Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betfair moves sharply back to Macron for French President foll

SystemSystem Posts: 11,017
edited February 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betfair moves sharply back to Macron for French President following a run of good polls

Over the past week there has been a strong move on the betting markets to the 39 year old independent, Emmanuel Macron, for next French president following a series of polls that have him clearly in the top two for a runoff place.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    First!
  • Options
    old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    One for the wine buffs on here.
    The perfect wine to accompany pheasant.
  • Options
    3 in the net - like liverpool
  • Options
    Macron could still be pulled under by a scandal. Everyone else seems to be.
  • Options
    BudGBudG Posts: 711
    There is a long way to go. Macron had his lead over Fillon cut by one point in today's ifop poll.

    He is a worthy favourite, but Fillon is hanging in there.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,962
    Sixth!
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,881

    Macron could still be pulled under by a scandal. Everyone else seems to be.

    That's what I was thinking. With so much movement in the market this far out, surely the guy at almost evens is more likely to be a lay than a back? Or is Macron going to be the last man standing who's untouched by scandal? I think I'm sticking with laying Le Pen for now.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,986
    edited February 2017
    Le Pen is already at or over 40% in the runoff with Macron in the latest Kantar and Harris polls and while Macron is favourite the rumour is the Russians have further information on his private life they are storing up if he gets to a second round against Le Pen
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,235
    I suppose ultimately someone has to win. Jeez. It's a crap shoot.
  • Options
    Mr. P, considering the circumstances, it could've been a lot worse.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Jeez. It's a crap shoot.

    Is that a remark to the sniper?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,235
    Scott_P said:
    His speeches are stunningly dull but this still seems excessive.
  • Options
    The French voting for Macron is them voting for more of the same. So disappointing. Ditto for the Germans voting for Merkel. Do these countries not see the economic, social, European, migration, etc crises?
  • Options
    Mr. L, "The speech was so tedious I was forced to shoot some bystanders in the leg simply as a means of passing the time."

    Mind you, as far as a story involving a sniper and the French president goes, it could've been rather worse. Glad the unfortunate wounded aren't injured too severely.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,881
    Scott_P said:

    ttps://twitter.com/skynews/status/836639115865006081

    Whoops. That would have woken up the Presidential security team rather quickly!
  • Options

    The French voting for Macron is them voting for more of the same. So disappointing. Ditto for the Germans voting for Merkel. Do these countries not see the economic, social, European, migration, etc crises?

    They will do by this summer. I fear Europe is going to be overwhelmed by migrants trying to get in and Europe has no answer whatsover. Some in Europe may out trump Trump, God forbid
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,235
    Theresa May has apparently given up crisps for lent. Unfortunately she finds nuts a little more difficult.
  • Options
    FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    Nicolas DuPont-Aignon's website calls for unilaterally withdrawing from sanctions on Russia. What is it with right-wingers and Russia???
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited February 2017
    HYUFD said:

    Le Pen is already at or over 40% in the runoff with Macron in the latest Kantar and Harris polls and while Macron is favourite the rumour is the Russians have further information on his private life they are storing up if he gets to a second round against Le Pen
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017

    Working on nothing bar the polling, it looks like the drift to Le Pen is there but it isn't quick enough for her to win against Macron. Against Fillon though....

    She looks like she could poll in the 40-45% band.
  • Options
    I am now +£100 Macron, 0 the field thanks to a tip presumably here back in November. Any value in taking some profit?
  • Options
    Scott_P said:
    Oops, I suspect someone will soon be losing their fire arms badge.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    DavidL said:

    Theresa May has apparently given up crisps for lent. Unfortunately she finds nuts a little more difficult.

