Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Nancy Pelosi says Trump shouldn’t be impeached + other US developments

QuincelQuincel Posts: 1,948
Couldn't see this thread anywhere so have made it.

Can anyone point me to a site where I could make a chart showing, over time, the Betfair % of no second referendum and Trump as 2020 nominee. They've been close for a while and I thought it might be interesting.
«13

Comments

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 11,136

    Mikey Smith

    Verified account

    @mikeysmith
    Follow Follow @mikeysmith
    More
    Boris Johnson just said money spent investigating historic child sexual abuse is being, and I quote, “spaffed up a wall”.

    9:35 AM - 13 Mar 2019
    412 Retweets 358 Likes Dilly JohalAuldGrampaGrumpsborn slippyMark KeenanHannah GrahamJon Deysman #FBPE #FPHD #citizenofeuropeSteve Hallmark〰️cheryl hill
    116 replies 412 retweets 358 likes
    Reply 116 Retweet 412 Like 358 Direct message
    john flintTweet text





    Mikey Smith

    Verified account

    @mikeysmith
    2h2 hours ago
    More
    Full story and video here:

    18 replies 59 retweets 27 likes
    Reply 18 Retweet 59 Like 27 Direct message

    Carolyn Wood


    @CannieW54
    1h1 hour ago
    More
    Replying to @mikeysmith
    In Australia the government held a 5 year Royal Commission into Institutional Sexual Abuse of Children. Over 2500 referrals for criminal charges resulted. Survivors were invited to speak of their horrors. No-one thinks it was a waste of money.

    0 replies 7 retweets 52 likes
    Reply Retweet 7 Like 52 Direct message
    New conversation

    illuminatus


    @illuminatus
    2h2 hours ago
    More
    Replying to @mikeysmith
    I can't help but think that spaffing up a wall is something he may well have a great deal of expertise in,
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 15,034
    edited March 13
    Third! At last

    Morally FIRST as I spotted this thread first early this morning.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,651
    Everyone is still posting on the old thread?!
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 24
    Government has announce a move to more liberal import tariffs following a no-deal brexit.
    82% of goods from EU would be zero rated (down from 100% obvs)
    ROW would go to 92% zero rated (up from 56%)
    That would have the overall effect of going from the current 80% of imports zero rated, to 87%.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 13,242
    Test.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 24
    GIN1138 said:

    Test.

    A*
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 863
    Is this thread an official thread?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 50,082
    Smart politics from Nancy, it wouldn't get past the senate and could hurt the Dems in 2020.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 50,082
    As someone who has backed Trump for the nomination and the Democrats for the white house I'm approving anyway.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,142
    What has happened to the main site?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 7,484
    Quincel said:

    Couldn't see this thread anywhere so have made it.

    Can anyone point me to a site where I could make a chart showing, over time, the Betfair % of no second referendum and Trump as 2020 nominee. They've been close for a while and I thought it might be interesting.

    Betdata.io hold data for many markets back to 201? and will sell you the datasets for a smallfee. Betfair itself also sells its datasets (go to the Betfair site, go down to the bottom, click on the "developers" link) but for unspecified technical reasons they cannot currently sell, tho they say they'll be back end March

    Archives of odds are not easy to get hold of. Academics hold their own privately compiled datasets, but they may be for constituency odds instead of national odds, and for exchange betting instead of sportsbook betting. If anybody reading this finds a usable dataset please let me know. I would be happy to pay for this should you require it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,599
    _Anazina_ said:

    Is this thread an official thread?

    It's officially working.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,599

    What has happened to the main site?

    Someone made Grayling sysadmin.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 1,301
    Sweeney74 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Test.

    A*
    One of my favourite algorithms.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 7,484
    edited March 13


    Mikey Smith

    Verified account

    @mikeysmith
    Follow Follow @mikeysmith
    More
    Boris Johnson just said money spent investigating historic child sexual abuse is being, and I quote, “spaffed up a wall”.

    9:35 AM - 13 Mar 2019
    412 Retweets 358 Likes Dilly JohalAuldGrampaGrumpsborn slippyMark KeenanHannah GrahamJon Deysman #FBPE #FPHD #citizenofeuropeSteve Hallmark〰️cheryl hill
    116 replies 412 retweets 358 likes
    Reply 116 Retweet 412 Like 358 Direct message
    john flintTweet text





    Mikey Smith

    Verified account

    @mikeysmith
    2h2 hours ago
    More
    Full story and video here:

    18 replies 59 retweets 27 likes
    Reply 18 Retweet 59 Like 27 Direct message

    Carolyn Wood


    @CannieW54
    1h1 hour ago
    More
    Replying to @mikeysmith
    In Australia the government held a 5 year Royal Commission into Institutional Sexual Abuse of Children. Over 2500 referrals for criminal charges resulted. Survivors were invited to speak of their horrors. No-one thinks it was a waste of money.

    0 replies 7 retweets 52 likes
    Reply Retweet 7 Like 52 Direct message
    New conversation

    illuminatus


    @illuminatus
    2h2 hours ago
    More
    Replying to @mikeysmith
    I can't help but think that spaffing up a wall is something he may well have a great deal of expertise in,

    He has a degree in "spaffing it against the wall". He has a master's degree in "pissing it all away", and his thesis was "how long can I go without committing adultery: an empirical investigation". He is currently the visiting lecturer at the House of Commons, although his lectures on "fucking up my life" are not as widely attended as they once were.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,142
    Nigelb said:

    What has happened to the main site?

