Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Gove’s cocaine admission dominate just four of the front pages

1246

Comments

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,037

    Mark Harper seems to have some very sensible ideas.

    Lay him!
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    Was the film heat bad or was it the thought of appearing with Lorraine Kelly on breakfast telly the next day that brought it on?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 55,001
    Strong Q&A from Harper. Only 44 viewers on Reuters stream though.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,777

    Mark Harper seems to have some very sensible ideas.

    And accordingly will sink without trace in the first round.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,746
    JackW said:

    Mark Harper seems to have some very sensible ideas.

    And accordingly will sink without trace in the first round.
    Yep.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 16,259
    What was the film? Might have had an excuse!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,143
    HYUFD said:

    JackW said:

    The JackW /Jacobite Conservative Leadership Rankings :

    1. - Rory Stewart - The surname says it all .... :smiley:

    ...............................................................................

    Group Two - In Order Of Least Worst For The Nation :

    2. Jeremy Hunt - Dull, worthy and vaguely competent
    3. Michael Gove - A complete sh*t but vaguely competent
    4. Matt Hancock - Completely vague and vaguely competent
    5. Sajid Javid - Not entirely vague and not entirely incompetent

    Group Three - Ranking In Order Of Rank Incredulity Of Their Rankness :

    6. Mark Harper - The cab rank awaits.
    7. Andrea Leadsom - Ranks as a mother but no rebirth of the nation
    8. Dominic Rabb - Requires proroguing to Dover for re-education and re-ranking
    9. Ester McVey - A rank disaster but with added delusions as a Thatcher successor

    Group Four - Special Grouping For MIA Candidates

    10. Boris Johnson - The Donald Trump went To Eton candidate.

    Trump won of course
    @JackW is above mere “winning”
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 55,001

    Mark Harper seems to have some very sensible ideas.

    Lay him!
    What at 500-1 ?!
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 7,700

    TOPPING said:

    nico67 said:

    Rory Stewart also goes down well with some Labour friends .

    I wouldn’t ever vote Tory and they wouldn’t but he does get some grudging respect and is seen as sane and quite sensible . He also has a very interesting life story and many have been following him on social media .

    The thing I like about him is he’s actually putting himself out there and taking a big risk with his campaign . He may well be another who gets removed by the no deal death cult .

    And the first paragraph is why Stewart could be a disaster as Leader.

    Yes he appeals to non Tories who wouldn't vote Tory. But then if they don't vote Tory still it achieves nothing.

    In normal times winning the swing voters would be enough to win the election. But these aren't normal times. Rory is worse than May on Brexit and would fail to deliver, I'm not even sure he wants to deliver. That will drive away more Tories than he attracts.

    Stewart runs the risk of completely schisming the party and seeing a Canada 1993 style wipeout.
    It wasn't May who failed to deliver Brexit you wazzock, it was the ERG and your mate Mark Francois.
    No it was May. She was never a Brexiteer in the first place and then had almost every Brexiteer saying clear as day that the backstop was utterly unacceptable but she continued with it anyway.
    The backstop doesn't exist in isolation though.

    It is the fundamental thing needed to maintain no-border with ireland.

    The no-dealers need to explain how they deal with the irish border, and beyond 'unicorns' or 'a hard border' they have failed.

    Until they can show clearly how they solve this issue, they cannot be taken seriously.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 31,739

    10 candidates, twice the number of any recent Tory Leader contest.

    Surely a case of quantity v. quality?

    Quantity anyway.
    That's what I meant!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,691
    Chris said:

    eek said:



    So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......

    I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
    Yes!

    A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.

    We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
    I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,691

    TOPPING said:

    nico67 said:

    Rory Stewart also goes down well with some Labour friends .

    I wouldn’t ever vote Tory and they wouldn’t but he does get some grudging respect and is seen as sane and quite sensible . He also has a very interesting life story and many have been following him on social media .

    The thing I like about him is he’s actually putting himself out there and taking a big risk with his campaign . He may well be another who gets removed by the no deal death cult .

    And the first paragraph is why Stewart could be a disaster as Leader.

    Yes he appeals to non Tories who wouldn't vote Tory. But then if they don't vote Tory still it achieves nothing.

    In normal times winning the swing voters would be enough to win the election. But these aren't normal times. Rory is worse than May on Brexit and would fail to deliver, I'm not even sure he wants to deliver. That will drive away more Tories than he attracts.

    Stewart runs the risk of completely schisming the party and seeing a Canada 1993 style wipeout.
    It wasn't May who failed to deliver Brexit you wazzock, it was the ERG and your mate Mark Francois.
    No it was May. She was never a Brexiteer in the first place and then had almost every Brexiteer saying clear as day that the backstop was utterly unacceptable but she continued with it anyway.
    The backstop doesn't exist in isolation though.

    It is the fundamental thing needed to maintain no-border with ireland.

    The no-dealers need to explain how they deal with the irish border, and beyond 'unicorns' or 'a hard border' they have failed.

    Until they can show clearly how they solve this issue, they cannot be taken seriously.
    Compromise.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,143
    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    The JackW /Jacobite Conservative Leadership Rankings :

    1. - Rory Stewart - The surname says it all .... :smiley:

    ...............................................................................

    Group Two - In Order Of Least Worst For The Nation :

    2. Jeremy Hunt - Dull, worthy and vaguely competent
    3. Michael Gove - A complete sh*t but vaguely competent
    4. Matt Hancock - Completely vague and vaguely competent
    5. Sajid Javid - Not entirely vague and not entirely incompetent

    Group Three - Ranking In Order Of Rank Incredulity Of Their Rankness :

    6. Mark Harper - The cab rank awaits.
    7. Andrea Leadsom - Ranks as a mother but no rebirth of the nation
    8. Dominic Rabb - Requires proroguing to Dover for re-education and re-ranking
    9. Ester McVey - A rank disaster but with added delusions as a Thatcher successor

    Group Four - Special Grouping For MIA Candidates

    10. Boris Johnson - The Donald Trump went To Eton candidate.

    Good list. My top three: Stewart, Hunt and Javid.
    The liberal vs the dullard vs the Saj

    When Hancock comes on the telly I just feel sorry for him.
    Gove is usually off his head and married to Lady Macbeth.
    Leadsom is truly dire.
    Raab, if only he was half as good as he thinks he is.
    Boris cares about Boris only.
    The others , meh.
    Saj has come across as an empty suit to me. I’d go with Stewart and Hunt as my top 2 and not have a third
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 31,739
    Chris said:

    Brilliant idea of Andrea Leadsom's for a Volunteer Home Guard to defend Rockall against the EU.

    No doubt some here will be interested in participating.

    Um, a little later on, possibly. I'm not in the mood right now! :)
  • eekeek Posts: 5,795

    TOPPING said:

    nico67 said:

    Rory Stewart also goes down well with some Labour friends .

    I wouldn’t ever vote Tory and they wouldn’t but he does get some grudging respect and is seen as sane and quite sensible . He also has a very interesting life story and many have been following him on social media .

    The thing I like about him is he’s actually putting himself out there and taking a big risk with his campaign . He may well be another who gets removed by the no deal death cult .

    And the first paragraph is why Stewart could be a disaster as Leader.

    Yes he appeals to non Tories who wouldn't vote Tory. But then if they don't vote Tory still it achieves nothing.

    In normal times winning the swing voters would be enough to win the election. But these aren't normal times. Rory is worse than May on Brexit and would fail to deliver, I'm not even sure he wants to deliver. That will drive away more Tories than he attracts.

