Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Boris Johnson Invites Himself to the Battle of Ipsus

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited August 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Boris Johnson Invites Himself to the Battle of Ipsus

After Alexander the Great died, his actual successors were a newborn baby and a half-brother who suffered learning difficulties. Unsurprisingly, his cadre of incredibly capable generals took real power and soon fell out, leading to the warring era of the Diadochi (Successors).

Read the full story here


«1345678

Comments

  • First like Le Clerc (this is also Brisky's tip for tomorrow at evens)
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    1st like Remain at the next Referendum
  • May would be Alexander the Great in this anaology???
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
  • I think Morris should get a thread every race weekend so we can all help out till he becomes a proper high-roller like me.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136

    1st like Remain at the next Referendum

    Rooting for you but unfortunately you were second
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469

    1st like Remain at the next Referendum

    Rooting for you but unfortunately you were second
    There's a Steward's enquiry at the moment.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    Mr Dancer

    I thought it was a foetus, not a newborn baby?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_IV_of_Macedon
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Excellent header, not least for its brevity.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    dr_spyn said:
    Wor Phil one of the only grown ups in the room.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469

    dr_spyn said:
    Wor Phil one of the only grown ups in the room.
    The Quiet Man ain't so quite now.
  • dr_spyn said:
    Wor Phil one of the only grown ups in the room.
    The big test is will he vote against the 3 line whip?
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572
    dr_spyn said:
    Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU will and has asked for the earth, so as to dissuade the UK from leaving, the outcome that both the EU and Hammond want. Johnson is right that the only circumstances where the EU could be brought to make a half reasonable offer (effective before or after we leave) is one where the UK renders unavoidable the default position that the EU fears. And yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    dr_spyn said:
    Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU will and has asked for the earth, so as to dissuade the UK from leaving, the outcome that both the EU and Hammond want. Johnson is right that the only circumstances where the EU could be brought to make a half reasonable offer (effective before or after we leave) is one where the UK renders unavoidable the default position that the EU fears. And yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
    No, Boris feels he can force the EU to change their mind.

    Hammond and others understand that the Backstop is not negotiable so we already have the best deal we can get.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    edited August 2019

    dr_spyn said:
    Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU will and has asked for the earth, so as to dissuade the UK from leaving, the outcome that both the EU and Hammond want. Johnson is right that the only circumstances where the EU could be brought to make a half reasonable offer (effective before or after we leave) is one where the UK renders unavoidable the default position that the EU fears. And yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
    Demonstrably untrue, as May’s deal did not concede “the earth”, however imperfect it might have been.

    And also Hammond voted for the deal, and therefore to leave. Unlike some of your heroes.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Since MPs have neither cancelled their holidays nor abandoned party conferences wheres the time shortage on "the most important issue of our generation" ?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    dr_spyn said:
    Hammond clearly doesn't care what Cummings might do. As I say, Cummings' strategy depends totally on people who hate his guts doing exactly what he wants them to do. It's a high risk strategy.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751

    dr_spyn said:
    Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU will and has asked for the earth, so as to dissuade the UK from leaving, the outcome that both the EU and Hammond want. Johnson is right that the only circumstances where the EU could be brought to make a half reasonable offer (effective before or after we leave) is one where the UK renders unavoidable the default position that the EU fears. And yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
    We've already got 'a half-decent deal,' far better than the one most of us expected and arguably better than the current arrangements.

    It's just dumbarse MPs on both sides keep voting against it, because they're thick and don't understand it, partly because they can't read it.

    Hammond, at least, did understand it and did vote for it, even though of all people he owed May no favours. So he's quite within his rights to blame everyone else for the mess we're in.

    With hindsight, it's a real pity he let May stand as the unity candidate.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Since MPs have neither cancelled their holidays nor abandoned party conferences wheres the time shortage on "the most important issue of our generation" ?

    Bercow is reportedly plotting from his sun-bed in Turkey.....
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572

    1st like Remain at the next Referendum

    Sounds like another referendum would be just like the last. Remain thinking they were first after their post had been cast, only for it to be revealed that they were second.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,009
    ydoethur said:

    Mr Dancer

    I thought it was a foetus, not a newborn baby?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_IV_of_Macedon

    I wish people would stop getting at Jo Swinson.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    If 30 remain Tories were deselected but perhaps 20 decided to stand as independents anyway, would that cost the Tories many (any) seats?

    If the Libdems and Greens had more imagination than they do, then they should promise not to contest any such seats, and invite any elected independent remain tories to sit with them without having to join the party or take the whip.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Mr Dancer

    I thought it was a foetus, not a newborn baby?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_IV_of_Macedon

    I wish people would stop getting at Jo Swinson.
    Perhaps you could set an example ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751

    Since MPs have neither cancelled their holidays nor abandoned party conferences wheres the time shortage on "the most important issue of our generation" ?

    Bercow is reportedly plotting from his sun-bed in Turkey.....
    An image I think this thread could have done without...
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Excellent header, not least for its brevity.

    @TheScreamingEagles - PM for you
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,398
    I think Mr Dancer's analogy works.

    The parliamentarians opposing No Deal are finally all talking to each other and appear to have the resolve to face down Bozo and his band of loons.