    Someone made Grayling sysadmin.
    Ah I see. I wondered if it had been blocked by the EU until we come up with an agreed way forward.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 7,484
    Nigelb said:

    What has happened to the main site?

    Someone made Grayling sysadmin.
    rm -rf grayling.*
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,882
    Afternoon all :)

    Very smart politics from Pelosi and the likes of Corbyn could learn a lot. Imagine if a centrist Labour leader had decided to back May's WDA and the bloc of Labour MPs had walked into the AYE lobby to allow it to pass.

    Labour would look united, respectful of democracy and would be respected in both the UK and Europe (useful for future negotiations) while the Conservatives would look weak and divided.

    Labour though has Corbyn - May's most useful ally.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,599
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Very smart politics from Pelosi and the likes of Corbyn could learn a lot. Imagine if a centrist Labour leader had decided to back May's WDA and the bloc of Labour MPs had walked into the AYE lobby to allow it to pass.

    Labour would look united, respectful of democracy and would be respected in both the UK and Europe (useful for future negotiations) while the Conservatives would look weak and divided.

    Labour though has Corbyn - May's most useful ally.

    Pelosi releases that major political parties are coalitions.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,882
    On an aside, I'd heard many people talk about including the Deal in a referendum - how do you make 585 pages of legalese comprehensible to the public? I regard myself as smarter than the average bear (evidence on here might however suggest otherwise) but I don't understand every nuance of the WDA.

    So we could rely on the Government to provide a summary - except I neither trust nor believe this Government not to misrepresent key details. I don't trust JRM and the LEAVE community either - could we get a group of Russian or Chinese lawyers to fillet it and produce a 20-page summary in plain English to be sent to every elector or available to download at a website?

    IF the other option in a second referendum is REMAIN that also has to be explained. Are we basically cancelling the last three years and going back to the terms of 23/6/16 or are the terms different now?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,599
    stodge said:

    On an aside, I'd heard many people talk about including the Deal in a referendum - how do you make 585 pages of legalese comprehensible to the public? I regard myself as smarter than the average bear (evidence on here might however suggest otherwise) but I don't understand every nuance of the WDA.

    So we could rely on the Government to provide a summary - except I neither trust nor believe this Government not to misrepresent key details. I don't trust JRM and the LEAVE community either - could we get a group of Russian or Chinese lawyers to fillet it and produce a 20-page summary in plain English to be sent to every elector or available to download at a website?

    IF the other option in a second referendum is REMAIN that also has to be explained. Are we basically cancelling the last three years and going back to the terms of 23/6/16 or are the terms different now?

    Explanations would be up to those campaigning. May's deal and remain are quite clear processes - where they end up is a matter of political debate rather than fact.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 2,333
    Nigelb said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Very smart politics from Pelosi and the likes of Corbyn could learn a lot. Imagine if a centrist Labour leader had decided to back May's WDA and the bloc of Labour MPs had walked into the AYE lobby to allow it to pass.

    Labour would look united, respectful of democracy and would be respected in both the UK and Europe (useful for future negotiations) while the Conservatives would look weak and divided.

    Labour though has Corbyn - May's most useful ally.

    Pelosi releases that major political parties are coalitions.
    The people who split off to TIG did so, in part, because Corbyn wasn't Remainy enough. Supporting May's deal would alienate them more, not less. Likewise the heavily Remain-leaning membership. I have no idea how stodge thinks that voting to Leave would "unite" them.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 10,428
    stodge said:


    IF the other option in a second referendum is REMAIN that also has to be explained. Are we basically cancelling the last three years and going back to the terms of 23/6/16 or are the terms different now?

    Same terms as before, nothing institutional has changed in the meantime. Not sure what happens with Cameron's thing but it doesn't really matter either way, it was basically nothing.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,882
    Nigelb said:


    Explanations would be up to those campaigning. May's deal and remain are quite clear processes - where they end up is a matter of political debate rather than fact.

    I disagree. One of the arguments used by proponents of the Deal is most people haven't read it or understood it and have been swayed by the "analysis" of "experts". I agree - it's akin to voting for a pig in a poke.

    It's no coincidence many who support May and the Conservative Government think the WA is wonderful and those who don't support it think it's awful (this is a point Richard N made earlier). As the saying goes, the Devil can quote the scriptures to make a point.

    What is needed is a wholly objective (hence my comment earlier) report of what the WA is and what's in it - not what it means because that's the basis for campaigning argument but simply what it is and what it says.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,178
    Sweeney74 said:

    Government has announce a move to more liberal import tariffs following a no-deal brexit.
    82% of goods from EU would be zero rated (down from 100% obvs)
    ROW would go to 92% zero rated (up from 56%)
    That would have the overall effect of going from the current 80% of imports zero rated, to 87%.

    Would it?

  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,142
    edited March 13

    Nigelb said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Very smart politics from Pelosi and the likes of Corbyn could learn a lot. Imagine if a centrist Labour leader had decided to back May's WDA and the bloc of Labour MPs had walked into the AYE lobby to allow it to pass.

    Labour would look united, respectful of democracy and would be respected in both the UK and Europe (useful for future negotiations) while the Conservatives would look weak and divided.

    Labour though has Corbyn - May's most useful ally.

