interest. I've got the right to think it's a horrendous decision when it goes the other way, the key bits accepting it and just being pissed of at the 69% of 18-24 year olds who were too apathetic to care. I accept that there are deep concerns, I accept that people that voted to remain would have done so for good reasons. What I don't accept is the notion that the remain camp are somewhat more intelligent and have a better grasp of things than those who voted to leave. There were a multitude of reasons why people wanted to leave, some you cannot apply stats to. As somebody said 'some just want to stop paying the EU and others want all the dusky faces removed from their Street'................ Some people are inferring that from the polling data. What I infer is that those who've had lower opportunities in life and are closer to the issues of immigration were more likely to vote to leave, if you've not seen the benefits of globalisation why would you vote for it? But to me that's an issue of Westminsters making not Europes (they could have stopped benefit tourism in 2001 under EU regulations quite comfortably and if they'd done that I strongly believe we'd still be in Europe) The media have deliberately been seeking out the most inarticulate, racist and downright oddball Leave voters for their vox pop segments. I do feel we'd have a similar situation if this had gone the other way as some of us just wanted to keep the status quo while others were strong supporters of a federalist EU and adopting the euro. Referendums aren't a great idea anyway. Polarising a nation over such a deep constitutional matter is to me a case of those we elect to make decisions wanting to pass the buck so if it all goes tits up it's the electorates fault. I don't get you. Sometimes you post inane stuff then you go and post intelligent and articulate stuff like that. Don't worry the lobotomist gave up too.

I will never understand the popularity of Boris Johnson. I can sort of understand Nigel Farage's popularity, but how can a man like Boris who says so much without ever actually saying anything be considered a viable Prime Minister. He's also extremely extremely right wing but hides it under his buffoon persona. One slight flaw with that. In the first round, Corbyn won 49.6% of the party members votes. That is full members, not affiliates or £3ers. He'd have certainly won the leadership without a single £3 spent. The easiest way is to get him to resign, or failing that, just not re-nominating him. Two of his nominees are dead now after all. And another's the Mayor of London. Tinfoil hat time? The New Labour aspect of the party didn't want these people around? 1 shooting, 1 sideways move, 1 healthscare - doesn't look to suspicious?

I didn't mean the out vote should be overturned or anything so ridiculous. Just that I personally think it's an absolutely horrendous decision, and will be applying for my Irish passport soon to retain my own freedom of movement rights when we're forced to leave the single market by Germany and France. For some reason you're entire post is in bold, so I've underlined the bits I'm replying too: Firstly you're spot on about the entitlement sentiment. I take issue with you picking out Newcastle, the area was only very marginally for remain and whilst there's an image of the north east by many southerners is one of no immigration it's wrong. It's not as high as some other areas but at a 13% of the population being foreigners in 2011 (and that doesn't count migrant children) migration pressure does affect the area. Which is why it was a wafer thin majority for remain and all the areas surrounding voted out (non-UK born residents went up 74% across the region in those 10 years betwen 2001 and 2011). The big issue I have with Brexit is not thinking it's xenophobic or racist, but for the next ten years we'll be wrangling to fix gaps in legislation left by withdrawal, try and pull trade deals together, rework our foreign relations and argue about independence for the colonies. The immigration pressure will remain if not get worse as we're now unable to deport them to their EU country of entry and finally I'm genuinely worried about my own job prospects as a quite possibly soon-to-be low-skilled minimum wage worker in an economy that's take a hit at the top - as we all know when confidence decreases spending decreases and there's less people needed in those jobs. There may be long term positives to Brexit, such as less housing pressure meaning cheaper rent and housing but those things aren't much use to me, like everyone else in the country I voted with self-interest. I've got the right to think it's a horrendous decision when it goes the other way, the key bits accepting it and just being pissed of at the 69% of 18-24 year olds who were too apathetic to care. I accept that there are deep concerns, I accept that people that voted to remain would have done so for good reasons. What I don't accept is the notion that the remain camp are somewhat more intelligent and have a better grasp of things than those who voted to leave. There were a multitude of reasons why people wanted to leave, some you cannot apply stats to. As somebody said 'some just want to stop paying the EU and others want all the dusky faces removed from their Street'................ Some people are inferring that from the polling data. What I infer is that those who've had lower opportunities in life and are closer to the issues of immigration were more likely to vote to leave, if you've not seen the benefits of globalisation why would you vote for it? But to me that's an issue of Westminsters making not Europes (they could have stopped benefit tourism in 2001 under EU regulations quite comfortably and if they'd done that I strongly believe we'd still be in Europe) The media have deliberately been seeking out the most inarticulate, racist and downright oddball Leave voters for their vox pop segments. I do feel we'd have a similar situation if this had gone the other way as some of us just wanted to keep the status quo while others were strong supporters of a federalist EU and adopting the euro. Referendums aren't a great idea anyway. Polarising a nation over such a deep constitutional matter is to me a case of those we elect to make decisions wanting to pass the buck so if it all goes tits up it's the electorates fault.