    Your coat, sir...
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,055
    edited February 2017

    I fear Europe is going to be overwhelmed by migrants trying to get in

    To paraphrase Maggie, you can't blame them: it's always better where the EU is.
  • Options
    Mr. Quidder, not quite as splendid as you, but I did hedge a bit for a minor green result for anyone else and a larger green result for Macron. If the rumours of leaks to come if he makes round two against Le Pen, I think a little bit of hedging might be wise, but entirely up to you.
  • Options
    DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 332
    If anyone is a kipper or has a copy of the UKIP rulebook, can Carswell just be expelled from the party? In normal political parties a member has to do something wrong to be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,962
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited February 2017

    I am now +£100 Macron, 0 the field thanks to a tip presumably here back in November. Any value in taking some profit?

    I was about £800 in the Green on Macron, but have taken advantage of the shifting odds to go Green on Fillon. I am now sitting comfortably all green, but whoever comes up against LePen will win hands down.

    I think a run off of Macron vs Fillon would be a more interesting final two in terms of deciding the future of France, but doesn't appear likely.
  • Options
    RobD said:
    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    DM_Andy said:

    If anyone is a kipper or has a copy of the UKIP rulebook, can Carswell just be expelled from the party? In normal political parties a member has to do something wrong to be subject to disciplinary proceedings.

    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/253/attachments/original/1486991020/Rules_of_Procedure_Feb_2017.pdf?1486991020

    W.1.10 Any action which is in public opposition to the Party or its core aims, orwhich
    brings the Party into disrepute, shall be considered to be grounds for Disciplinary
    action under Section AA of the Rules of Procedure.

    W.1.11 seems to be the bit which provides for expulsion.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    The French voting for Macron is them voting for more of the same. So disappointing. Ditto for the Germans voting for Merkel. Do these countries not see the economic, social, European, migration, etc crises?

    They also see and are repelled by Trumpism and Faragism.

    There is no easy cure for the ills of globalism, as will become apparent here and in America.
  • Options
    Ishmael_Z said:

    DM_Andy said:

    If anyone is a kipper or has a copy of the UKIP rulebook, can Carswell just be expelled from the party? In normal political parties a member has to do something wrong to be subject to disciplinary proceedings.

    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/253/attachments/original/1486991020/Rules_of_Procedure_Feb_2017.pdf?1486991020

    W.1.10 Any action which is in public opposition to the Party or its core aims, orwhich
    brings the Party into disrepute, shall be considered to be grounds for Disciplinary
    action under Section AA of the Rules of Procedure.

    W.1.11 seems to be the bit which provides for expulsion.
    The only other reference to "expel" in that document is I.5 The Party Secretary has the right to suspend or expel members who clearly bring the Party into disrepute by association with or membership of an organisation, membership of which the NEC has declared to be incompatible with membership of the Party or establish a group in opposition to an official UKIP group.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,603
    PBers will be interested to know that I am currently 'doing a Jezza' and sitting on the floor of the delayed 18:00 from Kings X. Disruption due to 'a person being hit by a train at Sandy', and my train (18:03 Skipton) was cancelled.

    Maybe if we had more relaxed rules on firearms ownership people would find a way to top themselves that wasn't quite so disruptive to the travelling public - or traumatising to train drivers.

    As I type we are now slowing down and stopping...
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    DM_Andy said:

    If anyone is a kipper or has a copy of the UKIP rulebook, can Carswell just be expelled from the party? In normal political parties a member has to do something wrong to be subject to disciplinary proceedings.

    In UKIP, if you do something right (or moral) you are immediately out.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    FPT



    Where do you put "Guards, Guards"?

    Pretty near the top of the tree, if not at the pinnacle. Pratchett was still at his creative best in those works, before he became formulaic. He was inventing a new world and could get in some biting social satire whilst keeping the comedy flowing.
  • Options
    Mr. Thompson, agree entirely. Peers are being foolish. Still, makes them look right-on.
  • Options

    What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?

    http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/

    Conservative 252
    Labour 202
    Crossbench 178
    Lib Dem 102
    Bishops 26
    Non-affiliated 31
    Other 14 (3 DUP, 3 UKIP, 2 UUP, 2 Ind Lab, 1 Grn, 1 Ind Soc Dem, 1 Ind UU, 1 PC)

    Total 805
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    FPT



    Where do you put "Guards, Guards"?