    Of course, they could still muck it up, and can we be sure that they really do have the numbers?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Doethur, no. The way I phrased it is correct, he was succeeded by a newborn and his half-brother, Philip Arrhidaeus[sp]. There was no in utero coronation, as happened with Shapur II of Persia.

    The birth had to be waited for, as if it had been a girl the sole successor would've been Alexander's half-brother.

    To be honest, you can make a semantic case either way, but obviously I prefer my version.

    Mr. Z, cheers. When I checked the word count I considered beefing it up, but I've never liked padding for the sake of it.

    Mr. Briskin, no. The Diadochi took power from the legitimate kings, Philip Arrhidaeus and Alexander's son of the same name.

    I wouldn't stretch the analogy that far, but if you wanted to then May would be either one of the actual successors rather than Alexander. [Likewise, Antigonus was an intelligent and capable man as were his adversaries. It was an age full of bold, ruthless, intelligent, brave leaders. In that regard, the antithesis of today].
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    fpt @Theuniondivvie

    Ah you know what I mean. The Scots will always enjoy winding up the English, and the reverse is true too.

    I'm English and I enjoy winding up the French too. The problem there is that they seem incapable of responding.

    The Germans are trickier to wind up., although when you manage it and they realise it then they are the most wonderful of fall-guys. If you get it wrong then it'll be tanks at dawn.

    The Italians are the best of all. You just get hugged whatever you do.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    Good thread, more like this please
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    Jimmy Carter once got rather tongue-twisted and instead of paying tribute to former Dem presidential nominee Hubert Horatio Humphrey paid it to Hubert Horatio Hornblower.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    I think Mr Dancer's analogy works.

    The parliamentarians opposing No Deal are finally all talking to each other and appear to have the resolve to face down Bozo and his band of loons.

    Of course, they could still muck it up, and can we be sure that they really do have the numbers?

    given it has taken them three years to get to first base have they got enough time ?
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,211
    I can't imagine Philip Hammond won't be asked whether he would vote for a VONC at his re-selection meeting at next week's R&W Executive Council. If he doesn't rule that out, I would expect him to be the first very prominent victim of the new regime.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Thanks for the thread, Comrade Dancer.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,398

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Excellent header, not least for its brevity.

    @TheScreamingEagles - PM for you
    What? Bozo is on the phone asking for TSE?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Tokyo, thanks, but this is only me second article (wrote one last year as well). So, maybe I'll write another in 2020 :p
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited August 2019
    Mr. Brooke, time works both ways. Sometimes pressure can drive people together rather than apart.

    As some might say, the more you tighten your grip, the more votes slip through your fingers.

    Edited extra bit: thanks, Mr. D.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    eek said:

    dr_spyn said:
    Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU will and has asked for the earth, so as to dissuade the UK from leaving, the outcome that both the EU and Hammond want. Johnson is right that the only circumstances where the EU could be brought to make a half reasonable offer (effective before or after we leave) is one where the UK renders unavoidable the default position that the EU fears. And yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
    No, Boris feels he can force the EU to change their mind.

    Hammond and others understand that the Backstop is not negotiable so we already have the best deal we can get.
    You have to feel a bit sorry for Phil. I mea, after well over three years of masterful collaboration between the UK Establishment and the EU, they thought they had effectively emascualted the vote to Leave the EU.

    And then Boris comes along. And smashes up their well-crafted deception on the voters.

    Grrrr.... If it hadn't been for that pesky kid....

    Now Phil has to make a choice. Keep with the deception - and lose his cushy seat. Or see Boris win.

    Grrr......
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited August 2019
    At this point, I’d like to declare a new law of political discourse, possibly “Hague’s Law” in honour of Kevin Hague, serial entrepreneur, chair of the pro-Union think tank These Islands, GERS obsessive, and scourge of the Twitter cybernats. This law says that:

    As an online discussion on Scottish independence grows longer, the probability that the pro-Union participants will be accused of believing Scotland to be “too wee, too poor, too stupid to be independent” approaches one.

    It doesn’t matter whether you’ve said anything of the sort. You’re just accused of being dismissive of Scotland, regardless of whether you’re Scottish yourself, and therefore anything that you might have had the temerity to present as “facts” are questionable due to your motivations.


    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/ruth-davidsons-departure-doesnt-mean-the-end-of-the-union/
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited August 2019
    JohnO said:

    I can't imagine Philip Hammond won't be asked whether he would vote for a VONC at his re-selection meeting at next week's R&W Executive Council. If he doesn't rule that out, I would expect him to be the first very prominent victim of the new regime.

    This underlines the weirdness of the threat though. Wouldn't you rather be ostentatiously sacked by a widely-disliked central apparatchik than politely shown the door by your own members? If you're thinking about running as an independent or a LibDem then it's a *way* better story.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "The truth about hate speech
    The Blair Institute unwittingly reveals the difficulty of defining extremism
    Douglas Murray"

    https://unherd.com/2019/08/the-truth-about-hate-speech/
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,009

    eek said:

    dr_spyn said:
    Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU will and has asked for the earth, so as to dissuade the UK from leaving, the outcome that both the EU and Hammond want. Johnson is right that the only circumstances where the EU could be brought to make a half reasonable offer (effective before or after we leave) is one where the UK renders unavoidable the default position that the EU fears. And yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
    No, Boris feels he can force the EU to change their mind.