    Stewart runs the risk of completely schisming the party and seeing a Canada 1993 style wipeout.
    It wasn't May who failed to deliver Brexit you wazzock, it was the ERG and your mate Mark Francois.
    No it was May. She was never a Brexiteer in the first place and then had almost every Brexiteer saying clear as day that the backstop was utterly unacceptable but she continued with it anyway.
    The backstop doesn't exist in isolation though.

    It is the fundamental thing needed to maintain no-border with ireland.

    The no-dealers need to explain how they deal with the irish border, and beyond 'unicorns' or 'a hard border' they have failed.

    Until they can show clearly how they solve this issue, they cannot be taken seriously.
    Compromise.
    Slightly more detail than that is required
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 7,700
    edited June 11

    TOPPING said:

    nico67 said:

    Rory Stewart also goes down well with some Labour friends .

    I wouldn’t ever vote Tory and they wouldn’t but he does get some grudging respect and is seen as sane and quite sensible . He also has a very interesting life story and many have been following him on social media .

    The thing I like about him is he’s actually putting himself out there and taking a big risk with his campaign . He may well be another who gets removed by the no deal death cult .

    And the first paragraph is why Stewart could be a disaster as Leader.

    Yes he appeals to non Tories who wouldn't vote Tory. But then if they don't vote Tory still it achieves nothing.

    In normal times winning the swing voters would be enough to win the election. But these aren't normal times. Rory is worse than May on Brexit and would fail to deliver, I'm not even sure he wants to deliver. That will drive away more Tories than he attracts.

    Stewart runs the risk of completely schisming the party and seeing a Canada 1993 style wipeout.
    It wasn't May who failed to deliver Brexit you wazzock, it was the ERG and your mate Mark Francois.
    No it was May. She was never a Brexiteer in the first place and then had almost every Brexiteer saying clear as day that the backstop was utterly unacceptable but she continued with it anyway.
    The backstop doesn't exist in isolation though.

    It is the fundamental thing needed to maintain no-border with ireland.

    The no-dealers need to explain how they deal with the irish border, and beyond 'unicorns' or 'a hard border' they have failed.

    Until they can show clearly how they solve this issue, they cannot be taken seriously.
    Compromise.
    You keep saying that word, I do not thing it means what you think it means...

    The EU have laid our their position. What does the UK move on to secure a compromise?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,371
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Charles, I agree, and so does my wallet.

    Well, actually that'd be Hunt versus Gove. But I'd be content for Boris to fail.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,264

    kinabalu said:

    My 200/1 Philip Hammond in a coronation to oust May is looking a bit dicey as well.

    Fessing up to bad bets is admirable and good for the soul. Never trust a punter who only talks of their winners.

    And in that spirit, I would like to disclose one, albeit not pertaining to Tory matters. I lumped on Kamala Harris at 8/1 for next POTUS. She is double that price now, and rightly so - simply not cutting through.

    I wish I had done Elizabeth Warren.
    It is too early to write off Kamala Harris. She is almost bound to get a good showing in California which has the most delegates, and is earlier in the process this time round.

    And even Iowa is still eight months away. That is a long time in politics.
    And the first debates are a couple of weeks away. They should see a few winners and losers.

    Warren is making waves (and I did ‘do Warren’ to borrow your slightly infelicitous phrase), but I’m not convinced by her comprehensive plans for everything. Given even a narrow Democratic majority in the Senate, their chances of comprehensive implementation are close to zero.

    An incoming Democratic president will have to make some hard choices to get legislation through Congress, and what they will be able to achieve by executive order is much more limited.

    And if they are really serious about starting to address climate change (I hope they are), that will consume most of the first term.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,670

    Chris said:

    eek said:



    So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......

    I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
    Yes!

    A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.

    We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
    I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
    You can't be real. No one real is this funny.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,264
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    eek said:



    So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......

    I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
    Yes!

    A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.

    We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
    I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
    You can't be real. No one real is this funny.
    Mark Francois says that you are wrong.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,264
    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    The JackW /Jacobite Conservative Leadership Rankings :

    1. - Rory Stewart - The surname says it all .... :smiley:

    ...............................................................................

    Group Two - In Order Of Least Worst For The Nation :

    2. Jeremy Hunt - Dull, worthy and vaguely competent
    3. Michael Gove - A complete sh*t but vaguely competent
    4. Matt Hancock - Completely vague and vaguely competent
    5. Sajid Javid - Not entirely vague and not entirely incompetent

    Group Three - Ranking In Order Of Rank Incredulity Of Their Rankness :

    6. Mark Harper - The cab rank awaits.
    7. Andrea Leadsom - Ranks as a mother but no rebirth of the nation
    8. Dominic Rabb - Requires proroguing to Dover for re-education and re-ranking
    9. Ester McVey - A rank disaster but with added delusions as a Thatcher successor

    Group Four - Special Grouping For MIA Candidates

    10. Boris Johnson - The Donald Trump went To Eton candidate.

    Good list. My top three: Stewart, Hunt and Javid.
    The liberal vs the dullard vs the Saj

    When Hancock comes on the telly I just feel sorry for him.
    Gove is usually off his head and married to Lady Macbeth.
    Leadsom is truly dire.
    Raab, if only he was half as good as he thinks he is.
    Boris cares about Boris only.
    The others , meh.
    Saj has come across as an empty suit to me. I’d go with Stewart and Hunt as my top 2 and not have a third
    An empty suit can be of great value. In bridge.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 3,697
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    eek said:



    So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......

    I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
    Yes!

    A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.

    We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
    I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
    You can't be real. No one real is this funny.
    Naah. It'll be fine. The French will let us borrow some naval power (as the Tories have ensured we don't have enough sea power to fight a proper war) and then we'll treat Calais like we did Zanzibar.

    Rule Britannia, Brittania rules not much...
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 16,259
    edited June 11

    TOPPING said:

    nico67 said:

    Rory Stewart also goes down well with some Labour friends .

    I wouldn’t ever vote Tory and they wouldn’t but he does get some grudging respect and is seen as sane and quite sensible . He also has a very interesting life story and many have been following him on social media .

    The thing I like about him is he’s actually putting himself out there and taking a big risk with his campaign . He may well be another who gets removed by the no deal death cult .

    And the first paragraph is why Stewart could be a disaster as Leader.

    Yes he appeals to non Tories who wouldn't vote Tory. But then if they don't vote Tory still it achieves nothing.

    In normal times winning the swing voters would be enough to win the election. But these aren't normal times. Rory is worse than May on Brexit and would fail to deliver, I'm not even sure he wants to deliver. That will drive away more Tories than he attracts.

    Stewart runs the risk of completely schisming the party and seeing a Canada 1993 style wipeout.
    It wasn't May who failed to deliver Brexit you wazzock, it was the ERG and your mate Mark Francois.
    No it was May. She was never a Brexiteer in the first place and then had almost every Brexiteer saying clear as day that the backstop was utterly unacceptable but she continued with it anyway.
    The backstop doesn't exist in isolation though.

    It is the fundamental thing needed to maintain no-border with ireland.

    The no-dealers need to explain how they deal with the irish border, and beyond 'unicorns' or 'a hard border' they have failed.

    Until they can show clearly how they solve this issue, they cannot be taken seriously.
    Compromise.
    So what compromise would you suggest the UK makes?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,143
    Nigelb said:

    nico67 said:

    Scott_P said:

    Has Maria Miller inadvertently committed some news?