    Pretty near the top of the tree, if not at the pinnacle. Pratchett was still at his creative best in those works, before he became formulaic. He was inventing a new world and could get in some biting social satire whilst keeping the comedy flowing.
    Guards, Guards was the first one I read. Years before any of the others.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,881

    What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
    Conservatives are only 252 of 805, but they've been bloody good at whipping recently, they got 207 out the other night at some time past 11. A lot of the crossbenchers will probably abstain, but if they go against the government then the ping pong will start.
  • Options
    Only read three Discworld stories (in one volume), but I think Guards, Guards was amongst them.

    Enjoyed the books, excepting the absence of chapters and the use of 'should of'.
  • Options
    Two new Dutch polls

    VVD (Rutte) tied with PVV (WIlders) on 22

    and

    PVV 28 lead by 1 over VVD

    Fair value now 2.5 IMO which puts a little value in Hills and Ladbrokes @ 2.75
  • Options
    DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 332
    Ishmael_Z said:


    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/253/attachments/original/1486991020/Rules_of_Procedure_Feb_2017.pdf?1486991020

    W.1.10 Any action which is in public opposition to the Party or its core aims, orwhich
    brings the Party into disrepute, shall be considered to be grounds for Disciplinary
    action under Section AA of the Rules of Procedure.

    W.1.11 seems to be the bit which provides for expulsion.

    Thanks Ishmael, the whole of W.1. seems to only apply to ordinary members, not those that have elected office or any formal position in the party. Carswell will need to be careful of "W.5 Elected members should not make public statements which contradict Party
    policy except in accordance with L.12 above." and "W.6 Elected members should refrain from public criticism of other Party members" but I think he's been just within the lines.

  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited February 2017

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    PBers will be interested to know that I am currently 'doing a Jezza' and sitting on the floor of the delayed 18:00 from Kings X. Disruption due to 'a person being hit by a train at Sandy', and my train (18:03 Skipton) was cancelled.

    Maybe if we had more relaxed rules on firearms ownership people would find a way to top themselves that wasn't quite so disruptive to the travelling public - or traumatising to train drivers.

    As I type we are now slowing down and stopping...

    What a pain, I feel for you.

    Surprisingly, I find that there are markedly more suicides than homicides by firearm in the US: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/

    Not sure what to conclude from this, but I think your proposal causes more problems than it solves.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
    Conservatives are only 252 of 805, but they've been bloody good at whipping recently, they got 207 out the other night at some time past 11. A lot of the crossbenchers will probably abstain, but if they go against the government then the ping pong will start.
    All others were only 228 for a total number voting of 435. That number rings a bell!
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,881
    DM_Andy said:

    Ishmael_Z said:


    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/253/attachments/original/1486991020/Rules_of_Procedure_Feb_2017.pdf?1486991020

    W.1.10 Any action which is in public opposition to the Party or its core aims, orwhich
    brings the Party into disrepute, shall be considered to be grounds for Disciplinary
    action under Section AA of the Rules of Procedure.

    W.1.11 seems to be the bit which provides for expulsion.

    Thanks Ishmael, the whole of W.1. seems to only apply to ordinary members, not those that have elected office or any formal position in the party. Carswell will need to be careful of "W.5 Elected members should not make public statements which contradict Party
    policy except in accordance with L.12 above." and "W.6 Elected members should refrain from public criticism of other Party members" but I think he's been just within the lines.
    Surely on that basis, the elected Mr Farage has overstepped the line somewhat?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,962

    What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?

    She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in :smiley:
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,235
    Scott_P said:

    FPT



    Where do you put "Guards, Guards"?