    Pelosi releases that major political parties are coalitions.
    The people who split off to TIG did so, in part, because Corbyn wasn't Remainy enough. Supporting May's deal would alienate them more, not less. Likewise the heavily Remain-leaning membership. I have no idea how stodge thinks that voting to Leave would "unite" them.
    No. Labour membership would go ape if MPs supported May's deal - one of the factors that has led to its failure is the almost complete absence of the predicted revolt by Labour MPs. Only three voted for it yesterday. And internal pressure from the membership is an important factor in that.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 339
    Nigelb said:
    This sounds catastrophic for Boeing. Class action lawsuits from hundreds of dead people, and lots of airlines? Ooof.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 632
    stodge said:

    Nigelb said:


    Explanations would be up to those campaigning. May's deal and remain are quite clear processes - where they end up is a matter of political debate rather than fact.

    I disagree. One of the arguments used by proponents of the Deal is most people haven't read it or understood it and have been swayed by the "analysis" of "experts". I agree - it's akin to voting for a pig in a poke.

    It's no coincidence many who support May and the Conservative Government think the WA is wonderful and those who don't support it think it's awful (this is a point Richard N made earlier). As the saying goes, the Devil can quote the scriptures to make a point.

    What is needed is a wholly objective (hence my comment earlier) report of what the WA is and what's in it - not what it means because that's the basis for campaigning argument but simply what it is and what it says.
    Almost no-one who votes in GEs reads any of the published manifestos either. In fact, I'd guess that the majority of those who do, already knew which way they were going to vote beforehand.

    What's the difference?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,178
    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:
    This sounds catastrophic for Boeing. Class action lawsuits from hundreds of dead people, and lots of airlines? Ooof.
    It doesn't sound as if that many are yet in UK service. Lots on order though.

    http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/326404/tui-vows-to-maintain-flying-programme-as-uk-grounds-737-max
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,307
    McMao rambling all over the place... sounds like he might have a dodgy throat as well. Something going around?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,214
    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:
    This sounds catastrophic for Boeing. Class action lawsuits from hundreds of dead people, and lots of airlines? Ooof.
    It is catastrophic for Boeing, if so, because the only way apparently of dealing with a malfunctioning MCAS system is to switch autopilot on. If you have to switch it off because that isn't functioning either, you're snookered either way. MCAS was at the root of the Lion air crash and suspected for the Ethiopian one.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,214
    Smart politics from Pelosi. A generic Democrat should win against Trump in 2020. Against another Republican, Mrs likely.
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,552
    A. EA is keen to ensure that it is not blamed. They do not have the information to determine that but are telling the world it is somebody else.

    B. They are implicitly alleging that the FAA is not capable of operating independently. That’s pretty inflammatory.

    C. If EASA accepted authority, it would destroy the basis of accident investigation. They would be unwise to do that for Airbus/ATR-related reasons.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,599

    Nigelb said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Very smart politics from Pelosi and the likes of Corbyn could learn a lot. Imagine if a centrist Labour leader had decided to back May's WDA and the bloc of Labour MPs had walked into the AYE lobby to allow it to pass.

    Labour would look united, respectful of democracy and would be respected in both the UK and Europe (useful for future negotiations) while the Conservatives would look weak and divided.

    Labour though has Corbyn - May's most useful ally.

    Pelosi releases that major political parties are coalitions.
    The people who split off to TIG did so, in part, because Corbyn wasn't Remainy enough. Supporting May's deal would alienate them more, not less. Likewise the heavily Remain-leaning membership. I have no idea how stodge thinks that voting to Leave would "unite" them.
    No, they left because Labour had become a party with a single ideology (and not a particularly pleasant one at that).
    Will they ever be able to assemble a significant coalition in the centre ? Who knows.
    But I'm pretty sure that is a gamble they thought worth taking, even if they fail.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,178
    FF43 said:

    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:
    This sounds catastrophic for Boeing. Class action lawsuits from hundreds of dead people, and lots of airlines? Ooof.
    It is catastrophic for Boeing, if so, because the only way apparently of dealing with a malfunctioning MCAS system is to switch autopilot on. If you have to switch it off because that isn't functioning either, you're snookered either way. MCAS was at the root of the Lion air crash and suspected for the Ethiopian one.
    This article covers it well in laymans terms. 2 crashes on take off for 350 planes in recent service raises my flying anxiety.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,214
    The government and parliament have completely lost the plot on Brexit. It's time to revoke Article 50. This isn't remoaning. There's a difference between respecting the result of a vote and being consumed by a death wish.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,599
    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:
    This sounds catastrophic for Boeing. Class action lawsuits from hundreds of dead people, and lots of airlines? Ooof.
    Well it is potentially catastrophic for the 737 Max 8 - which was to be the mainstay of Boeing's income for the foreseeable future. Though until the accident investigations are complete, it's too early to be certain.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,443
    If there was a second referendum, why would we not simply give three options, deal, remain, no deal, and whichever gets most votes wins? If FPTP is good enough for our elections, why not our referendums?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,187
    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:
    This sounds catastrophic for Boeing. Class action lawsuits from hundreds of dead people, and lots of airlines? Ooof.
    Well it is potentially catastrophic for the 737 Max 8 - which was to be the mainstay of Boeing's income for the foreseeable future. Though until the accident investigations are complete, it's too early to be certain.
    Let's say the investigations found the two crashes were unrelated and they were just really unlucky. Would you believe it? A lot of people won't; the damage may already be done.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 1,610
    edited March 13
    matt said:

    A. EA is keen to ensure that it is not blamed. They do not have the information to determine that but are telling the world it is somebody else.