    Hammond and others understand that the Backstop is not negotiable so we already have the best deal we can get.
    You have to feel a bit sorry for Phil. I mea, after well over three years of masterful collaboration between the UK Establishment and the EU, they thought they had effectively emascualted the vote to Leave the EU.

    And then Boris comes along. And smashes up their well-crafted deception on the voters.

    Grrrr.... If it hadn't been for that pesky kid....

    Now Phil has to make a choice. Keep with the deception - and lose his cushy seat. Or see Boris win.

    Grrr......
    How can people function from day to day with such a level of delusionality?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    RobD said:

    Thanks for the thread, Comrade Dancer.

    +1
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688

    Mr. Tokyo, thanks, but this is only me second article (wrote one last year as well). So, maybe I'll write another in 2020 :p

    MD, I think you should write more such headers. I think this is very good.

    It feels like there's a little shoe-horning going on though. Draw the parallels but then don't feel constrained by them. I don't know how you might do that.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Average of polls published since 20th August, (six in total):

    Con 32.5%
    Lab 22.8%
    LD 18.8%
    BRX 13.5%
    Greens 6.0%
    SNP 4.2%

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2019
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    I think Mr Dancer's analogy works.

    The parliamentarians opposing No Deal are finally all talking to each other and appear to have the resolve to face down Bozo and his band of loons.

    Of course, they could still muck it up, and can we be sure that they really do have the numbers?

    It's still very far from certain that the opposition to No Deal can assemble the numbers behind any *effective* course of action. I continue to maintain that the only certain way to beat Johnson is both to no confidence him AND replace him with Corbyn, for there is no other alternative candidate for PM with any chance of securing majority backing. And the obstacles to an outright majority of MPs swallowing their reservations and putting Corbyn into power are considerable.

    There may also still be time to legislate to force Boris Johnson to seek an extension, but that prompts two further questions: what sanctions can be imposed if he flat refuses to ask for one? And, even if he does, what happens next if the EU27 say no?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Mr. Brooke, time works both ways. Sometimes pressure can drive people together rather than apart.

    As some might say, the more you tighten your grip, the more votes slip through your fingers.

    Edited extra bit: thanks, Mr. D.

    certainly Mr D

    but given there is as yet no clarity among Team Remain, they have a lot of work to do in a short period of time.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572
    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:
    Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU will and has asked for the earth, so as to dissuade the UK from leaving, the outcome that both the EU and Hammond want. Johnson is right that the only circumstances where the EU could be brought to make a half reasonable offer (effective before or after we leave) is one where the UK renders unavoidable the default position that the EU fears. And yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
    We've already got 'a half-decent deal,' far better than the one most of us expected and arguably better than the current arrangements.

    It's just dumbarse MPs on both sides keep voting against it, because they're thick and don't understand it, partly because they can't read it.

    Hammond, at least, did understand it and did vote for it, even though of all people he owed May no favours. So he's quite within his rights to blame everyone else for the mess we're in.

    With hindsight, it's a real pity he let May stand as the unity candidate.
    OK, we have to differ on whether it's half decent. I think that it really is reducing the UK to vassal status and is worse than staying in. Let's just agree to differ for now.

    If efforts of parliamentary remainers to block Johnson come to nothing, the EU is I think prepared to offer something better, should it become apparent that the UK will leave with no deal. It will reserve its best offer only for circumstances where Johnson had won a GE held immediately after the UK had already left. Until that point, concessions on their current "offer" would only boost Johnson's chances at the GE. I think that their ultimate contingency plan is to try and bend the rules to offer the UK the opportunity to rejoin immediately on exactly the same terms as we left should a GE result in a change of government. The EU will probably offer nothing until then for fear of boosting Johnson's chances of winning that GE, should it consider that the outcome of that GE is in the balance.
  • Scotland's Shame tomorrow, but I don't like to censor so here you go-

    Rangers 2.44
    Celtic 3.1
    Draw 3.45

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.161785598
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Looking at the sorry performance of the House of Commons elected in 2017, it is difficult to avoid remembering Winston Churchill’s condemnation of the parliaments of the 1930s as being “decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent”. Parliament has shown itself not to be the solution to Brexit but the problem.

    • Vernon Bogdanor is professor of government at King’s College London


    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/29/parliament-brexit-prorogue-mps-alternative-no-deal?CMP=share_btn_tw
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454

    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:
    Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU will and has asked for the earth, so as to dissuade the UK from leaving, the outcome that both the EU and Hammond want. Johnson is right that the only circumstances where the EU could be brought to make a half reasonable offer (effective before or after we leave) is one where the UK renders unavoidable the default position that the EU fears. And yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
    We've already got 'a half-decent deal,' far better than the one most of us expected and arguably better than the current arrangements.

    It's just dumbarse MPs on both sides keep voting against it, because they're thick and don't understand it, partly because they can't read it.

    Hammond, at least, did understand it and did vote for it, even though of all people he owed May no favours. So he's quite within his rights to blame everyone else for the mess we're in.

    With hindsight, it's a real pity he let May stand as the unity candidate.
    OK, we have to differ on whether it's half decent. I think that it really is reducing the UK to vassal status and is worse than staying in. Let's just agree to differ for now.