    Pretty near the top of the tree, if not at the pinnacle. Pratchett was still at his creative best in those works, before he became formulaic. He was inventing a new world and could get in some biting social satire whilst keeping the comedy flowing.
    Guards, Guards was the first one I read. Years before any of the others.
    Maskerade and thief of time for me. Pure comic genius.
  • Options

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    I think there's a handy two word phase for it.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,962

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    To be fair Parliament could change its mind later on, and repeal those provisions of the Act.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,235
    Scott_P said:
    If Nissan were going to use a fund of £100m to bring more of their supply chain to the U.K. that sounds seriously good value for money for U.K. Plc. It would have a significant effect on our balance of payments.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,186

    I am now +£100 Macron, 0 the field thanks to a tip presumably here back in November. Any value in taking some profit?

    I was about £800 in the Green on Macron, but have taken advantage of the shifting odds to go Green on Fillon. I am now sitting comfortably all green, but whoever comes up against LePen will win hands down.
    I would normally agree but I'm still spooked by the fact we both thought that about Clinton. Yes, under the French system she would have won and yes, she was a weaker candidate than Macron (I know you will disagree with me on that, but she really was) yet even allowing for that, the way things have gone so far there seems a non-trivial risk of the rival to Le Pen being sunk by some ghastly scandal just befor the run-off, handing her the election more or less faute de mieux.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,055

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,603
    Update - I have now de-Jezzed and found a seat! Train still at a standstill though, in a queue waiting to pass the site of the incident.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,186

    FPT



    Where do you put "Guards, Guards"?

    Pretty near the top of the tree, if not at the pinnacle. Pratchett was still at his creative best in those works, before he became formulaic. He was inventing a new world and could get in some biting social satire whilst keeping the comedy flowing.
    Jingo
    Lords and Ladies
    Interesting Times

    But of all Pratchett's work, Good Omens remains my favourite (OK, I know Neil Gaiman co-wrote it).
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,235

    Update - I have now de-Jezzed and found a seat! Train still at a standstill though, in a queue waiting to pass the site of the incident.

    The Reverant was really set in the wrong country, wasn't it.
  • Options

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
    That is so unacceptable but seems to sum up your dislike of our own Countrymen and women .
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited February 2017

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
    Agreed. If we look like the epitome of callousness it simply makes the EU hardliners' job easier. By extending an olive branch we make it easier for those in the EU hierarchy who want the minimum damage.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    RobD said:

    What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?

    She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in :smiley:
    Here in n Cyprus. BBC world news is Trump all the way.. źzzzzzzzzzzzzzzź
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,186

    Only read three Discworld stories (in one volume), but I think Guards, Guards was amongst them.

    Enjoyed the books, excepting the absence of chapters and the use of 'should of'.

    And his characters always fire their crossbows.

    Still, even my GCSE textbooks get that wrong.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,962

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
    That is so unacceptable but seems to sum up your dislike of our own Countrymen and women .
    Nonsense. williamglenn has never said a bad word about EU citizens. :smiley:
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
    There is no value in guaranteeing the right to remain of the 16hr a week chicken shop workers who are pulling in tens of thousands a year in benefits.

    I'm not even sure that my local Romanian Big Issue Seller is indispensible.

  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,962

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
    Agreed. If we look like the epitome of callousness it simply makes the EU hardliners' job easier. By extending an olive branch we make it easier for those in the EU hierarchy who want the minimum damage.
    May has already offered to do an early deal on this, but was rebuffed.
  • Options

    The French voting for Macron is them voting for more of the same. So disappointing. Ditto for the Germans voting for Merkel. Do these countries not see the economic, social, European, migration, etc crises?

    They will do by this summer. I fear Europe is going to be overwhelmed by migrants trying to get in and Europe has no answer whatsover. Some in Europe may out trump Trump, God forbid
    We'll be mining the Channel by the end of the decade at this rate..
  • Options

    Update - I have now de-Jezzed and found a seat! Train still at a standstill though, in a queue waiting to pass the site of the incident.