    What did she say?
    She was on R4 this morning talking about NDAs, and when asked about Raab’s use of one asserted that the claim against him in the employment tribunal case had been ‘vexatious’.

    Which rather blunted her otherwise sensible comments on the misuse of NDAs.
    And raised the question of what basis she had for that assertion.

    This was the agreement (which came to light when Raab sued the Mail on Sunday)

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/dominic-raab-confidentiality-agreement-female-colleague
    According to publicly available court documents, Raab’s confidentiality clause was agreed back in August 2007 — before he became an MP — when he was working as chief of staff to David Davis.

    The documents said both Raab and Davis entered into a "compromise agreement" with a woman who also worked in Davis’s office.

    The agreement brought to an end both the woman’s employment with Davis, and a claim she had made at an employment tribunal, according to a letter from Raab’s solicitor that is quoted in the court documents.

    In 2011, Raab’s solicitor wrote to the woman warning that if she breached the terms of the agreement she would “be required to repay the sum [she was] paid in consideration for the confidentiality obligations”. She made clear she had no intention of breaching the agreement.

    In 2012, Raab won an apology from the Mail on Sunday after it published “unfounded” allegations about his behaviour....

    I don’t know anything about the Raab case

    But a “compromise agreement” is utterly different from an NDA designed to gag and offence. It’s commonly used in redundancy situations - essentially an agreement to pay above the statutory minimum. In return the employee agrees not to badmouth the employer, keep the terms of the agreement confidential etc
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,544
    The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.

    There is no deal without it.

    Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,691

    The backstop doesn't exist in isolation though.

    It is the fundamental thing needed to maintain no-border with ireland.

    The no-dealers need to explain how they deal with the irish border, and beyond 'unicorns' or 'a hard border' they have failed.

    Until they can show clearly how they solve this issue, they cannot be taken seriously.

    Compromise.
    You keep saying that word, I do not thing it means what you think it means...

    The EU have laid our their position. What does the UK move on to secure a compromise?
    Their position is unacceptable.

    The UK has already moved on what should be moved on. We have agreed a transition whereby: We pay them money, we follow their rules, we continue trading, we get no say. That is sufficient.

    There is a ready-made trade agreement available to be implemented immediately, it is called the transition agreement. The backstop is not a part of the transition, it is only what happens afterwards if there is no agreement after the transition.

    If the EU is prepared to risk no deal now in order to deal with what happens after then so am I. That is entirely consistent. If you want a compromise then implement the already agreed transition immediately and risk either no deal in a couple of years [rather than weeks] or have an agreement ready by then.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,264
    That was at least considerate to her hosts.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,691

    The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.

    There is no deal without it.

    Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.

    Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,811

    It is too early to write off Kamala Harris. She is almost bound to get a good showing in California which has the most delegates, and is earlier in the process this time round.

    And even Iowa is still eight months away. That is a long time in politics.

    True. Far too early to write her off. She might not be cutting through but neither has she blown up. It's more that I do not like that chunky 8/1 bet I'm sitting on. Right now, it's a rotten one.

    But for balance, one of my top top ones. Been laying Ref2 in 2019 consistently for months at prices from 3 to 5. Closed at 8. Smug city there.
    :smile:
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,264
    edited June 11
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    nico67 said:

    Scott_P said:

    Has Maria Miller inadvertently committed some news?

    What did she say?
    She was on R4 this morning talking about NDAs, and when asked about Raab’s use of one asserted that the claim against him in the employment tribunal case had been ‘vexatious’.

    Which rather blunted her otherwise sensible comments on the misuse of NDAs.
    And raised the question of what basis she had for that assertion.

    This was the agreement (which came to light when Raab sued the Mail on Sunday)

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/dominic-raab-confidentiality-agreement-female-colleague
    According to publicly available court documents, Raab’s confidentiality clause was agreed back in August 2007 — before he became an MP — when he was working as chief of staff to David Davis.

    The documents said both Raab and Davis entered into a "compromise agreement" with a woman who also worked in Davis’s office.

    The agreement brought to an end both the woman’s employment with Davis, and a claim she had made at an employment tribunal, according to a letter from Raab’s solicitor that is quoted in the court documents.

    In 2011, Raab’s solicitor wrote to the woman warning that if she breached the terms of the agreement she would “be required to repay the sum [she was] paid in consideration for the confidentiality obligations”. She made clear she had no intention of breaching the agreement.

    In 2012, Raab won an apology from the Mail on Sunday after it published “unfounded” allegations about his behaviour....

    I don’t know anything about the Raab case

    But a “compromise agreement” is utterly different from an NDA designed to gag and offence. It’s commonly used in redundancy situations - essentially an agreement to pay above the statutory minimum. In return the employee agrees not to badmouth the employer, keep the terms of the agreement confidential etc
    And vice versa. Calling the original case vexatious would appear to breach that.

    Miller referred to the Raab case in the context of a wider discussion about NDAs, and the implication (like you and everyone else not involved, I don’t know the details either) was that an NDA was in place.

    I’m well aware of what a compromise agreement is, and it is not unusual that it be accompanied by an NDA.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Javid and Roaaaary launching this afternoon.

    How can they grab the headlines ?
  • eekeek Posts: 5,795

    The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.

    There is no deal without it.

    Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.

    Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.
    No they are not - they are merely setting out their minimum terms...
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 2,126

    Quincel said:

    (Incidentally, this is a core of why I like Rory. His entire campaign is about promising less and trying to make the Tories accept that a compromise is coming and no-one should expect to get what they want from Brexit. Personally I think that's the path out of this bind, difficult though the climbdown will doubtless be.)

    How can Rory convince people who are not partisan Tories that they should help get the Tories out of a hole by compromising with people who lied and cheated to get the country into this position? It doesn't deserve to succeed.
    By listening and leading. Two things politicians in the UK have forgotten to even attempt. Much easier to listen to unicorn chasers and opinion polls.
    That doesn't answer the question. If you think the Tory party deserves to die because of Brexit, how can Rory persuade you that actually what the country needs is Brexit, and for the Tory party to survive?
    I have complete contempt for most of the Tory party but care about the countries future not any particular party. The alternatives are not great. Most of the electorate are not so tribal they want parties to die, most will have voted Tory and Labour in the past, possibly most will vote both again at some point in the future. I expect I will vote for both in the future at some point.

    Someone who listens makes a big difference, it is an underestimated skill, particularly in a noisy place like social media and a 24 hr news cycle. Without listening and showing you listen you keep slicing and dicing your supporters until no consent exists for anything.

    Someone who leads by fronting up when it is difficult, explaining why we cannot have unicorns, accepts they may drop temporarily in the polls when making a good but unpopular decision will gain respect and eventually support from the country.

    We have had such bad leadership recently that we have forgotten what difference a good leader can make.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 55,001

    JackW said:

    Mark Harper seems to have some very sensible ideas.

    And accordingly will sink without trace in the first round.
    Yep.
    I think Harper will move his support to Sajid Javid upon elimination, providing Javid has polled strongly enough.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,371
    Mr. Me, if the backstop causes to happen what it seeks to prevent then it's clearly not terribly clever.

    A compromise would be a fairly long time period, say 10 years, with it, during which a permanent alternative is negotiated and agreed.

    Locking us into a position we can't leave without EU approval isn't wise.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 27,019
    Very strong wage growth today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48594011

    Just maybe a slight tightening in our employment market given the Brexit uncertainty about residence rights for EU citizens? Yet more good news poured down the drain though. If only the ERG had not been so stupid. But that is their nature.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,287

    The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.

    There is no deal without it.

    Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.

    Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.
    So you expect the EU to allow us to alter or remove literally any product standards and regulations, and then export those goods to their consumers across an open border with zero checks?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,143
    nico67 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Sad but true .

    Brexit has normalized behaviour that previously would have been seen as unnaceptable. It’s not necessarily made new xenophobes but given those who were already there a stamp of approval.

    I agree. “Green ink” letters have always existed but people didn’t feel the need to use them to make a political point in the past
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,811
    Why do people think that Steve Baker has endorsed Johnson?

    As a Brexit purist, the purists' purist even, why is he not at this stage supporting Raab or McVey?
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 9,988
    TGOHF said:

    Javid and Roaaaary launching this afternoon.

    How can they grab the headlines ?

    Surely Rory has some bangers in his MI6 history??
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,777
    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    JackW said:

    The JackW /Jacobite Conservative Leadership Rankings :

    1. - Rory Stewart - The surname says it all .... :smiley:

    ...............................................................................

    Group Two - In Order Of Least Worst For The Nation :

    2. Jeremy Hunt - Dull, worthy and vaguely competent
    3. Michael Gove - A complete sh*t but vaguely competent
    4. Matt Hancock - Completely vague and vaguely competent
    5. Sajid Javid - Not entirely vague and not entirely incompetent

    Group Three - Ranking In Order Of Rank Incredulity Of Their Rankness :

    6. Mark Harper - The cab rank awaits.
    7. Andrea Leadsom - Ranks as a mother but no rebirth of the nation
    8. Dominic Rabb - Requires proroguing to Dover for re-education and re-ranking
    9. Ester McVey - A rank disaster but with added delusions as a Thatcher successor

    Group Four - Special Grouping For MIA Candidates

    10. Boris Johnson - The Donald Trump went To Eton candidate.

    Trump won of course
    @JackW is above mere “winning”
    Indeed. "Mere Winning" is not enough.

    "The first and greatest victory is to conquer yourself; to be conquered by yourself is of all things most shameful and vile." - Plato.

    Boris should read it to himself every day.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,691
    TOPPING said:

    The backstop is unacceptable on principle. I've been unwaveringly consistent on that unlike wazzocks like Boris who said it was unacceptable until he voted for it.

    If I was trying to get a new home and an estate agent said they had a home I could get but the price was me sacrificing one of my children then I would obviously say no. Some things are more important. I am not prepared to sacrifice NI to the backstop under ANY circumstances.

    "Not sacrificing NI" dear god get over yourself. It wasn't sacrificing anything it was an insurance policy to ensure that the situation in Ireland didn't become a casualty of Brexit. A far more noble intention than any "no surrender" rhetoric.

    The backstop would have evaporated once the future trade agreement had been concluded.
    Again if the price of an "insurance policy" is worse than what is being insured against it is unacceptable.

    The price of the insurance policy is sacrificing the rights of the population of NI to be able to elect their leaders and to ride roughshod over the GFA violating completely the principles of consent agreed within it. The population of NI would have zero MEPs, zero representation on how their laws are set and zero right to elect a government that would change them. They would be a colony.

    As for once a future trade agreement had been concluded, one already has been. The terms of the transition period have already been concluded and the backstop is not a part of the transition it is what happens afterwards. So that's a lie.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,691
    Freggles said:

    The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.

    There is no deal without it.

    Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.

    Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.
    So you expect the EU to allow us to alter or remove literally any product standards and regulations, and then export those goods to their consumers across an open border with zero checks?
    No. Under the terms of the transition we would not be allowed to alter or remove any product standards and regulations whatsoever.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,519

    Chris said:

    eek said:



    So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......

    I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
    Yes!

    A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.

    We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
    I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
    Our military - and Trump's.....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 55,001
    kinabalu said:

    Why do people think that Steve Baker has endorsed Johnson?

    As a Brexit purist, the purists' purist even, why is he not at this stage supporting Raab or McVey?

    He thinks Boris can win.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,037

    Chris said:

    eek said:



    So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......

    I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
    Yes!

    A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.

    We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
    I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
    There will be no blockade. At least, no military blockade. The risk is blockade by bureaucracy: licences, insurance cover, customs checks; that sort of thing.

    If we crash out with no deal, we will be a third country to the EU. Leaving is not the end of the process, it is the beginning. If any of the leadership candidates have made serious proposals as to our eventual, long term relationship with Europe, I'm afraid I've missed it. OK, we leave on 31/10. Then what? That's what reporters should be asking, not who did what at whose party two decades back.
  • eekeek Posts: 5,795
    edited June 11

    TOPPING said:

    The backstop is unacceptable on principle. I've been unwaveringly consistent on that unlike wazzocks like Boris who said it was unacceptable until he voted for it.

    If I was trying to get a new home and an estate agent said they had a home I could get but the price was me sacrificing one of my children then I would obviously say no. Some things are more important. I am not prepared to sacrifice NI to the backstop under ANY circumstances.

    "Not sacrificing NI" dear god get over yourself. It wasn't sacrificing anything it was an insurance policy to ensure that the situation in Ireland didn't become a casualty of Brexit. A far more noble intention than any "no surrender" rhetoric.

    The backstop would have evaporated once the future trade agreement had been concluded.
    Again if the price of an "insurance policy" is worse than what is being insured against it is unacceptable.

    The price of the insurance policy is sacrificing the rights of the population of NI to be able to elect their leaders and to ride roughshod over the GFA violating completely the principles of consent agreed within it. The population of NI would have zero MEPs, zero representation on how their laws are set and zero right to elect a government that would change them. They would be a colony.

    As for once a future trade agreement had been concluded, one already has been. The terms of the transition period have already been concluded and the backstop is not a part of the transition it is what happens afterwards. So that's a lie.
    The insurance policy isn't ours - it's Ireland's and the EU's.

    Oh and what trade agreement has been agreed. Trade is only to be discussed once we've left and are on the back foot...
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 9,988

    Freggles said:

    The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.

    There is no deal without it.

    Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.

    Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.
    So you expect the EU to allow us to alter or remove literally any product standards and regulations, and then export those goods to their consumers across an open border with zero checks?
    No. Under the terms of the transition we would not be allowed to alter or remove any product standards and regulations whatsoever.
    For the transition (yes) or under the backstop (no)?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,264
    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    JackW said:

    The JackW /Jacobite Conservative Leadership Rankings :

    1. - Rory Stewart - The surname says it all .... :smiley:

    ...............................................................................

    Group Two - In Order Of Least Worst For The Nation :

    2. Jeremy Hunt - Dull, worthy and vaguely competent
    3. Michael Gove - A complete sh*t but vaguely competent
    4. Matt Hancock - Completely vague and vaguely competent
    5. Sajid Javid - Not entirely vague and not entirely incompetent

    Group Three - Ranking In Order Of Rank Incredulity Of Their Rankness :

    6. Mark Harper - The cab rank awaits.
    7. Andrea Leadsom - Ranks as a mother but no rebirth of the nation
    8. Dominic Rabb - Requires proroguing to Dover for re-education and re-ranking
    9. Ester McVey - A rank disaster but with added delusions as a Thatcher successor

    Group Four - Special Grouping For MIA Candidates

    10. Boris Johnson - The Donald Trump went To Eton candidate.

    Trump won of course
    @JackW is above mere “winning”
    Indeed. "Mere Winning" is not enough.

    "The first and greatest victory is to conquer yourself; to be conquered by yourself is of all things most shameful and vile." - Plato.

