"Red wall voters will not forgive Boris Johnson if he sells out to get a trade deal with Brussels, polls show"
It's in The Sun. Harry Cole wrote it...
So let's dig a
If this 'no deal' scenario occurs, to what extent would you be
more or less likely to vote Conservative at the next General Election?
+ likely, total: 20%
no difference: 41%
- likely, total: 32%
I don't actually know what these questions mean
"The UK establishes a new relationship with the EU that is based on EU law" What *is* that?
"The UK cannot pass its own laws and ensure its courts enforce them" Oh come on.
Jeez. WTO constrains what tariffs the UK can set. Do we mean tariffs on goods to/from the EU, or generally?
The UK *has already* done a trade deal with Japan. No variant of Brexit now available stops this. This is 🤪
And yes, fishing. "Full control". At least that one is sort of understandable.
More from Jon Worth
A quick thread about night trains
The transport ministers from 🇩🇪🇦🇹🇫🇷🇨🇭, and the CEOs of the state-owned 🚅 operators in each (DB, ÖBB, SNCF, SBB), held a press conference about night trains today...
This slide summarises what they'd agreed
Don't get me wrong: night trains are *good*, and the trains on these routes will be ÖBB NightJet services, and ÖBB runs the best night trains there are in Europe.
I personally will be very happy to take these trains.
But so much for the good news.
Most of these routes have *already* been announced (Zürich to BCN, Rome, Amsterdam) - see https://t.co/7JnAo74tIX
Or have been even trialled (Vienna-Brussels) - see
That means only really the parts of the trains going to Paris and Berlin are in some way new - and even then we don't know how this will work (old Berlin-Paris night train went *through* Brussels)
In short: we're talking today about something like 4-6 new train services a day
In comparison: DB has 400 ICE units, SNCF 600 TGVs.
All of this is a *drop in the ocean*.
The transport ministers from 🇩🇪🇦🇹🇫🇷🇨🇭, and the CEOs of the state-owned 🚅 operators in each (DB, ÖBB, SNCF, SBB), held a press conference about night trains today...
This slide summarises what they'd agreed
Don't get me wrong: night trains are *good*, and the trains on these routes will be ÖBB NightJet services, and ÖBB runs the best night trains there are in Europe.
I personally will be very happy to take these trains.
But so much for the good news.
Most of these routes have *already* been announced (Zürich to BCN, Rome, Amsterdam) - see https://t.co/7JnAo74tIX
Or have been even trialled (Vienna-Brussels) - see
That means only really the parts of the trains going to Paris and Berlin are in some way new - and even then we don't know how this will work (old Berlin-Paris night train went *through* Brussels)
In short: we're talking today about something like 4-6 new train services a day
In comparison: DB has 400 ICE units, SNCF 600 TGVs.
All of this is a *drop in the ocean*.
To those saying that those who have got their public health advice wrong earlier in the pandemic should put up their hands and apologise... a little cautionary lesson from another sector
A short 🧵
1/
Public health is not my thing
But Brexit is
And throughout 2019 and 2020 I have been trying to make predictions as to what will happen in that story. Lives do not depend on this, only my professional reputation (marginally) does
2/12
The three series of #BrexitDiagram I made in 2019 were extraordinarily accurate
Series 1/2
https://t.co/wOSzIXxJ2M
Series 3
https://t.co/E4fKeGoa5n
Series 4
https://t.co/yRsQ8mLGj1
Each series got that stage of Brexit right
3/12
The 2020 series was nowhere near as good - at one stage I had No Deal Brexit at 78% chance in early December - and that was not what
I own this error - I was wrong
I know *why* I was wrong - I thought the European Parliament would fight more on Provisional Application, and I thought agreeing everything in a week wouldn't work. I wasn't right
The Manston crisis / borders closing changed something too
5/12
A short 🧵
1/
Public health is not my thing
But Brexit is
And throughout 2019 and 2020 I have been trying to make predictions as to what will happen in that story. Lives do not depend on this, only my professional reputation (marginally) does
2/12
The three series of #BrexitDiagram I made in 2019 were extraordinarily accurate
Series 1/2
https://t.co/wOSzIXxJ2M
Series 3
https://t.co/E4fKeGoa5n
Series 4
https://t.co/yRsQ8mLGj1
Each series got that stage of Brexit right
3/12
The 2020 series was nowhere near as good - at one stage I had No Deal Brexit at 78% chance in early December - and that was not what
I own this error - I was wrong
I know *why* I was wrong - I thought the European Parliament would fight more on Provisional Application, and I thought agreeing everything in a week wouldn't work. I wasn't right
The Manston crisis / borders closing changed something too
5/12
Next week is shaping up to be one hell of a week in 🇬🇧 politics
It all revolves around parliamentary sovereignty, Tory party shenanigans, and Johnson's need to survive and if that contradicts with doing the right thing
Bear with me - this is messy but important
1/12
Why will it be hellish?