    NRE still saying the lines are closed: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/service_disruptions/158791.aspx

    Fingers crossed they can get you on your way soon.
  • Options

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
    That is so unacceptable but seems to sum up your dislike of our own Countrymen and women .
    To him these foreigners *are* his countrymen and -women.
  • Options
    RobD said:

    What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?

    She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in :smiley:
    Will no-one think of the stoats?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,962
    chestnut said:

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
    There is no value in guaranteeing the right to remain of the 16hr a week chicken shop workers who are pulling in tens of thousands a year in benefits.

    I'm not even sure that my local Romanian Big Issue Seller is indispensible.

    I know there are stats showing immigrants pay more in tax than they claim in welfare. I suspect the same is true for EU immigrants.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,830

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
    Agreed. If we look like the epitome of callousness it simply makes the EU hardliners' job easier. By extending an olive branch we make it easier for those in the EU hierarchy who want the minimum damage.
    Negotiation should proceed on the basis of quid pro quo.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    ydoethur said:

    FPT



    Where do you put "Guards, Guards"?

    Pretty near the top of the tree, if not at the pinnacle. Pratchett was still at his creative best in those works, before he became formulaic. He was inventing a new world and could get in some biting social satire whilst keeping the comedy flowing.
    Jingo
    Lords and Ladies
    Interesting Times

    But of all Pratchett's work, Good Omens remains my favourite (OK, I know Neil Gaiman co-wrote it).
    For me, it would have to Thief of Time or Mort, although in the current climate I may re-read "Jingo" or "The Truth" :D

    Small Gods was a complete thumbs-down second to only Unseen Academicals which was Pratchett's nadir IMO
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,962

    RobD said:

    What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?

    She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in :smiley:
    Will no-one think of the stoats?
    Surely any self-respecting hereditary would already have their robes!
  • Options
    RobD said:

    chestnut said:

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
    There is no value in guaranteeing the right to remain of the 16hr a week chicken shop workers who are pulling in tens of thousands a year in benefits.

    I'm not even sure that my local Romanian Big Issue Seller is indispensible.

    I know there are stats showing immigrants pay more in tax than they claim in welfare. I suspect the same is true for EU immigrants.
    As a whole yes, not necessarily as individuals.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,186
    RobD said:

    What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?

    She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in :smiley:
    Genuine question, how many hereditary peers are there currently in the Commons? I know of at least one. Not that May would need to fear by-elections of course...
  • Options
    Mr. Doethur, I do try to avoid firing both crossbows and bows in my books.

    Incidentally, if anyone would like a sort of Flashman meets Discworld meets Blackadder fantasy-comedy nonsense, do try The Adventures of Sir Edric. Hoping to get the second book out this year.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Adventures-Edric-Hero-Hornska-Book-ebook/dp/B01DOSP9ZK/

    Mrs C, May was willing to do an early reciprocal deal. The EU declined.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,962
    edited February 2017
    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?

    She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in :smiley:
    Genuine question, how many hereditary peers are there currently in the Commons? I know of at least one. Not that May would need to fear by-elections of course...
    92 at present (not counting those that also hold life peerages)

    Edit: I'm an idiot.

    I think there is only one... Viscount Thurso.
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited February 2017
    RobD said:

    chestnut said:

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
    There is no value in guaranteeing the right to remain of the 16hr a week chicken shop workers who are pulling in tens of thousands a year in benefits.

    I'm not even sure that my local Romanian Big Issue Seller is indispensible.

    I know there are stats showing immigrants pay more in tax than they claim in welfare. I suspect the same is true for EU immigrants.
    The fact that many are self sustaining doesn't mean that we should guarantee to keep the ones who aren't.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
    A guarantee for anyone who has a job above a certain modest income (perhaps the same as the income spousal income threshold) unilaterally would be reasonable. It would give status to our EU Docs and Nurses, while not establishing rights for Big Issue sellers. Britain would only gain.
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited February 2017

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Even as someone getting ever "softer" on Brexit, I agree with this. May has the right stance on EU migrants IMO: make clear that she wants those settled here already to stay, but on the condition that British expats on the Continent get the same treatment.