    B. They are implicitly alleging that the FAA is not capable of operating independently. That’s pretty inflammatory.

    C. If EASA accepted authority, it would destroy the basis of accident investigation. They would be unwise to do that for Airbus/ATR-related reasons.
    Well yes, Ethiopian have every reason to want to blame the plane. Still, going as far as seemingly implying they want independent investigation is a whole different ball-game.

    The basis of accident investigation has already been destroyed by the regulators contradicting the FAA though. While yes that could store up trouble for the future they probably felt forced to act, I doubt they want to be responsible for another crash if it turns out the fleet should have been grounded sooner to await the changes the MCAS.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 632

    If there was a second referendum, why would we not simply give three options, deal, remain, no deal, and whichever gets most votes wins? If FPTP is good enough for our elections, why not our referendums?

    Because it looks like gerrymandering the result towards Remain by artificially splitting the Leave vote into two camps. In which case Remain could win with <40%, despite having "lost" to Leave twice.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 13,242
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Very smart politics from Pelosi and the likes of Corbyn could learn a lot. Imagine if a centrist Labour leader had decided to back May's WDA and the bloc of Labour MPs had walked into the AYE lobby to allow it to pass.

    Labour would look united, respectful of democracy and would be respected in both the UK and Europe (useful for future negotiations) while the Conservatives would look weak and divided.

    Labour though has Corbyn - May's most useful ally.

    Cause Jezza wants "NO DEAL"

    Has for 40 years. :D
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,443
    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:
    This sounds catastrophic for Boeing. Class action lawsuits from hundreds of dead people, and lots of airlines? Ooof.
    Well it is potentially catastrophic for the 737 Max 8 - which was to be the mainstay of Boeing's income for the foreseeable future. Though until the accident investigations are complete, it's too early to be certain.
    Let's say the investigations found the two crashes were unrelated and they were just really unlucky. Would you believe it? A lot of people won't; the damage may already be done.
    A bit like Malaysia airlines. Two freak events with Mh370 and MH17, no indication that the airline itself is at fault, but the company is severely struggling now.
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 504

    If there was a second referendum, why would we not simply give three options, deal, remain, no deal, and whichever gets most votes wins? If FPTP is good enough for our elections, why not our referendums?

    Because there'd be claims that the Leave vote was being split by having two options on the paper. Although that would require leavers to accept that deal = Leave, which would be progress.

  • mattmatt Posts: 2,552

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:
    This sounds catastrophic for Boeing. Class action lawsuits from hundreds of dead people, and lots of airlines? Ooof.
    Well it is potentially catastrophic for the 737 Max 8 - which was to be the mainstay of Boeing's income for the foreseeable future. Though until the accident investigations are complete, it's too early to be certain.
    Let's say the investigations found the two crashes were unrelated and they were just really unlucky. Would you believe it? A lot of people won't; the damage may already be done.
    A bit like Malaysia airlines. Two freak events with Mh370 and MH17, no indication that the airline itself is at fault, but the company is severely struggling now.
    The airline was struggling before because of regional LCCs (AA, AAX, Malindo) and some unwise orders (A380 anyone). The current MAS is in effect a Phoenix company trading under the same name but without many of the liabilities of old MAS.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 533

    If there was a second referendum, why would we not simply give three options, deal, remain, no deal, and whichever gets most votes wins? If FPTP is good enough for our elections, why not our referendums?

    Because there'd be claims that the Leave vote was being split by having two options on the paper. Although that would require leavers to accept that deal = Leave, which would be progress.

    And how is that different to a General Election for which there is the same valid criticism.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,028
    FF43 said:

    The government and parliament have completely lost the plot on Brexit. It's time to revoke Article 50. This isn't remoaning. There's a difference between respecting the result of a vote and being consumed by a death wish.

    I dunno, sounds awfully like remoaning.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 22,237

    If there was a second referendum, why would we not simply give three options, deal, remain, no deal, and whichever gets most votes wins? If FPTP is good enough for our elections, why not our referendums?

    Because Remain could win with 34/33/33 - 2/3 of people want to leave but are outvoted
  • kjhkjh Posts: 533
    edited March 13
    Charles said:

    If there was a second referendum, why would we not simply give three options, deal, remain, no deal, and whichever gets most votes wins? If FPTP is good enough for our elections, why not our referendums?

    Because Remain could win with 34/33/33 - 2/3 of people want to leave but are outvoted
    I suspect there may have been irony in the post because that is exactly what happens in a General Election, but those that benefit from it ignore it - when the boots on the other foot!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 23,579
    If the Democrats do not impeach Donald Trump now, there's nothing stopping them trying should he be re-elected.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 26,014
    Charles said:

    If there was a second referendum, why would we not simply give three options, deal, remain, no deal, and whichever gets most votes wins? If FPTP is good enough for our elections, why not our referendums?

    Because Remain could win with 34/33/33 - 2/3 of people want to leave but are outvoted
    In that scenario the 33% of people voting for no deal think the deal is “not leaving”.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 1,301
    Not sure these have been posted here yet:





    Cadwalladr is never knowingly understated, but it wouldn't surprise me.

    We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally, right?
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,443
    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    If there was a second referendum, why would we not simply give three options, deal, remain, no deal, and whichever gets most votes wins? If FPTP is good enough for our elections, why not our referendums?

    Because Remain could win with 34/33/33 - 2/3 of people want to leave but are outvoted
    I suspect there may have been irony in the post because that is exactly what happens in a General Election, but those that benefit from it ignore it - when the boots on the other foot!
    Yes exactly, in reality as I don't support FPTP I agree that it would on its own merits be an unfair way to do it. But as you say, these arguments are accepted at General elections with huge impact on how our governments are formed.