We *know* that there will be a vote on Coronavirus Tier system on Tue 1 Dec, with the system to come into force from the end of 2 Dec
There *might* be a Brexit Deal at the start of next week as well, and Johnson having to OK it or not
2/12
Coronavirus first
I am not well placed to judge whether the Tier system is right (don't @ - reply me about that), but it's enough to say there are 3 grounds for critique
- do lockdowns work?
- does THIS lockdown system work?
- has my town/region been harshly treated?
3/12
Those are enough grounds for plenty of parliamentary opposition on the Tory benches, and on opposition benches too.
Labour could easily justify voting against in that some of the judgments on Tiers are not strictly based on the science
But what does voting *against* mean?
4/12
Were the vote lost, there would be little or no actual practical consequence regarding the Coronavirus restrictions - as discussed with Adam Wagner the government would almost certainly table Regulations using its emergency powers
It all revolves around parliamentary sovereignty, Tory party shenanigans, and Johnson's need to survive and if that contradicts with doing the right thing
Bear with me - this is messy but important
1/12
Why will it be hellish?
We *know* that there will be a vote on Coronavirus Tier system on Tue 1 Dec, with the system to come into force from the end of 2 Dec
There *might* be a Brexit Deal at the start of next week as well, and Johnson having to OK it or not
2/12
Coronavirus first
I am not well placed to judge whether the Tier system is right (don't @ - reply me about that), but it's enough to say there are 3 grounds for critique
- do lockdowns work?
- does THIS lockdown system work?
- has my town/region been harshly treated?
3/12
Those are enough grounds for plenty of parliamentary opposition on the Tory benches, and on opposition benches too.
Labour could easily justify voting against in that some of the judgments on Tiers are not strictly based on the science
But what does voting *against* mean?
4/12
Were the vote lost, there would be little or no actual practical consequence regarding the Coronavirus restrictions - as discussed with Adam Wagner the government would almost certainly table Regulations using its emergency powers
Yes they could table new regulations and could use the emergency procedure so that parliament doesn't have to vote on them until 4 weeks later. So the govt has a lot of leeway (legally if not politically)
— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) November 27, 2020
More from Politics
My piece in the NY Times today: "the Trump administration is denying applications submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services at a rate 37 percent higher than the Obama administration did in 2016."
Based on this analysis: "Denials for immigration benefits—travel documents, work permits, green cards, worker petitions, etc.—increased 37 percent since FY 2016. On an absolute basis, FY 2018 will see more than about 155,000 more denials than FY 2016." https://t.co/Bl0naOO0sh
"This increase in denials cannot be credited to an overall rise in applications. In fact, the total number of applications so far this year is 2 percent lower than in 2016. It could be that the higher denial rate is also discouraging some people from applying at all.."
Thanks to @gsiskind for his insightful comments. The increase in denials, he said, is “significant enough to make one think that Congress must have passed legislation changing the requirements. But we know they have not.”
My conclusion:
Based on this analysis: "Denials for immigration benefits—travel documents, work permits, green cards, worker petitions, etc.—increased 37 percent since FY 2016. On an absolute basis, FY 2018 will see more than about 155,000 more denials than FY 2016." https://t.co/Bl0naOO0sh
"This increase in denials cannot be credited to an overall rise in applications. In fact, the total number of applications so far this year is 2 percent lower than in 2016. It could be that the higher denial rate is also discouraging some people from applying at all.."
Thanks to @gsiskind for his insightful comments. The increase in denials, he said, is “significant enough to make one think that Congress must have passed legislation changing the requirements. But we know they have not.”
My conclusion:
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
I\u2019m sorry it\u2019s just insane that Democrats are like, \u201cwe won everything and our opening position on relief is $1.9T\u201d and Republicans are like, \u201cwe lost and our opening position is $600B,\u201d and the media will be like, \u201cDemocrats say they want unity but reject this bipartisan deal.\u201d
— Meredith Shiner (@meredithshiner) January 31, 2021
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