    If efforts of parliamentary remainers to block Johnson come to nothing, the EU is I think prepared to offer something better, should it become apparent that the UK will leave with no deal. It will reserve its best offer only for circumstances where Johnson had won a GE held immediately after the UK had already left. Until that point, concessions on their current "offer" would only boost Johnson's chances at the GE. I think that their ultimate contingency plan is to try and bend the rules to offer the UK the opportunity to rejoin immediately on exactly the same terms as we left should a GE result in a change of government. The EU will probably offer nothing until then for fear of boosting Johnson's chances of winning that GE, should it consider that the outcome of that GE is in the balance.
    How on earth can the EU offer its best deal after we have left when that deal has to go through 27 national parliaments plus a few regional ones, all of whom will have their own special interests and national electorates to cater for?

    We get a far better deal negotiating with the main EU team, with every indication the heads of govt and EU parliament are happy to rubber stamp whatever they agree.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545

    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:
    Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU will and has asked for the earth, so as to dissuade the UK from leaving, the outcome that both the EU and Hammond want. Johnson is right that the only circumstances where the EU could be brought to make a half reasonable offer (effective before or after we leave) is one where the UK renders unavoidable the default position that the EU fears. And yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
    We've already got 'a half-decent deal,' far better than the one most of us expected and arguably better than the current arrangements.

    It's just dumbarse MPs on both sides keep voting against it, because they're thick and don't understand it, partly because they can't read it.

    Hammond, at least, did understand it and did vote for it, even though of all people he owed May no favours. So he's quite within his rights to blame everyone else for the mess we're in.

    With hindsight, it's a real pity he let May stand as the unity candidate.
    OK, we have to differ on whether it's half decent. I think that it really is reducing the UK to vassal status and is worse than staying in. Let's just agree to differ for now.

    If efforts of parliamentary remainers to block Johnson come to nothing, the EU is I think prepared to offer something better, should it become apparent that the UK will leave with no deal. It will reserve its best offer only for circumstances where Johnson had won a GE held immediately after the UK had already left. Until that point, concessions on their current "offer" would only boost Johnson's chances at the GE. I think that their ultimate contingency plan is to try and bend the rules to offer the UK the opportunity to rejoin immediately on exactly the same terms as we left should a GE result in a change of government. The EU will probably offer nothing until then for fear of boosting Johnson's chances of winning that GE, should it consider that the outcome of that GE is in the balance.
    Any deal is about negotiating worse terms than we already have, in a managed way. It's why no-one is engaged or realistic. Leavers aren't prepared to admit it is necessarily a downgrade while Remainers don't want to be part of the downgrade.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    At this point, I’d like to declare a new law of political discourse, possibly “Hague’s Law” in honour of Kevin Hague, serial entrepreneur, chair of the pro-Union think tank These Islands, GERS obsessive, and scourge of the Twitter cybernats. This law says that:

    As an online discussion on Scottish independence grows longer, the probability that the pro-Union participants will be accused of believing Scotland to be “too wee, too poor, too stupid to be independent” approaches one.

    It doesn’t matter whether you’ve said anything of the sort. You’re just accused of being dismissive of Scotland, regardless of whether you’re Scottish yourself, and therefore anything that you might have had the temerity to present as “facts” are questionable due to your motivations.


    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/ruth-davidsons-departure-doesnt-mean-the-end-of-the-union/

    No, Ruth Davidson's departure doesn't mean the end of the Union. It's already clinically dead. At least a third of the Scottish population are now dyed-in-the-wool nationalists who are desperate to be rid of the UK, and most of the rest are sticking to nurse for fear of something worse.

    Scotland only voted no to independence in 2014 because a sufficient segment of public opinion was frightened that it would impact Government spending and result in cuts to public services and/or tax hikes. If Scotland were in surplus relative to the rest of the UK, in the same way as Catalonia is within Spain, there would have been a stampede for the exit door.

    The British state is finished. It's simply a matter of time.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,398
    Have Bozo or Moggster given any indication of when parliament might get to debate and vote on their super improved Brexit deal?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:
    Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU will and has asked for the earth, so as to dissuade the UK from leaving, the outcome that both the EU and Hammond want. Johnson is right that the only circumstances where the EU could be brought to make a half reasonable offer (effective before or after we leave) is one where the UK renders unavoidable the default position that the EU fears. And yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
    We've already got 'a half-decent deal,' far better than the one most of us expected and arguably better than the current arrangements.

    It's just dumbarse MPs on both sides keep voting against it, because they're thick and don't understand it, partly because they can't read it.

    Hammond, at least, did understand it and did vote for it, even though of all people he owed May no favours. So he's quite within his rights to blame everyone else for the mess we're in.

    With hindsight, it's a real pity he let May stand as the unity candidate.
    OK, we have to differ on whether it's half decent. I think that it really is reducing the UK to vassal status and is worse than staying in. Let's just agree to differ for now.

    If efforts of parliamentary remainers to block Johnson come to nothing, the EU is I think prepared to offer something better, should it become apparent that the UK will leave with no deal. It will reserve its best offer only for circumstances where Johnson had won a GE held immediately after the UK had already left. Until that point, concessions on their current "offer" would only boost Johnson's chances at the GE. I think that their ultimate contingency plan is to try and bend the rules to offer the UK the opportunity to rejoin immediately on exactly the same terms as we left should a GE result in a change of government. The EU will probably offer nothing until then for fear of boosting Johnson's chances of winning that GE, should it consider that the outcome of that GE is in the balance.
    Any deal is about negotiating worse terms than we already have, in a managed way. It's why no-one is engaged or realistic. Leavers aren't prepared to admit it is necessarily a downgrade while Remainers don't want to be part of the downgrade.
    One of those positions is reasonably rational.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    Have Bozo or Moggster given any indication of when parliament might get to debate and vote on their super improved Brexit deal?