    I doubt no deal would make it onto a second vote anyway, a straight deal vs remain seems more likely.
  • BromBrom Posts: 1,339

    Not sure these have been posted here yet:





    Cadwalladr is never knowingly understated, but it wouldn't surprise me.

    We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally, right?

    She is absolutely mental. Surprised Banks doesn't take out a restraining order. Like the opposite of a superfan.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 3,342
    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    The government and parliament have completely lost the plot on Brexit. It's time to revoke Article 50. This isn't remoaning. There's a difference between respecting the result of a vote and being consumed by a death wish.

    I dunno, sounds awfully like remoaning.
    Well when Brexit looked popular and inevitable the remoaner tag could be deployed with justice, if you are the kind of person who likes insulting people with whom one disagrees.

    Brexit is now a failed project with support plummeting. To oppose it now isn't remoaning but simple common sense.
  • BromBrom Posts: 1,339

    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    The government and parliament have completely lost the plot on Brexit. It's time to revoke Article 50. This isn't remoaning. There's a difference between respecting the result of a vote and being consumed by a death wish.

    I dunno, sounds awfully like remoaning.
    Well when Brexit looked popular and inevitable the remoaner tag could be deployed with justice, if you are the kind of person who likes insulting people with whom one disagrees.

    Brexit is now a failed project with support plummeting. To oppose it now isn't remoaning but simple common sense.
    Support plummeting sounds much like made up remoaner nonsense. Poll after poll suggests very little has shifted in the past 2 years. Indeed many polls suggest no deal is more popular than a 2nd ref.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,028
    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    The government and parliament have completely lost the plot on Brexit. It's time to revoke Article 50. This isn't remoaning. There's a difference between respecting the result of a vote and being consumed by a death wish.

    I dunno, sounds awfully like remoaning.
    Well when Brexit looked popular and inevitable the remoaner tag could be deployed with justice, if you are the kind of person who likes insulting people with whom one disagrees.

    Brexit is now a failed project with support plummeting. To oppose it now isn't remoaning but simple common sense.
    Support plummeting sounds much like made up remoaner nonsense. Poll after poll suggests very little has shifted in the past 2 years. Indeed many polls suggest no deal is more popular than a 2nd ref.
    They do have form on that front.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,028
    Breaking refers to the news or her voice?
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 632
    kjh said:

    Charles said:

    If there was a second referendum, why would we not simply give three options, deal, remain, no deal, and whichever gets most votes wins? If FPTP is good enough for our elections, why not our referendums?

    Because Remain could win with 34/33/33 - 2/3 of people want to leave but are outvoted
    I suspect there may have been irony in the post because that is exactly what happens in a General Election, but those that benefit from it ignore it - when the boots on the other foot!
    A GE isn't a fair comparison because anyone can stand on any platform - and there isn't always an obvious breakdown between left/right/centrist/whatever. On a referendum, the government sets the options, and needs to make sure that doing so doesn't unduly influence the result.
  • JSpringJSpring Posts: 51
    edited March 13
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Very smart politics from Pelosi and the likes of Corbyn could learn a lot. Imagine if a centrist Labour leader had decided to back May's WDA and the bloc of Labour MPs had walked into the AYE lobby to allow it to pass.

    Labour would look united, respectful of democracy and would be respected in both the UK and Europe (useful for future negotiations) while the Conservatives would look weak and divided.

    Labour though has Corbyn - May's most useful ally.

    Pelosi releases that major political parties are coalitions.
    The people who split off to TIG did so, in part, because Corbyn wasn't Remainy enough. Supporting May's deal would alienate them more, not less. Likewise the heavily Remain-leaning membership. I have no idea how stodge thinks that voting to Leave would "unite" them.
    No, they left because Labour had become a party with a single ideology (and not a particularly pleasant one at that).
    Will they ever be able to assemble a significant coalition in the centre ? Who knows.
    But I'm pretty sure that is a gamble they thought worth taking, even if they fail.
    If Labour's position on Brexit isn't a major issue for the TIG, then why haven't Ian Austin, Frank Field, Caroline Flint etc joined them? They are all 'centrist' too. And why are all 11 of those in the TIG pretty staunch Remainers? Roughly 1-in-4 of the House of Commons are Brexiteers, so if the TIG were representative of the Commons (let alone the country as a whole) then 2 or 3 of them should be Brexiteers.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,142

    Not sure these have been posted here yet:





    Cadwalladr is never knowingly understated, but it wouldn't surprise me.

    We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally, right?

    Yes. And if the EU blocks an extension that is the likely outcome.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,863
    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:
    This sounds catastrophic for Boeing. Class action lawsuits from hundreds of dead people, and lots of airlines? Ooof.
    As the article states, this latest reported issue might be different: this occurs when the autopilot is switched on, the MCAS issue occurs when it is off. But yes, they will be taking a close look at that now.