    Boris should read it to himself every day.
    And in any event, Trump is yet to win in the UK. His surrogate has failed to be elected to Parliament a few times, I believe....
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,352
    kinabalu said:

    It is too early to write off Kamala Harris. She is almost bound to get a good showing in California which has the most delegates, and is earlier in the process this time round.

    And even Iowa is still eight months away. That is a long time in politics.

    True. Far too early to write her off. She might not be cutting through but neither has she blown up. It's more that I do not like that chunky 8/1 bet I'm sitting on. Right now, it's a rotten one.

    But for balance, one of my top top ones. Been laying Ref2 in 2019 consistently for months at prices from 3 to 5. Closed at 8. Smug city there.
    :smile:
    True, the odds haven't swung in your favour there and her early campaign has been OK but a bit disappointing. She could be strong in the debates, so hope springs eternal. I'm on Warren at 25/1 and hoping the debates aren't the end of her strength though, but we will see.

    My worst bet this year? Backing Labour at odds on to win Peterborough when it was first announced, and then panicking and hedging on TBP at 1/4.

    Made up most of the losses on in-play betting overnight, but the fact is I took bad prices twice.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 31,030

    Someone who listens makes a big difference, it is an underestimated skill, particularly in a noisy place like social media and a 24 hr news cycle. Without listening and showing you listen you keep slicing and dicing your supporters until no consent exists for anything.

    Except Rory isn't listening. He started out supposing that 80% of people secretly back the deal, and after it making made abundantly clear to him that this is not true, his solution is to find a different way to blackmail the House of Commons into voting for the deal. There is no substance to the claim that he listens.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Gove back in to 17 on Betfair.

    Rory now ahead of Saj and Raab.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,670

    The backstop doesn't exist in isolation though.

    It is the fundamental thing needed to maintain no-border with ireland.

    The no-dealers need to explain how they deal with the irish border, and beyond 'unicorns' or 'a hard border' they have failed.

    Until they can show clearly how they solve this issue, they cannot be taken seriously.

    Compromise.
    You keep saying that word, I do not thing it means what you think it means...

    The EU have laid our their position. What does the UK move on to secure a compromise?
    Their position is unacceptable.

    The UK has already moved on what should be moved on. We have agreed a transition whereby: We pay them money, we follow their rules, we continue trading, we get no say. That is sufficient.

    There is a ready-made trade agreement available to be implemented immediately, it is called the transition agreement. The backstop is not a part of the transition, it is only what happens afterwards if there is no agreement after the transition.

    If the EU is prepared to risk no deal now in order to deal with what happens after then so am I.
    Rockall needs you.

    It probably won't be that much different from the rest of the UK after a No Deal Brexit. ;-)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,143
    _Anazina_ said:

    HYUFD said:

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    JackW said:

    The JackW /Jacobite Conservative Leadership Rankings :

    1. - Rory Stewart - The surname says it all .... :smiley:

    ...............................................................................

    Group Two - In Order Of Least Worst For The Nation :

    2. Jeremy Hunt - Dull, worthy and vaguely competent
    3. Michael Gove - A complete sh*t but vaguely competent
    4. Matt Hancock - Completely vague and vaguely competent
    5. Sajid Javid - Not entirely vague and not entirely incompetent

    Group Three - Ranking In Order Of Rank Incredulity Of Their Rankness :

    6. Mark Harper - The cab rank awaits.
    7. Andrea Leadsom - Ranks as a mother but no rebirth of the nation
    8. Dominic Rabb - Requires proroguing to Dover for re-education and re-ranking
    9. Ester McVey - A rank disaster but with added delusions as a Thatcher successor

    Group Four - Special Grouping For MIA Candidates

    10. Boris Johnson - The Donald Trump went To Eton candidate.

    Trump won of course
    Indeed. I'm not saying that Boris will not win the leadership. However the Conservative MP's and/or membership have history in picking a total electoral dud - Hague, May and of course IDS who has just endorsed Boris.

    Boris as PM .... what could possibly go wrong ?!?!?!?!?!?
    Trump won. The GOP hooked itself along for the ride. In office but not in power. What will be interesting will be to see what’s left when Trump is gone.

    Do the Tories really want to go down the same road?
    Boris is like a drug for many Tories .... Er ....

    Put simply in the present situation enough Tories, MP's and membership, are willing to bet the house on Boris in the hope that name recognition and his Trump-lite personality will outweigh his huge baggage.

    They'll go all in with this high stakes poker game knowing that if Boris blows it then the general election in a few months will be a massacre for the Conservatives as Hunt said at his launch yesterday.
    Boris is the only Tory who gets a majority with Yougov against Corbyn anyway, Hunt, Javid, Gove and Raab all see a Corbyn minority government so the Tories have nothing to lose by going for Boris
    There is a very ugly story doing the rounds about Boris, a melon, and Natalie Rowe. You might want to google that before throwing your hat in with this guy.
    That’s a disturbing (and plausible) story. Are there any other witnesses (Tim Renton in the comments wrote a blogpost but not clear if he was there or not)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,691
    eek said:

    The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.

    There is no deal without it.

    Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.

    Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.
    No they are not - they are merely setting out their minimum terms...
    And if their minimum terms exceed our maximum then there is only one solution.

    The age of colonialism died 74 years ago. Having no representation in who sets your laws is not acceptable.

    If the people of NI are to be subjugated to EU laws and regulations then they must have a say in how those laws and regulations are passed. Including vetos where other parties have vetos.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,777
    Nigelb said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    JackW said:

    The JackW /Jacobite Conservative Leadership Rankings :

    1. - Rory Stewart - The surname says it all .... :smiley:

    ...............................................................................

    Group Two - In Order Of Least Worst For The Nation :

    2. Jeremy Hunt - Dull, worthy and vaguely competent
    3. Michael Gove - A complete sh*t but vaguely competent
    4. Matt Hancock - Completely vague and vaguely competent
    5. Sajid Javid - Not entirely vague and not entirely incompetent

    Group Three - Ranking In Order Of Rank Incredulity Of Their Rankness :

    6. Mark Harper - The cab rank awaits.
    7. Andrea Leadsom - Ranks as a mother but no rebirth of the nation
    8. Dominic Rabb - Requires proroguing to Dover for re-education and re-ranking
    9. Ester McVey - A rank disaster but with added delusions as a Thatcher successor

    Group Four - Special Grouping For MIA Candidates

    10. Boris Johnson - The Donald Trump went To Eton candidate.

    Trump won of course
    @JackW is above mere “winning”
    Indeed. "Mere Winning" is not enough.

    "The first and greatest victory is to conquer yourself; to be conquered by yourself is of all things most shameful and vile." - Plato.

    Boris should read it to himself every day.
    And in any event, Trump is yet to win in the UK. His surrogate has failed to be elected to Parliament a few times, I believe....
    Ssshhh .... we've managed almost half the day without the "F" word ....
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,670

    Chris said:

    eek said:



    So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......

    I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
    Yes!

    A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.

    We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
    I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
    There will be no blockade. At least, no military blockade. The risk is blockade by bureaucracy: licences, insurance cover, customs checks; that sort of thing.
    The Army will sort that out.

    It's amazing how cooperative foreigners can be if you just speak loudly and hold a gun to their heads.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,143
    Roger said:

    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    The JackW /Jacobite Conservative Leadership Rankings :

    1. - Rory Stewart - The surname says it all .... :smiley:

    ...............................................................................