    They could always make time by cancelling the Queen’s Speech...
  • Have Bozo or Moggster given any indication of when parliament might get to debate and vote on their super improved Brexit deal?

    Boris said their would be "amble time" before, during and after the "crucial EU Summit on the 17th Oct"
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Scott_P said:
    But will he be one of them or does he want others to do the dirty work for him...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Thanks, Miss Vance and Mr. Omnium.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    A good header, MD.
    I’ll have to think about whether the various opposition factions are all facing ‘certain death’, though. Off for a walk to cllear my head.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,398

    Have Bozo or Moggster given any indication of when parliament might get to debate and vote on their super improved Brexit deal?

    Boris said their would be "amble time" before, during and after the "crucial EU Summit on the 17th Oct"
    So just his usual bullshit and bluster.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    Has Rory been reselected?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Have Bozo or Moggster given any indication of when parliament might get to debate and vote on their super improved Brexit deal?

    At 22:30 on October 31st.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Looking at the sorry performance of the House of Commons elected in 2017, it is difficult to avoid remembering Winston Churchill’s condemnation of the parliaments of the 1930s as being “decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent”. Parliament has shown itself not to be the solution to Brexit but the problem.

    • Vernon Bogdanor is professor of government at King’s College London


    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/29/parliament-brexit-prorogue-mps-alternative-no-deal?CMP=share_btn_tw

    Well quite. I said this back during the run up to the originally scheduled Leave date and the whole farrago with the indicative votes, and the same thing holds true now: Parliament has had years to come up with some resolution, any resolution at all, to Brexit that can command majority support. If it can find such a solution then it should implement it, and if it cannot then it should vote for its own dissolution so that it can be replaced.

    A newly-elected Parliament might become deadlocked itself, but it is likely that it will contain a majority either to leave come-what-may or to use one mechanism or another the stay in, and even if it somehow does reach stalemate again then we'd still be no worse off than we are now.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,009
    Scott_P said:
    I don't think a dozen will be enough. If it were a question of a simple vote, maybe, but it's not.

    The striking thing is that if Stewart's estimate is true, 95% of Tory MPs have fallen into line behind this suicidal policy.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    But will he be one of them or does he want others to do the dirty work for him...
    He says he will in the clip...
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981
    FF43 said:

    Any deal is about negotiating worse terms than we already have, in a managed way. It's why no-one is engaged or realistic. Leavers aren't prepared to admit it is necessarily a downgrade while Remainers don't want to be part of the downgrade.

    ^^^ This :+1:
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458

    Have Bozo or Moggster given any indication of when parliament might get to debate and vote on their super improved Brexit deal?

    Boris said their would be "amble time" before, during and after the "crucial EU Summit on the 17th Oct"
    With all this going on he also has time for a leisurely walk?
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    Antigonus was an intelligent and capable man as were his adversaries. It was an age full of bold, ruthless, intelligent, brave leaders. In that regard, the antithesis of today].

    Are you not being just a little bit unfair to Mr Cummings, who I am sure has all of these qualities?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:
    Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU will and has asked for the earth, so as to dissuade the UK from leaving, the outcome that both the EU and Hammond want. Johnson is right that the only circumstances where the EU could be brought to make a half reasonable offer (effective before or after we leave) is one where the UK renders unavoidable the default position that the EU fears. And yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
    We've already got 'a half-decent deal,' far better than the one most of us expected and arguably better than the current arrangements.

    It's just dumbarse MPs on both sides keep voting against it, because they're thick and don't understand it, partly because they can't read it.

    Hammond, at least, did understand it and did vote for it, even though of all people he owed May no favours. So he's quite within his rights to blame everyone else for the mess we're in.

    With hindsight, it's a real pity he let May stand as the unity candidate.
    OK, we have to differ on whether it's half decent. I think that it really is reducing the UK to vassal status and is worse than staying in. Let's just agree to differ for now.

    If efforts of parliamentary remainers to block Johnson come to nothing, the EU is I think prepared to offer something better, should it become apparent that the UK will leave with no deal. It will reserve its best offer only for circumstances where Johnson had won a GE held immediately after the UK had already left. Until that point, concessions on their current "offer" would only boost Johnson's chances at the GE. I think that their ultimate contingency plan is to try and bend the rules to offer the UK the opportunity to rejoin immediately on exactly the same terms as we left should a GE result in a change of government. The EU will probably offer nothing until then for fear of boosting Johnson's chances of winning that GE, should it consider that the outcome of that GE is in the balance.
    Any deal is about negotiating worse terms than we already have, in a managed way. It's why no-one is engaged or realistic. Leavers aren't prepared to admit it is necessarily a downgrade while Remainers don't want to be part of the downgrade.
    Succintly put and spot on.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    Expectation management from our Rory.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,342
    Good article. But will the anti-Boris people find a cunning plan which is pro something instead of against something?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:
    Hammond considers that the only route the UK can leave is by asking the EU to name their price, in the knowledge that in those circumstances the EU will and has asked for the earth, so as to dissuade the UK from leaving, the outcome that both the EU and Hammond want. Johnson is right that the only circumstances where the EU could be brought to make a half reasonable offer (effective before or after we leave) is one where the UK renders unavoidable the default position that the EU fears. And yet Hammond claims that his efforts to undermine the UK's leverage are made in the name of delivering Brexit!
    We've already got 'a half-decent deal,' far better than the one most of us expected and arguably better than the current arrangements.