    The thing is, Boeing won't get killed over this, as it's in no-ones interest. The airlines need at least two manufacturers to create price and technological competition (many would prefer one or two more). A Boeing- or Airbus- only commercial aviation sector would quickly become moribiund. Why bother investing $10 billion in a new plane design if the airlines have to buy your old one?
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,307
    The BBC have reported this news on their live blog with the slightly alarming caption “she’s croaked”.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,599
    edited March 13
    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:
    This sounds catastrophic for Boeing. Class action lawsuits from hundreds of dead people, and lots of airlines? Ooof.
    Well it is potentially catastrophic for the 737 Max 8 - which was to be the mainstay of Boeing's income for the foreseeable future. Though until the accident investigations are complete, it's too early to be certain.
    Let's say the investigations found the two crashes were unrelated and they were just really unlucky. Would you believe it? A lot of people won't; the damage may already be done.
    Of course - which is why I included the caveat in the first place.

    But 'unlucky' isn't an explanation for the crashes. There could be separate, non airframe related reasons for them, and it would be very unlucky indeed for both to occur so early in the model's lifetime.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 25,763



    Not sure these have been posted here yet:





    Cadwalladr is never knowingly understated, but it wouldn't surprise me.

    We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally, right?

    Yes. And if the EU blocks an extension that is the likely outcome.
    What the EU ought to say is that we can have an extension to pass the Deal, or Revoke, and that's it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 15,034
    Another new thread that cannot be reached....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 48,038
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Lots of gusty winds and noisy soughing today.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 32,759
    edited March 13
    Foxy said:

    FF43 said:

    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:
    This sounds catastrophic for Boeing. Class action lawsuits from hundreds of dead people, and lots of airlines? Ooof.
    It is catastrophic for Boeing, if so, because the only way apparently of dealing with a malfunctioning MCAS system is to switch autopilot on. If you have to switch it off because that isn't functioning either, you're snookered either way. MCAS was at the root of the Lion air crash and suspected for the Ethiopian one.
    This article covers it well in laymans terms. 2 crashes on take off for 350 planes in recent service raises my flying anxiety.

    That glosses over the fundamental compromises that Boeing made to get the 737Max in the air. The aircraft was originally designed for engines that were half a meter narrower than the ones they now use - which causes ground clearance problems (debris ingestion) so they have to be mounted further forward of the wing and higher up in a much bigger cowl - that cause two problems - an upward pitch when power is applied and extra lift from the cowl forward of the cog, exacerbating the upward pitch problem - hence the "clever fix" to get the nose driven down.
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,096



    Not sure these have been posted here yet:





    Cadwalladr is never knowingly understated, but it wouldn't surprise me.

    We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally, right?

    Yes. And if the EU blocks an extension that is the likely outcome.
    TM will not revoke , it will destroy her party , for all the initial disruption from wto brexit , the tories will survive as a party and it will not be as bad as the apocalypse doomsayers have predicted, expectations management will have worked quite well on this as we are all expecting zombies and lightning , but will just get a shortage of Brie and a traffic jam in Kent , some jobs will be lost but the government has the levers to subside and smooth the initial shock to the system .
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,882
    Just to be sure I've understood this - IF we vote to ask for an extension and is refused by the EU because it doesn't have unanimous support, we are left with MV3 or No Deal or unilateral revocation of A50.

    I suspect May might quite like the EU refusing an extension - there will be no road to left for the can to be kicked down. MV3 in thirteen days - with 72 hours to go. Not too late to back the Deal, not too late to prevent chaos (so the argument will go in the Mail, Express and elsewhere).
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 29,040

    Foxy said:

    FF43 said:

    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:
    This sounds catastrophic for Boeing. Class action lawsuits from hundreds of dead people, and lots of airlines? Ooof.
    It is catastrophic for Boeing, if so, because the only way apparently of dealing with a malfunctioning MCAS system is to switch autopilot on. If you have to switch it off because that isn't functioning either, you're snookered either way. MCAS was at the root of the Lion air crash and suspected for the Ethiopian one.
    This article covers it well in laymans terms. 2 crashes on take off for 350 planes in recent service raises my flying anxiety.

    That glosses over the fundamental compromises that Boeing made to get the 737Max in the air. The aircraft was originally designed for engines that were nearly half a meter narrower than the ones they now use - which causes ground clearance problems (debris ingestion) so they have to be mounted further forward of the wing and higher up in a much bigger cowl - that cause two problems - an upward pitch when power is applied and extra lift from the cowl forward of the cog, exacerbating the upward pitch problem - hence the "clever fix" to get the nose driven down.
    The nose-gear is about 8 inches taller to give more ground clearance.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 25,763
    stodge said:

    Just to be sure I've understood this - IF we vote to ask for an extension and is refused by the EU because it doesn't have unanimous support, we are left with MV3 or No Deal or unilateral revocation of A50.

    I suspect May might quite like the EU refusing an extension - there will be no road to left for the can to be kicked down. MV3 in thirteen days - with 72 hours to go. Not too late to back the Deal, not too late to prevent chaos (so the argument will go in the Mail, Express and elsewhere).

    That's it in a nutshell.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 3,342
    edited March 13
    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    The government and parliament have completely lost the plot on Brexit. It's time to revoke Article 50. This isn't remoaning. There's a difference between respecting the result of a vote and being consumed by a death wish.

    I dunno, sounds awfully like remoaning.
    Well when Brexit looked popular and inevitable the remoaner tag could be deployed with justice, if you are the kind of person who likes insulting people with whom one disagrees.

    Brexit is now a failed project with support plummeting. To oppose it now isn't remoaning but simple common sense.
    Support plummeting sounds much like made up remoaner nonsense. Poll after poll suggests very little has shifted in the past 2 years. Indeed many polls suggest no deal is more popular than a 2nd ref.
    Far from it.