    Group Two - In Order Of Least Worst For The Nation :

    2. Jeremy Hunt - Dull, worthy and vaguely competent
    3. Michael Gove - A complete sh*t but vaguely competent
    4. Matt Hancock - Completely vague and vaguely competent
    5. Sajid Javid - Not entirely vague and not entirely incompetent

    Group Three - Ranking In Order Of Rank Incredulity Of Their Rankness :

    6. Mark Harper - The cab rank awaits.
    7. Andrea Leadsom - Ranks as a mother but no rebirth of the nation
    8. Dominic Rabb - Requires proroguing to Dover for re-education and re-ranking
    9. Ester McVey - A rank disaster but with added delusions as a Thatcher successor

    Group Four - Special Grouping For MIA Candidates

    10. Boris Johnson - The Donald Trump went To Eton candidate.

    I was out for a dinner party last night. As usual I was the only one who would self declare as a Tory in the room. Most of the others are the sort of people who supported SLAB before it went bizarre. The odd Lib Dem.

    They tend to like Ruth but what surprised me last night was how much they all liked Rory. It lends to support to the theory that he is the Tory non Tories like, much, much more so than Boris. A party looking to win elections and lengthen its reach, as opposed to ideological purity, would do well to reflect on that. But I don't suppose that they will.
    My Scottish relatives must have been to your dinner party. I was emailed about how good Rory was weeks ago. I suspect the more thoughtful Scots are less impressed by the tinsel and glitter of Boris than they are the quietly thoughtful Rory. As Slab voters I've suggested Boris would be the best hope for a Tory collapse.
    Rory being a Scot has nothing to do with it?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,691

    Chris said:

    eek said:



    So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......

    I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
    Yes!

    A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.

    We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
    I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
    Our military - and Trump's.....
    Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.
  • TrèsDifficileTrèsDifficile Posts: 497
    Charles said:

    _Anazina_ said:

    HYUFD said:

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    JackW said:

    The JackW /Jacobite Conservative Leadership Rankings :

    1. - Rory Stewart - The surname says it all .... :smiley:

    ...............................................................................

    Group Two - In Order Of Least Worst For The Nation :

    2. Jeremy Hunt - Dull, worthy and vaguely competent
    3. Michael Gove - A complete sh*t but vaguely competent
    4. Matt Hancock - Completely vague and vaguely competent
    5. Sajid Javid - Not entirely vague and not entirely incompetent

    Group Three - Ranking In Order Of Rank Incredulity Of Their Rankness :

    6. Mark Harper - The cab rank awaits.
    7. Andrea Leadsom - Ranks as a mother but no rebirth of the nation
    8. Dominic Rabb - Requires proroguing to Dover for re-education and re-ranking
    9. Ester McVey - A rank disaster but with added delusions as a Thatcher successor

    Group Four - Special Grouping For MIA Candidates

    10. Boris Johnson - The Donald Trump went To Eton candidate.

    Trump won of course
    Indeed. I'm not saying that Boris will not win the leadership. However the Conservative MP's and/or membership have history in picking a total electoral dud - Hague, May and of course IDS who has just endorsed Boris.

    Boris as PM .... what could possibly go wrong ?!?!?!?!?!?
    Trump won. The GOP hooked itself along for the ride. In office but not in power. What will be interesting will be to see what’s left when Trump is gone.

    Do the Tories really want to go down the same road?
    Boris is like a drug for many Tories .... Er ....

    Put simply in the present situation enough Tories, MP's and membership, are willing to bet the house on Boris in the hope that name recognition and his Trump-lite personality will outweigh his huge baggage.

    They'll go all in with this high stakes poker game knowing that if Boris blows it then the general election in a few months will be a massacre for the Conservatives as Hunt said at his launch yesterday.
    Boris is the only Tory who gets a majority with Yougov against Corbyn anyway, Hunt, Javid, Gove and Raab all see a Corbyn minority government so the Tories have nothing to lose by going for Boris
    There is a very ugly story doing the rounds about Boris, a melon, and Natalie Rowe. You might want to google that before throwing your hat in with this guy.
    That’s a disturbing (and plausible) story. Are there any other witnesses (Tim Renton in the comments wrote a blogpost but not clear if he was there or not)
    Osborne?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,143
    Barnesian said:

    Streeter said:
    The article quotes $85bn invested in the UK and $340bn invested in the rest of the EU.

    Which means that 20% was invested in the UK.

    So proportionally more was invested in the UK than the rest of the EU.

    Its always best to check the details.
    Checking the details I find:

    3 years ago investment in EU27 was $237b, UK was $121b, UK was 33% of total investment.

    Now investment in EU27 is $340b, UK is $85b. UK is now 20% of total investment.

    That is what the details show. You can't spin that to mean anything other than bad news for the UK.
    Depends on the long term trend. It’s very possible that 3 years ago was a blip.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,691

    Freggles said:

    The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.

    There is no deal without it.

    Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.

    Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.
    So you expect the EU to allow us to alter or remove literally any product standards and regulations, and then export those goods to their consumers across an open border with zero checks?
    No. Under the terms of the transition we would not be allowed to alter or remove any product standards and regulations whatsoever.
    For the transition (yes) or under the backstop (no)?
    For the transition. There is no reason we couldn't kick the can of what happens afterwards to the future negotiations where it belongs and be in the transition already. If we reach a deal during transition then great the backstop is moot. If we don't, we either agree to extend transition until one is agreed, or go to no deal if we can't (which is no different to doing so now). But either way the EU's integrity is maintained and so is ours. The backstop is not needed either way.

    How is no deal now because of insistence on the backstop better than no deal after a transition period?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,670

    Chris said:

    eek said:



    So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......

    I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
    Yes!

    A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.

    We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
    I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
    Our military - and Trump's.....
    Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.
    Seriously, I don't believe you're real. Your comments are satirical, aren't they?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 16,217
    Charles said:

    Roger said:

    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    The JackW /Jacobite Conservative Leadership Rankings :

    1. - Rory Stewart - The surname says it all .... :smiley:

    ...............................................................................

    Group Two - In Order Of Least Worst For The Nation :

    2. Jeremy Hunt - Dull, worthy and vaguely competent
    3. Michael Gove - A complete sh*t but vaguely competent
    4. Matt Hancock - Completely vague and vaguely competent
    5. Sajid Javid - Not entirely vague and not entirely incompetent

    Group Three - Ranking In Order Of Rank Incredulity Of Their Rankness :

    6. Mark Harper - The cab rank awaits.
    7. Andrea Leadsom - Ranks as a mother but no rebirth of the nation
    8. Dominic Rabb - Requires proroguing to Dover for re-education and re-ranking
    9. Ester McVey - A rank disaster but with added delusions as a Thatcher successor

    Group Four - Special Grouping For MIA Candidates

    10. Boris Johnson - The Donald Trump went To Eton candidate.

    I was out for a dinner party last night. As usual I was the only one who would self declare as a Tory in the room. Most of the others are the sort of people who supported SLAB before it went bizarre. The odd Lib Dem.

    They tend to like Ruth but what surprised me last night was how much they all liked Rory. It lends to support to the theory that he is the Tory non Tories like, much, much more so than Boris. A party looking to win elections and lengthen its reach, as opposed to ideological purity, would do well to reflect on that. But I don't suppose that they will.
    My Scottish relatives must have been to your dinner party. I was emailed about how good Rory was weeks ago. I suspect the more thoughtful Scots are less impressed by the tinsel and glitter of Boris than they are the quietly thoughtful Rory. As Slab voters I've suggested Boris would be the best hope for a Tory collapse.
    Rory being a Scot has nothing to do with it?
    As much as Cameron and Blair being 'Scots' did, I'd imagine.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,691
    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    The backstop is unacceptable on principle. I've been unwaveringly consistent on that unlike wazzocks like Boris who said it was unacceptable until he voted for it.