    It's just dumbarse MPs on both sides keep voting against it, because they're thick and don't understand it, partly because they can't read it.

    Hammond, at least, did understand it and did vote for it, even though of all people he owed May no favours. So he's quite within his rights to blame everyone else for the mess we're in.

    With hindsight, it's a real pity he let May stand as the unity candidate.
    OK, we have to differ on whether it's half decent. I think that it really is reducing the UK to vassal status and is worse than staying in. Let's just agree to differ for now.

    If efforts of parliamentary remainers to block Johnson come to nothing, the EU is I think prepared to offer something better, should it become apparent that the UK will leave with no deal. It will reserve its best offer only for circumstances where Johnson had won a GE held immediately after the UK had already left. Until that point, concessions on their current "offer" would only boost Johnson's chances at the GE. I think that their ultimate contingency plan is to try and bend the rules to offer the UK the opportunity to rejoin immediately on exactly the same terms as we left should a GE result in a change of government. The EU will probably offer nothing until then for fear of boosting Johnson's chances of winning that GE, should it consider that the outcome of that GE is in the balance.
    Any deal is about negotiating worse terms than we already have, in a managed way. It's why no-one is engaged or realistic. Leavers aren't prepared to admit it is necessarily a downgrade while Remainers don't want to be part of the downgrade.
    One of those positions is reasonably rational.
    Both positions are somewhat rational. Neither is helpful or in the interests of the country.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,342
    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    But will he be one of them or does he want others to do the dirty work for him...
    Again and again, it's about being anti something. What are they united in favour of?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    But will he be one of them or does he want others to do the dirty work for him...
    Again and again, it's about being anti something. What are they united in favour of?
    keeping their salaries until 2022.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:


    Any deal is about negotiating worse terms than we already have, in a managed way. It's why no-one is engaged or realistic. Leavers aren't prepared to admit it is necessarily a downgrade while Remainers don't want to be part of the downgrade.

    One of those positions is reasonably rational.
    I think you can make a rational case that if the UK has decided to leave the EU, it should be done with the least damage possible. That would lead to the "Vassal State" Wilfrun objects to. But if he thinks respecting the vote is paramount, the Vassal State does respect that requirement.

    Anyway, I think we will end up as a Vassal State of the EU - it's a loaded term really. And as William Glenn pointed out in the last thread, I am getting less confident that the "we" will include me in Scotland.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572
    edited August 2019


    OK, we have to differ on whether it's half decent. I think that it really is reducing the UK to vassal status and is worse than staying in. Let's just agree to differ for now.

    If efforts of parliamentary remainers to block Johnson come to nothing, the EU is I think prepared to offer something better, should it become apparent that the UK will leave with no deal. It will reserve its best offer only for circumstances where Johnson had won a GE held immediately after the UK had already left. Until that point, concessions on their current "offer" would only boost Johnson's chances at the GE. I think that their ultimate contingency plan is to try and bend the rules to offer the UK the opportunity to rejoin immediately on exactly the same terms as we left should a GE result in a change of government. The EU will probably offer nothing until then for fear of boosting Johnson's chances of winning that GE, should it consider that the outcome of that GE is in the balance.

    How on earth can the EU offer its best deal after we have left when that deal has to go through 27 national parliaments plus a few regional ones, all of whom will have their own special interests and national electorates to cater for?

    We get a far better deal negotiating with the main EU team, with every indication the heads of govt and EU parliament are happy to rubber stamp whatever they agree.
    Money talks. The extra bills would have been served on every one of those 27 governments. They never at any stage thought that they would between them have all to pay something extra totalling of the order of £12 billion per annum in additional budget contributions to make up for those lost from the UK, on top of all the other ways that UK membership is to their advantage. Until the last month the EU has been operating on the basis that the UK would either accept the withdrawal agreement (maintaining our contributions) or ultimately revoke and what it has been prepared to offer has been constrained thus.

    I fully concede that if before we have left the EU feels that the the UK leaving is inevitable and that there is little prospect of a pro-EU UK government taking over at the GE, then with that in prospect a sub-optimal offer might be dangled before Johnson before the UK had left. Even if Johnson thought that the EU might well be willing to offer more, he would be tempted to take up triumphantly a pre-election offer that would boost his majority further.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    But will he be one of them or does he want others to do the dirty work for him...
    Again and again, it's about being anti something. What are they united in favour of?
    Banning pineapple on pizza.

    Oh, that's still being anti.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    algarkirk said:

    Good article. But will the anti-Boris people find a cunning plan which is pro something instead of against something?

    QTWTAIN

    They want to force the Government to ask for an extension so that they can keep talking. I think the general idea is that...