  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 24
    stodge said:

    Just to be sure I've understood this - IF we vote to ask for an extension and is refused by the EU because it doesn't have unanimous support, we are left with MV3 or No Deal or unilateral revocation of A50.

    I suspect May might quite like the EU refusing an extension - there will be no road to left for the can to be kicked down. MV3 in thirteen days - with 72 hours to go. Not too late to back the Deal, not too late to prevent chaos (so the argument will go in the Mail, Express and elsewhere).

    May probably wouldn't revoke A50, but what's to stop a motion being tabled to that effect by a back-bencher?
    Would The House support that or not?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,804
    Sean_F said:



    Not sure these have been posted here yet:





    Cadwalladr is never knowingly understated, but it wouldn't surprise me.

    We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally, right?

    Yes. And if the EU blocks an extension that is the likely outcome.
    What the EU ought to say is that we can have an extension to pass the Deal, or Revoke, and that's it.
    And they could correctly say neither of those requires an extension.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,443
    edited March 13



    Not sure these have been posted here yet:





    Cadwalladr is never knowingly understated, but it wouldn't surprise me.

    We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally, right?

    Yes. And if the EU blocks an extension that is the likely outcome.
    Getting the Eurosceptics in the EU to block an extension would be the easiest way to let revokers off the hook. "Our hand was forced by Brussels bashers in Italy and Poland". It would probably be the only way to get those who don't want to be seen stopping brexit to actually vote for revocation. You'd revoke reluctantly and it would not be reinvoked for a very very long time.

    Having seen how the Brexit ultras handled things last night it would not be that surprising if Salvini did push for a veto.

    Would have thought Spain would be the biggest obstacle to an extension because they may try and bring Gibraltar into it somehow.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 29,040
    edited March 13

    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:
    This sounds catastrophic for Boeing. Class action lawsuits from hundreds of dead people, and lots of airlines? Ooof.
    As the article states, this latest reported issue might be different: this occurs when the autopilot is switched on, the MCAS issue occurs when it is off. But yes, they will be taking a close look at that now.

    The thing is, Boeing won't get killed over this, as it's in no-ones interest. The airlines need at least two manufacturers to create price and technological competition (many would prefer one or two more). A Boeing- or Airbus- only commercial aviation sector would quickly become moribiund. Why bother investing $10 billion in a new plane design if the airlines have to buy your old one?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irkut_MC-21
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAIC_CR929

  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,307
    kjohnw said:



    Not sure these have been posted here yet:





    Cadwalladr is never knowingly understated, but it wouldn't surprise me.

    We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally, right?

    Yes. And if the EU blocks an extension that is the likely outcome.
    TM will not revoke , it will destroy her party , for all the initial disruption from wto brexit , the tories will survive as a party and it will not be as bad as the apocalypse doomsayers have predicted, expectations management will have worked quite well on this as we are all expecting zombies and lightning , but will just get a shortage of Brie and a traffic jam in Kent , some jobs will be lost but the government has the levers to subside and smooth the initial shock to the system .
    I could see that glint in Mrs May’s eye at PMQs today. I know she wants that MV3. I suspect we will get an awful lot of silly parliamentary votes that mean very little over the next week or so, followed by a swift dose of reality from the EU (won’t renegotiate, won’t extend unless there’s a solid reason for doing so (basically EuRef2, GE, to implement The Deal)). TM fancies her chances of getting The Deal through in that 11:55 scenario, I think...
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 3,342
    I think it is a reasonable

    Sean_F said:



    Not sure these have been posted here yet:





    Cadwalladr is never knowingly understated, but it wouldn't surprise me.

    We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally, right?

    Yes. And if the EU blocks an extension that is the likely outcome.
    What the EU ought to say is that we can have an extension to pass the Deal, or Revoke, and that's it.
    And they could correctly say neither of those requires an extension.
    Absolutely. It's good to agree on something.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 21,617


    If successful it would of course make the deal passing at MV3 much more likely.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,307
    Sweeney74 said:

    stodge said:

    Just to be sure I've understood this - IF we vote to ask for an extension and is refused by the EU because it doesn't have unanimous support, we are left with MV3 or No Deal or unilateral revocation of A50.

    I suspect May might quite like the EU refusing an extension - there will be no road to left for the can to be kicked down. MV3 in thirteen days - with 72 hours to go. Not too late to back the Deal, not too late to prevent chaos (so the argument will go in the Mail, Express and elsewhere).

    May probably wouldn't revoke A50, but what's to stop a motion being tabled to that effect by a back-bencher?
    Would The House support that or not?
    To technically stop leaving, don’t we have to repeal primary legislation? (Ie the withdrawal act)?
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 3,342
    A bit of rum interpretation of parliamentary sovereignty going on there.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 25,763

    Sean_F said:



    Not sure these have been posted here yet:





    Cadwalladr is never knowingly understated, but it wouldn't surprise me.

    We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally, right?

    Yes. And if the EU blocks an extension that is the likely outcome.
    What the EU ought to say is that we can have an extension to pass the Deal, or Revoke, and that's it.
    And they could correctly say neither of those requires an extension.
    The former would require a short extension.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 25,763
    Sweeney74 said:

    stodge said:

    Just to be sure I've understood this - IF we vote to ask for an extension and is refused by the EU because it doesn't have unanimous support, we are left with MV3 or No Deal or unilateral revocation of A50.

    I suspect May might quite like the EU refusing an extension - there will be no road to left for the can to be kicked down. MV3 in thirteen days - with 72 hours to go. Not too late to back the Deal, not too late to prevent chaos (so the argument will go in the Mail, Express and elsewhere).