    If I was trying to get a new home and an estate agent said they had a home I could get but the price was me sacrificing one of my children then I would obviously say no. Some things are more important. I am not prepared to sacrifice NI to the backstop under ANY circumstances.

    "Not sacrificing NI" dear god get over yourself. It wasn't sacrificing anything it was an insurance policy to ensure that the situation in Ireland didn't become a casualty of Brexit. A far more noble intention than any "no surrender" rhetoric.

    The backstop would have evaporated once the future trade agreement had been concluded.
    Again if the price of an "insurance policy" is worse than what is being insured against it is unacceptable.

    The price of the insurance policy is sacrificing the rights of the population of NI to be able to elect their leaders and to ride roughshod over the GFA violating completely the principles of consent agreed within it. The population of NI would have zero MEPs, zero representation on how their laws are set and zero right to elect a government that would change them. They would be a colony.

    As for once a future trade agreement had been concluded, one already has been. The terms of the transition period have already been concluded and the backstop is not a part of the transition it is what happens afterwards. So that's a lie.
    The insurance policy isn't ours - it's Ireland's and the EU's.

    Oh and what trade agreement has been agreed. Trade is only to be discussed once we've left and are on the back foot...
    And you've given the game away with that comment. The backstop has nothing to do with "insurance", it is solely to do with putting us on the back foot.

    It is unacceptable colonialism and there are no circumstances it is acceptable.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,691
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    eek said:



    So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......

    I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
    Yes!

    A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.

    We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
    I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
    Our military - and Trump's.....
    Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.
    Seriously, I don't believe you're real. Your comments are satirical, aren't they?
    I'm real. You think the EU should be able to declare war on us and we sit back and do nothing?
  • eekeek Posts: 5,795

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    The backstop is unacceptable on principle. I've been unwaveringly consistent on that unlike wazzocks like Boris who said it was unacceptable until he voted for it.

    If I was trying to get a new home and an estate agent said they had a home I could get but the price was me sacrificing one of my children then I would obviously say no. Some things are more important. I am not prepared to sacrifice NI to the backstop under ANY circumstances.

    "Not sacrificing NI" dear god get over yourself. It wasn't sacrificing anything it was an insurance policy to ensure that the situation in Ireland didn't become a casualty of Brexit. A far more noble intention than any "no surrender" rhetoric.

    The backstop would have evaporated once the future trade agreement had been concluded.
    Again if the price of an "insurance policy" is worse than what is being insured against it is unacceptable.

    The price of the insurance policy is sacrificing the rights of the population of NI to be able to elect their leaders and to ride roughshod over the GFA violating completely the principles of consent agreed within it. The population of NI would have zero MEPs, zero representation on how their laws are set and zero right to elect a government that would change them. They would be a colony.

    As for once a future trade agreement had been concluded, one already has been. The terms of the transition period have already been concluded and the backstop is not a part of the transition it is what happens afterwards. So that's a lie.
    The insurance policy isn't ours - it's Ireland's and the EU's.

    Oh and what trade agreement has been agreed. Trade is only to be discussed once we've left and are on the back foot...
    And you've given the game away with that comment. The backstop has nothing to do with "insurance", it is solely to do with putting us on the back foot.

    It is unacceptable colonialism and there are no circumstances it is acceptable.
    @RCS1000 when looking at new commenting tools could we have one that allows the posters to put the terminally unable to understand on ignore so that we don't see their posts..
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,371
    Mr. Glenn, can't see the problem for Raab. Only Conservative members get to vote in General Elections, right?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 26,163
    Incredible. I mean supporting the rights of a parliamentary democracy is just so not a rock solid conservative value is it?

    Brexit just becomes a more terrible virus by the week.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 16,217

    What was the film? Might have had an excuse!
    Something by Ken Loach I'll wager.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 9,988

    Freggles said:

    The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.

    There is no deal without it.

    Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.

    Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.
    So you expect the EU to allow us to alter or remove literally any product standards and regulations, and then export those goods to their consumers across an open border with zero checks?
    No. Under the terms of the transition we would not be allowed to alter or remove any product standards and regulations whatsoever.
    For the transition (yes) or under the backstop (no)?
    For the transition. There is no reason we couldn't kick the can of what happens afterwards to the future negotiations where it belongs and be in the transition already. If we reach a deal during transition then great the backstop is moot. If we don't, we either agree to extend transition until one is agreed, or go to no deal if we can't (which is no different to doing so now). But either way the EU's integrity is maintained and so is ours. The backstop is not needed either way.

    How is no deal now because of insistence on the backstop better than no deal after a transition period?
    What is the advantage, compared to an extension of Article 50?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 9,295
    Scott_P said:
    First LOL of the campaign.

    I guess a few suckers have backed him.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,287

    Freggles said:

    The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.

    There is no deal without it.

    Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.

    Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.
    So you expect the EU to allow us to alter or remove literally any product standards and regulations, and then export those goods to their consumers across an open border with zero checks?
    No. Under the terms of the transition we would not be allowed to alter or remove any product standards and regulations whatsoever.
    For the transition (yes) or under the backstop (no)?
    For the transition. There is no reason we couldn't kick the can of what happens afterwards to the future negotiations where it belongs and be in the transition already. If we reach a deal during transition then great the backstop is moot. If we don't, we either agree to extend transition until one is agreed, or go to no deal if we can't (which is no different to doing so now). But either way the EU's integrity is maintained and so is ours. The backstop is not needed either way.

    How is no deal now because of insistence on the backstop better than no deal after a transition period?
    Well, quite. But surely it is our government who has proposed the backstop and would prefer it over indefinite transition because the backstop ends FoM and payments into the EU?
    Also, if we exit without a deal now, it's us reneging on the Irish border. If it happens during FTA negotiations, the culpability is much less clear... What do you think?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 1,191
    Is this actually happening or have I taken even more drugs than Michael Gove?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 16,217

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    eek said:



    So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......

    I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
    Yes!

    A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.

    We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
    I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
    Our military - and Trump's.....
    Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.
    Seriously, I don't believe you're real. Your comments are satirical, aren't they?
    I'm real. You think the EU should be able to declare war on us and we sit back and do nothing?
    You initially said 'virtually a declaration of war' which according to my Ladybird book of international protocol isn't yer actual declaration of war. Of course our armed forces are more prepared for a virtual rather than an actual response. A sail past by a non operational aircraft carrier will be just the thing.

  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 7,431

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    eek said:



    So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......

    I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
    Yes!

    A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.

    We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
    I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
    Our military - and Trump's.....
    Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.
    Seriously, I don't believe you're real. Your comments are satirical, aren't they?
    I'm real. You think the EU should be able to declare war on us and we sit back and do nothing?
    What a ridiculous series of posts.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,811
    Pulpstar said:

    He thinks Boris can win.

    Yes, makes sense, but I thought he might first vote his conscience and then switch later.

    Perhaps he really does believe that Johnson will Brexit on 31 Oct with No Deal. If he does I suspect that he will be disappointed when crunch time comes.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 55,001

    Is this actually happening or have I taken even more drugs than Michael Gove?
    Was one of those questions at the end. His actual pitch was very sensible.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,811

    I'm real. You think the EU should be able to declare war on us and we sit back and do nothing?

    I think 'bully' works better than 'declare war on' here.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,476

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    eek said:



    So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......