    1. So long as we keep asking for extensions and having Parliamentary debates that never reach a resolution, we don't leave the EU
    2. When the Remainers get to 2022, they intend to ape the Long Parliament and simply vote to keep themselves in office for the duration. Thus, they can carry on debating Brexit forever and the country remains in the EU forever

    We may have to wait until a sufficient proportion of the Commons have died of old age and been replaced by people of differing opinions in by-elections for a majority to be created for any one course of action. Perhaps in the year 2064 or something like that? Who knows?
  • kjh said:

    Have Bozo or Moggster given any indication of when parliament might get to debate and vote on their super improved Brexit deal?

    Boris said their would be "amble time" before, during and after the "crucial EU Summit on the 17th Oct"
    With all this going on he also has time for a leisurely walk?
    very good - it's a typo. And since we're being all precise nowadays I think the second part of the quote may have came from the media as opposed to him although he did mention the 17th Oct
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    But will he be one of them or does he want others to do the dirty work for him...
    Again and again, it's about being anti something. What are they united in favour of?
    They do not pretend to be in favour of one thing (apart from blocking no deal).

    In a completely free vote the indicative votes suggest there is a majority in parliament for leaving the EU and staying in the customs union and single market.

    A govt actually wanting to leave (as opposed to Boris wanting someone else to extend for him) could either do that, or get a deal vs remain referendum through the commons if it whipped for it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Anyway, I must be off. Thanks to anyone who said nice things but who I missed before.

    F1 pre-race ramble will be up tomorrow morning.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    edited August 2019
    JohnO said:

    I can't imagine Philip Hammond won't be asked whether he would vote for a VONC at his re-selection meeting at next week's R&W Executive Council. If he doesn't rule that out, I would expect him to be the first very prominent victim of the new regime.

    Hammond can rule out voting VONC and still vote for an extension to Article 50, absent a deal. I don't know Hammond but he doesn't sound like a person who vote no confidence in his own party. I think MPs are going down the extension route precisely to get otherwise loyal Conservatives on board.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,912
    algarkirk said:

    Good article. But will the anti-Boris people find a cunning plan which is pro something instead of against something?

    Labour's policy is to negotiate a different deal based on different red lines and put it to the electorate in a referendum. To get there they want to legislate to prevent no deal and hold a general election that they want to win so they are in a position to negotiate a different deal. This plan is not particularly cunning but it is definitely one with its own defined objective and is not simply about saying no.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454


    .

    If efforts of parliamentary remainers to block Johnson come to nothing, the EU is I think prepared to offer something better, should it become apparent that the UK will leave with no deal. It will reserve its best offer only for circumstances where Johnson had won a GE held immediately after the UK had already left. Until that point, concessions on their current "offer" would only boost Johnson's chances at the GE. I think that their ultimate contingency plan is to try and bend the rules to offer the UK the opportunity to rejoin immediately on exactly the same terms as we left should a GE result in a change of government. The EU will probably offer nothing until then for fear of boosting Johnson's chances of winning that GE, should it consider that the outcome of that GE is in the balance.

    How on earth can the EU offer its best deal after we have left when that deal has to go through 27 national parliaments plus a few regional ones, all of whom will have their own special interests and national electorates to cater for?

    We get a far better deal negotiating with the main EU team, with every indication the heads of govt and EU parliament are happy to rubber stamp whatever they agree.
    Money talks. The extra bills would have been served on every one of those 27 governments. They never at any stage thought that they would between them have all to pay something extra totalling of the order of £12 billion per annum in additional budget contributions to make up for those lost from the UK, on top of all the other ways that UK membership is to their advantage. Until the last month the EU has been operating on the basis that the UK would either accept the withdrawal agreement (maintaining our contributions) or ultimately revoke and what it has been prepared to offer has been constrained thus.

    I fully concede that if before we have left the EU feels that the the UK leaving is inevitable and that there is little prospect of a pro-EU UK government taking over at the GE, then with that in prospect a sub-optimal offer might be dangled before Johnson before the UK had left. Even if Johnson thought that the EU might well be willing to offer more, he would be tempted to take up triumphantly a pre-election offer that would boost his majority further.
    If money talks you would have 27 govts arguing over who pays what and wanting concessions from each other before signing anything. We have seen how difficult it is to pass one parliament. Passing 27 parliaments involving issues like Gibraltar, fishing, Ireland will be an absolute nightmare.

    Nothing our politicians have done suggest they would have any chance whatsoever.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    @Wulfrun_Phil money won’t get in the way of the EU project. You are delusional. We’ll be a small island off the coast of a superpower.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited August 2019
    FPT


    What we don't know here is how far the Lab/LD vote varies by constituency (both for demographic/traditional reasons and deliberate tactical voting). 43-45% (46-50% with Greens) would be a scary bloc for the Tories if they all concentrated in each seat, which of course they won't. But that 7-11% lead is not what it seems, unless the Tories are lucky enough that Lab and LD voters split exactly equally in every seat.

    The same applies to the BXP vote, as you say, though it seems fairly sticky - what on earth does Johnson have to do to squeeze it down to 5??

    The polls seem to have stabilised somewhat.
    The EMA has Con 31%, Lab 24%, LD 19%, BXP 14% and Grn 6%.

    I have built a detailed constituency model that uses the above shares and calculates an arithmetical swing (UNS) and a multiplicative swing and allows a mix of both so I can do sensitivity runs with different mixtures.