    May probably wouldn't revoke A50, but what's to stop a motion being tabled to that effect by a back-bencher?
    Would The House support that or not?
    Only in a secret ballot
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,863
    Foxy said:

    FF43 said:

    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:
    This sounds catastrophic for Boeing. Class action lawsuits from hundreds of dead people, and lots of airlines? Ooof.
    It is catastrophic for Boeing, if so, because the only way apparently of dealing with a malfunctioning MCAS system is to switch autopilot on. If you have to switch it off because that isn't functioning either, you're snookered either way. MCAS was at the root of the Lion air crash and suspected for the Ethiopian one.
    This article covers it well in laymans terms. 2 crashes on take off for 350 planes in recent service raises my flying anxiety.

    It won't be AI. It's fuck-all to do with AI.

    Airbus planes are pretty much fully fly-by-wire. And what's amazing is how little code is required to code the control laws they operate under. The reason is simple: the more complicated the code, the harder it is to test and debug what it does, especially wrt edge and corner cases.

    As an example, the 787 has about 7 millions lines of code for avionics and critical systems (yes, I know, a terrible metric). The F22 has about 2 million. A luxury car? 100 million.

    The plane manufacturers need to be able to reproduce the way the systems work 100% reliably. And AI and machine learning is exactly the opposite: the way the system reacts to inputs is *not* predictable. In fact, this is a big issue with automated cars that use ML: if there's a crash, how do you work out why the computer did what it did?

    I'd be amazed if either Boeing or Airbus let machine learning or AI within a thousand miles of the cockpits of their civilian planes.

    (Gets ready to be proved wrong.)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 25,763

    A bit of rum interpretation of parliamentary sovereignty going on there.
    The Commons can always replace the government, if it wishes.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 32,759
    edited March 13



    If successful it would of course make the deal passing at MV3 much more likely.

  • BromBrom Posts: 1,339

    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    The government and parliament have completely lost the plot on Brexit. It's time to revoke Article 50. This isn't remoaning. There's a difference between respecting the result of a vote and being consumed by a death wish.

    I dunno, sounds awfully like remoaning.
    Well when Brexit looked popular and inevitable the remoaner tag could be deployed with justice, if you are the kind of person who likes insulting people with whom one disagrees.

    Brexit is now a failed project with support plummeting. To oppose it now isn't remoaning but simple common sense.
    Support plummeting sounds much like made up remoaner nonsense. Poll after poll suggests very little has shifted in the past 2 years. Indeed many polls suggest no deal is more popular than a 2nd ref.
    Far from it.


    That is a nonsensical image with no data tables provided. So apparently it was 50/50 only last month? Nor does it include the multi choice deal/no deal/remain polling questions. Even if there had been 62 polls in the past few weeks a drop of 5% isn't exactly plummeting. I know some remain supporters would like it to be 70-30 and all their woes go away but it just isn't happening.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 3,342
    Sean_F said:

    A bit of rum interpretation of parliamentary sovereignty going on there.
    The Commons can always replace the government, if it wishes.
    And about time they did.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 29,040

    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:
    This sounds catastrophic for Boeing. Class action lawsuits from hundreds of dead people, and lots of airlines? Ooof.
    As the article states, this latest reported issue might be different: this occurs when the autopilot is switched on, the MCAS issue occurs when it is off. But yes, they will be taking a close look at that now.

    The thing is, Boeing won't get killed over this, as it's in no-ones interest. The airlines need at least two manufacturers to create price and technological competition (many would prefer one or two more). A Boeing- or Airbus- only commercial aviation sector would quickly become moribiund. Why bother investing $10 billion in a new plane design if the airlines have to buy your old one?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irkut_MC-21
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAIC_CR929

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Regional_Jet
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 25,763

    Sean_F said:

    A bit of rum interpretation of parliamentary sovereignty going on there.
    The Commons can always replace the government, if it wishes.
    And about time they did.
    Until they do, the government can refuse to revoke A50.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 23,579



    If successful it would of course make the deal passing at MV3 much more likely.

    How has that got anything to do with the motion to be considered?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 21,617



    If successful it would of course make the deal passing at MV3 much more likely.

    That's an odd wording. You can agree that the original referendum should be respected, and that a second referendum would be divisive and expensive, and that therefore one should not be held, but still conclude that it's a less bad option than any other way out of the mess, if MPs aren't prepared to back the orderly exit available
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 18,538
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:



    Not sure these have been posted here yet:





    Cadwalladr is never knowingly understated, but it wouldn't surprise me.

    We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally, right?

    Yes. And if the EU blocks an extension that is the likely outcome.
    What the EU ought to say is that we can have an extension to pass the Deal, or Revoke, and that's it.
    And they could correctly say neither of those requires an extension.
    The former would require a short extension.
    No. Implementing the Deal would require a short extension. It could have passed the MV already though.
  • BromBrom Posts: 1,339



    If successful it would of course make the deal passing at MV3 much more likely.

    That's an odd wording. You can agree that the original referendum should be respected, and that a second referendum would be divisive and expensive, and that therefore one should not be held, but still conclude that it's a less bad option than any other way out of the mess, if MPs aren't prepared to back the orderly exit available
    I presume it would pass and it just helps dampens expectations within parliament that a second ref is feasible. I presume it is there to focus minds towards agreeing some kind of deal.
This discussion has been closed.