One slight flaw with that. In the first round, Corbyn won 49.6% of the party members votes. That is full members, not affiliates or £3ers. He'd have certainly won the leadership without a single £3 spent. The easiest way is to get him to resign, or failing that, just not re-nominating him. Two of his nominees are dead now after all. If I nominated him I'd be a bit worried now. Theme team for next year?

One slight flaw with that. In the first round, Corbyn won 49.6% of the party members votes. That is full members, not affiliates or £3ers. He'd have certainly won the leadership without a single £3 spent. The easiest way is to get him to resign, or failing that, just not re-nominating him. Two of his nominees are dead now after all. He wouldn't manage that again, even among his own supporters he hasn't been a resounding success.

Regarding Labour - the MPs can make it really easy for Corbyn not to win. His main support came from Corbyn supporters and Tories who wouldn't normally vote Labour but seized on the pay to vote membership mechanism all they need to is require people to have been full members for a certain time period and Corbyn won't win.(not the tendy membership which I and many others used to vote Corbyn last time)

I didn't mean the out vote should be overturned or anything so ridiculous. Just that I personally think it's an absolutely horrendous decision, and will be applying for my Irish passport soon to retain my own freedom of movement rights when we're forced to leave the single market by Germany and France. For some reason you're entire post is in bold, so I've underlined the bits I'm replying too: Firstly you're spot on about the entitlement sentiment. I take issue with you picking out Newcastle, the area was only very marginally for remain and whilst there's an image of the north east by many southerners is one of no immigration it's wrong. It's not as high as some other areas but at a 13% of the population being foreigners in 2011 (and that doesn't count migrant children) migration pressure does affect the area. Which is why it was a wafer thin majority for remain and all the areas surrounding voted out (non-UK born residents went up 74% across the region in those 10 years betwen 2001 and 2011). The big issue I have with Brexit is not thinking it's xenophobic or racist, but for the next ten years we'll be wrangling to fix gaps in legislation left by withdrawal, try and pull trade deals together, rework our foreign relations and argue about independence for the colonies. The immigration pressure will remain if not get worse as we're now unable to deport them to their EU country of entry and finally I'm genuinely worried about my own job prospects as a quite possibly soon-to-be low-skilled minimum wage worker in an economy that's take a hit at the top - as we all know when confidence decreases spending decreases and there's less people needed in those jobs. There may be long term positives to Brexit, such as less housing pressure meaning cheaper rent and housing but those things aren't much use to me, like everyone else in the country I voted with self-interest. I've got the right to think it's a horrendous decision when it goes the other way, the key bits accepting it and just being pissed of at the 69% of 18-24 year olds who were too apathetic to care.

Got people openly admitting on my facebook feed they didn't vote because they didn't know enough about the pros and cons and now moaning about the result. You're job as a voter is to find out enough about the pros and cons - were fortunate enough to be able to find out the pros and cons in ten minutes rather than rooting through library books and manifestos/pamphlets. Apparently that's too much effort. Generation Spoonfeed.

31.2% estimated turnout among young people and my facebook feeds full of them blaming the elderly.

To be honest I'd love to see federalism creep into Britain, it might start to rectify the democratic deficit that led to Thursdays horrendous decision. The signs seem to be pointing the opposite way though. It's always going to be a domino effect in my opinion though in the order of Scotland. Northern Ireland and then Wales seeing those two countries succeed and abandoning England.

Given London has about twice the population of Scotland, depending on exactly where one draws the line around it. It's an interesting point . To be honest, good riddance to them.

Just one very famous person needs to die - any of them, sick of the Brexit news - all 10 of the most read on BBC News were Brexit.