    I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.
    Yes!

    A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.

    We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
    I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.
    Our military - and Trump's.....
    Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.
    Seriously, I don't believe you're real. Your comments are satirical, aren't they?
    I'm real. You think the EU should be able to declare war on us and we sit back and do nothing?
    What a ridiculous series of posts.
    Nonsense, you just don't recognise sterling patriotism and common sense when you see it. You may not have seen the message implicit in the D Day celebrations last week, but let's hope for his own sake that Johnny Foreigner did.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,777
    eek said:

    @RCS1000 when looking at new commenting tools could we have one that allows the posters to put the terminally unable to understand on ignore so that we don't see their posts..

    Back in the day PB had a blocking function. However the danger is that PB becomes more of an echo chamber and I'd rather reflect on or be challenged by differing viewpoints.

    That said I was blocked by Rik Willis former Conservative PPC for Sutton and Cheam and Reading councillor after a testy exchange or two. Twas a blessing as subsequently the creep was found to be a peadophile and was convicted of possession of child pornography of the most serious nature.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited June 11
    Pulpstar said:

    Is this actually happening or have I taken even more drugs than Michael Gove?
    Was one of those questions at the end. His actual pitch was very sensible.
    Can’t really blame politicians for trying to answer dumb questions from journalists?

    Seems a robust patriotic answer from Harper in response?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 899

    Incredible. I mean supporting the rights of a parliamentary democracy is just so not a rock solid conservative value is it?

    Brexit just becomes a more terrible virus by the week.
    This argument is weak. A Brexit supporter may believe that in a conflict between the people as expressed in a referendum, guaranteed by the then government to be implemented, and parliament refusing to do so, bypassing parliament is the more democratic and legitimate of two sub-optimal choices.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 1,191



    Osborne?

    Presumably Osborne saw the alleged Johnson melon incident if it happened (which I would imagine it did, based purely on my low opinion of Johnson and his public comments and behaviour). I imagine that the sort of people who are programmed to believe the word of a posh white man over a black woman might find the story more credible if Osborne backs it up. But perhaps loyalty to the party might prevent him from wielding the knife? (I know Osborne hated May but I cannot remember amid all the noise of the Tory soap opera what the Osborne-Johnson relationship is right now).
  • ChrisChris Posts: 4,670

    Incredible. I mean supporting the rights of a parliamentary democracy is just so not a rock solid conservative value is it?

    Brexit just becomes a more terrible virus by the week.
    There's some useful discussion of the practicalities of
    (1) the Commons preventing No Deal and
    (2) prorogation
    here:
    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/new-prime-minister-intent-no-deal-brexit-cant-be-stopped-mps-0
    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/proroguing-parliament-would-be-undemocratic-and-probably-trigger-election

    Though the first article suggests it would be very hard for the Commons to block No Deal anyway, so the argument about prorogation may be academic.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 55,001
    brendan16 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Is this actually happening or have I taken even more drugs than Michael Gove?
    Was one of those questions at the end. His actual pitch was very sensible.
    Can’t really blame politicians for trying to answer dumb questions from journalists?

    Seems a robust patriotic answer from Harper in response?
    Yep, that precisely.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,371
    Mr. W, on Twitter I've been blocked, to my knowledge, by two people.

    One was a civilised lefty fellow with whom I had polite (both sides) disagreements over video game thingummyjigs, and the blocking was quite a surprise. The other was a historical who was annoyed I pointed out Empress Irene might not be a great advert for International Women's Day, given she had her own son so brutally mutilated he died of his wounds (bit miffed he deleted the original tweet then reposted it, citing a 'grammatical error' for the reason...).

    I do agree the echo chamber is to be avoided. If one only wants to hear one's own view, one might as well chat to a mirror.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 55,001
    I think it could be close. He voted for the deal 3 times - quite prepared to have a very soft Brexit unlike say Grieve.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 26,163
    Pulpstar said:

    I think it could be close. He voted for the deal 3 times - quite prepared to have a very soft Brexit unlike say Grieve.
    Depends on how many entryists there are I suppose.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 15,534
    Morning all from a rainy NY.

    There was a forced landing of a helicopter yesterday on a building next to the one I’m due to be speaking in today. The incident messed up my evening plans so let’s hope nothing untoward happens today.

    I’m assuming you’re all being deafened by the sound of contemptuous laughter from across the Channel as Europeans look on at the collection of dullards, chancers, fantasists and loons vying for the Tory party leadership.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,086

    Mr. W, on Twitter I've been blocked, to my knowledge, by two people.

    One was a civilised lefty fellow with whom I had polite (both sides) disagreements over video game thingummyjigs, and the blocking was quite a surprise. The other was a historical who was annoyed I pointed out Empress Irene might not be a great advert for International Women's Day, given she had her own son so brutally mutilated he died of his wounds (bit miffed he deleted the original tweet then reposted it, citing a 'grammatical error' for the reason...).

    I do agree the echo chamber is to be avoided. If one only wants to hear one's own view, one might as well chat to a mirror.

    I've used your comment about Irene "she could be said to be lacking in maternal sentiment" a number of times. It still makes me chuckle.
  • eekeek Posts: 5,795
    The first comment there is actually of interest (rare for most sites unlike here). What do we elect MPs to do - simply to reflect the opinion of the most vocal constituents or to do what the MP thinks is best for the constituency?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,777

    Mr. W, on Twitter I've been blocked, to my knowledge, by two people.

    One was a civilised lefty fellow with whom I had polite (both sides) disagreements over video game thingummyjigs, and the blocking was quite a surprise. The other was a historical who was annoyed I pointed out Empress Irene might not be a great advert for International Women's Day, given she had her own son so brutally mutilated he died of his wounds (bit miffed he deleted the original tweet then reposted it, citing a 'grammatical error' for the reason...).

    I do agree the echo chamber is to be avoided. If one only wants to hear one's own view, one might as well chat to a mirror.

    The "lefty" might have found your secret vice of theatrical street dancing and accordingly found this to be a Zionist trope of the most foul nature .....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,371
    Miss Cyclefree, hope you have a nice time, and no helicopters land on you.

    Mr. F, thanks. It did strike me as odd to single her out for praise.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,777
    Sean_F said:

    Mr. W, on Twitter I've been blocked, to my knowledge, by two people.

    One was a civilised lefty fellow with whom I had polite (both sides) disagreements over video game thingummyjigs, and the blocking was quite a surprise. The other was a historical who was annoyed I pointed out Empress Irene might not be a great advert for International Women's Day, given she had her own son so brutally mutilated he died of his wounds (bit miffed he deleted the original tweet then reposted it, citing a 'grammatical error' for the reason...).

    I do agree the echo chamber is to be avoided. If one only wants to hear one's own view, one might as well chat to a mirror.

    I've used your comment about Irene "she could be said to be lacking in maternal sentiment" a number of times. It still makes me chuckle.
    Not on the Leadsom wing of the party then ....
  • eekeek Posts: 5,795
    Cyclefree said:

    Morning all from a rainy NY.

    There was a forced landing of a helicopter yesterday on a building next to the one I’m due to be speaking in today. The incident messed up my evening plans so let’s hope nothing untoward happens today.

    I’m assuming you’re all being deafened by the sound of contemptuous laughter from across the Channel as Europeans look on at the collection of dullards, chancers, fantasists and loons vying for the Tory party leadership.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48585041
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 26,163
    How Italy's possible parallel currency may look, by one of the ideas driving forces. Mini-BOTs:

This discussion has been closed.