    The Lords would be better off focussing on getting a clause which locks the government in to needing parliamentary approval for any Brexit "deal", preferably with the condition that Britain's exit won't take effect unless and until a deal's been approved, even if that means suspending or temporarily revoking Article 50.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited February 2017

    Mr. Doethur, I do try to avoid firing both crossbows and bows in my books.

    Incidentally, if anyone would like a sort of Flashman meets Discworld meets Blackadder fantasy-comedy nonsense, do try The Adventures of Sir Edric. Hoping to get the second book out this year.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Adventures-Edric-Hero-Hornska-Book-ebook/dp/B01DOSP9ZK/

    Mrs C, May was willing to do an early reciprocal deal. The EU declined.

    Well then, let us start from the highlands of correctness by doing the right thing and showing Johnny Foreigner how it should be done :):)
  • Options
    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?

    She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in :smiley:
    Genuine question, how many hereditary peers are there currently in the Commons? I know of at least one. Not that May would need to fear by-elections of course...
    92 at present (not counting those that also hold life peerages)

    Edit: I'm an idiot.

    I think there is only one... Viscount Thurso.
    John Thurso lost his seat in the Commons in 2015. He's back in the Lords now.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,881

    RobD said:

    chestnut said:

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
    There is no value in guaranteeing the right to remain of the 16hr a week chicken shop workers who are pulling in tens of thousands a year in benefits.

    I'm not even sure that my local Romanian Big Issue Seller is indispensible.

    I know there are stats showing immigrants pay more in tax than they claim in welfare. I suspect the same is true for EU immigrants.
    As a whole yes, not necessarily as individuals.
    Quite. Take out a couple of hundred premier league footballers and a few CEOs, and the figures look rather different.

    No other country in the world pays benefits to recent immigrants, in most places you'll quickly find yourself deported if you're an unemployed foreigner.
  • Options
    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?

    She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in :smiley:
    Genuine question, how many hereditary peers are there currently in the Commons? I know of at least one. Not that May would need to fear by-elections of course...
    92 at present (not counting those that also hold life peerages)

    Edit: I'm an idiot.

    I think there is only one... Viscount Thurso.
    You may not have noticed but the SNP did rather well at the last general election. Regrettably the Highlands were cleared of nobility.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,603
    Sean_F said:

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
    Agreed. If we look like the epitome of callousness it simply makes the EU hardliners' job easier. By extending an olive branch we make it easier for those in the EU hierarchy who want the minimum damage.
    Negotiation should proceed on the basis of quid pro quo.
    Ultimately we should do the right thing by UK residents, whether the EU agrees to reciprocate or not. We should not be dragged down to their level.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited February 2017
    Sean_F said:

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
    Agreed. If we look like the epitome of callousness it simply makes the EU hardliners' job easier. By extending an olive branch we make it easier for those in the EU hierarchy who want the minimum damage.
    Negotiation should proceed on the basis of quid pro quo.
    Yes it should, but you can give yourself an edge in negotiation as well. We need to minimise the disadvantage which A.50 will place us in beacuse A.50 gives the EU the upper hand.
  • Options
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?

    She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in :smiley:
    Will no-one think of the stoats?
    Surely any self-respecting hereditary would already have their robes!
    I believe they're biodegradable. Or a wasting asset, if you prefer. And then, of course, there's the PETA problem. But most hereditaries will have maintained a modest stoat farm behind the fox covert, just in case.
  • Options
    Mrs C, that argument does have shades of Blair and the rebate.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,055

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?