    For tactical voting I can assume different % of Lab or LD tactical voters with different trigger points for each constituency. I use a different model for Green Party tactical voting. Again I can do sensitivity runs.

    My conclusion is that tactical voting could add about 30 seats to Labour and about 10 seats to the LibDems. Green Party tactical voting could account for half of that.

    Using a mix of 75% additive(UNS) and 25% multiplicative I get

    Con+BXP 291
    Lab 235
    LD 50
    SNP 51

    i.e. a Labour minority government. This assumes that the Tories run on a manifesto of new Deal or No Deal and are opposed by BXP.

    If Farage disbands the BXP (in return for a Tory No Deal manifesto and US Ambassador for himself?) and the 14% BXP vote splits 6% to Tories, 3% to Lab and 5% to NV then the seats become:

    Con 309
    Lab 232
    LD 39
    SNP 51

    Again a Labour minority government (just).

    Overall conclusion: This is currently too close to call.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    At this point, I’d like to declare a new law of political discourse, possibly “Hague’s Law” in honour of Kevin Hague, serial entrepreneur, chair of the pro-Union think tank These Islands, GERS obsessive, and scourge of the Twitter cybernats. This law says that:

    As an online discussion on Scottish independence grows longer, the probability that the pro-Union participants will be accused of believing Scotland to be “too wee, too poor, too stupid to be independent” approaches one.

    It doesn’t matter whether you’ve said anything of the sort. You’re just accused of being dismissive of Scotland, regardless of whether you’re Scottish yourself, and therefore anything that you might have had the temerity to present as “facts” are questionable due to your motivations.


    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/ruth-davidsons-departure-doesnt-mean-the-end-of-the-union/

    The British state is finished. It's simply a matter of time.
    Until the SNP government can come up with a realistic plan for how they are going to bridge the gap in funding needs running public services for 8% of the UK's population in nearly a third of its land mass (which accounts for the lion's share of the "deficit" vs rUK) then they will have an uphill struggle. Scotland has:

    38 of the 59 most populated islands in the UK; It has an average population density one-sixth that of England. Scotland’s population is extremely thinly spread.

    This has an obvious implication for transport in particular. Scotland has around 22 per cent by mileage of Great Britain’s trunk roads and 18 per cent of its railway network. Rail subsidy per journey in Scotland is £6.14 compared to £1.79 in England. The Scottish government also needs to purchase and operate ferries* to serve the island populations.


    *And the shipyard that builds them.....
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    At this point, I’d like to declare a new law of political discourse, possibly “Hague’s Law” in honour of Kevin Hague, serial entrepreneur, chair of the pro-Union think tank These Islands, GERS obsessive, and scourge of the Twitter cybernats. This law says that:

    As an online discussion on Scottish independence grows longer, the probability that the pro-Union participants will be accused of believing Scotland to be “too wee, too poor, too stupid to be independent” approaches one.

    It doesn’t matter whether you’ve said anything of the sort. You’re just accused of being dismissive of Scotland, regardless of whether you’re Scottish yourself, and therefore anything that you might have had the temerity to present as “facts” are questionable due to your motivations.


    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/ruth-davidsons-departure-doesnt-mean-the-end-of-the-union/

    Ha Ha Ha the hapless dog food salesman, is he bankrupt yet. Unionists are in real trouble when that is the best they have , the man is a moron. Hew would not recognise a fact if he tripped over it.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    algarkirk said:

    Good article. But will the anti-Boris people find a cunning plan which is pro something instead of against something?

    Labour's policy is to negotiate a different deal based on different red lines and put it to the electorate in a referendum. To get there they want to legislate to prevent no deal and hold a general election that they want to win so they are in a position to negotiate a different deal. This plan is not particularly cunning but it is definitely one with its own defined objective and is not simply about saying no.
    Nah

    Labours policy when May was PM was to block a deal and see if they could force a GE. Now that they screwed up at the Euros and revived the ghosts of Nick Clegg their policy is to avoid a GE at any cost as they think they will lose.
  • Scotland's Shame tomorrow, but I don't like to censor so here you go-

    Rangers 2.44
    Celtic 3.1
    Draw 3.45

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.161785598

    I'm not going to watch Scotland's Shame but I couldn't resist one of the prices on offer there. I'd have given it the treatment but Ms Brisk has vetoed groundlessly (I used to have a stupid little theory about betting to make the match more interesting to watch which she's unwilling to let go of).

    I do suggest you go large though.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458

    kjh said:

    Have Bozo or Moggster given any indication of when parliament might get to debate and vote on their super improved Brexit deal?

    Boris said their would be "amble time" before, during and after the "crucial EU Summit on the 17th Oct"
    With all this going on he also has time for a leisurely walk?
    very good - it's a typo. And since we're being all precise nowadays I think the second part of the quote may have came from the media as opposed to him although he did mention the 17th Oct
    I know I just couldn't resist. Not often I can think up a pun.
  • This site is nowadays astro-turfed with articles with the monotonously same message ("BoJo is a moron", "Brexit is madness", "Leavers are morons, idiots or worse", "Farage is fascist" " "The tories will be defeated" etc etc etc...). The trouble with this is that eventually they lose the power either to persuade or influence.


    Our eventual departure from the EU and a BoJo victory at the next election is going to come as a nasty shock to many here..
This discussion has been closed.