    She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in :smiley:
    Will no-one think of the stoats?
    Surely any self-respecting hereditary would already have their robes!
    I believe they're biodegradable. Or a wasting asset, if you prefer. And then, of course, there's the PETA problem. But most hereditaries will have maintained a modest stoat farm behind the fox covert, just in case.
    People for the Ethical Treatment of Aristocrats?
  • Options

    Sean_F said:

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
    Agreed. If we look like the epitome of callousness it simply makes the EU hardliners' job easier. By extending an olive branch we make it easier for those in the EU hierarchy who want the minimum damage.
    Negotiation should proceed on the basis of quid pro quo.
    Ultimately we should do the right thing by UK residents, whether the EU agrees to reciprocate or not. We should not be dragged down to their level.
    But what if that would be doing the wrong thing by our citizens?

    Basically feelings on this issue seem to come down to whether people are more likely to know people in category (a) or in category (b). Unsurprisingly the media is dominated by category (a) types.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,881

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
    A guarantee for anyone who has a job above a certain modest income (perhaps the same as the income spousal income threshold) unilaterally would be reasonable. It would give status to our EU Docs and Nurses, while not establishing rights for Big Issue sellers. Britain would only gain.
    That sounds reasonable, although I can see Mrs May's point about wanting assurances about Brits living in the EU simultaneously. We should allow pretty much unlimited immigration of medical professionals, and bend over backwards to stop them leaving.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    Mrs C, that argument does have shades of Blair and the rebate.

    What? That "Unseen Academicals" was Pratchett's worst book?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,186

    ydoethur said:

    FPT



    Where do you put "Guards, Guards"?

    Pretty near the top of the tree, if not at the pinnacle. Pratchett was still at his creative best in those works, before he became formulaic. He was inventing a new world and could get in some biting social satire whilst keeping the comedy flowing.
    Jingo
    Lords and Ladies
    Interesting Times

    But of all Pratchett's work, Good Omens remains my favourite (OK, I know Neil Gaiman co-wrote it).
    For me, it would have to Thief of Time or Mort, although in the current climate I may re-read "Jingo" or "The Truth" :D

    Small Gods was a complete thumbs-down second to only Unseen Academicals which was Pratchett's nadir IMO
    Thief of Time is very good, and I enjoyed The Truth. Could never quite get on with Mort.

    As for Unseen Academicals, Snuff, I Shall Wear Midnight, Raising Steam and The Shepherd's Crown, I don't count them as Pratchetts because I'm 99% sure they were actually written by his secretary - the rather incompetent shoehorning in of favourite characters whose story arcs had come to a natural end long ago with which those novels abounded is all too typical of ghost writing and/or fan fiction.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,603

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?

    She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in :smiley:
    Genuine question, how many hereditary peers are there currently in the Commons? I know of at least one. Not that May would need to fear by-elections of course...
    92 at present (not counting those that also hold life peerages)

    Edit: I'm an idiot.

    I think there is only one... Viscount Thurso.
    John Thurso lost his seat in the Commons in 2015. He's back in the Lords now.
    Thanks to the epic election with more candidates than voters, with a North Koreanesque result!
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    RobD said:

    Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.

    So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?

    I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?

    What on earth are these peers smoking?
    To be fair Parliament could change its mind later on, and repeal those provisions of the Act.
    You think the HoL are merely indulging in a spot of Villager Gin Units (anagram to circumvent possible ban)?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,186
    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?

    She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in :smiley:
    Genuine question, how many hereditary peers are there currently in the Commons? I know of at least one. Not that May would need to fear by-elections of course...
    92 at present (not counting those that also hold life peerages)

    Edit: I'm an idiot.

    I think there is only one... Viscount Thurso.
    The one I was thinking of was Michael Ancram, which was silly because he retired a long time ago as well. Thurso has lost his seat, Gummer has gone, Benn is not a peer. Are there in fact any in the Commons now?
  • Options
    Mrs C, you're being deliberately naughty. If this behaviour continues there shall be no roast parsnips for you, young lady!
This discussion has been closed.