Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The front pages after Johnson’s big conference speech

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited October 3 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The front pages after Johnson’s big conference speech

Surprisingly the two biggest circulation and arguably most influential politically papers, the Mail and the Sun, do not make in their lead. The former ignores it completely on its front page. Quite what we can read into that I don’t know.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,995
    First, unlike Bozo.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,026
    Do any of the papers other than the Mirror, which is critical, lead on Boris's speech, as opposed to Brexit progress?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,200
    india and Pakistan now have the capability to subject us to nuclear winter, should they decide to immolate each other:
    https://phys.org/news/2019-10-india-pakistan-nuclear-war-millions-threaten.html
  • RobDRobD Posts: 39,126
    Nigelb said:

    india and Pakistan now have the capability to subject us to nuclear winter, should they decide to immolate each other:
    https://phys.org/news/2019-10-india-pakistan-nuclear-war-millions-threaten.html

    Look on the plus side, Greta won't have to lecture us about global warming.
  • The Mail and the Sun, the two print papers that still matter, are startling in more or less ignoring Boris' speech. The PM's conference speech is arguably the preplanned highlight of the political year and it was more or less written for those two news papers. Yet the Mail actively snubs Boris by giving it's lead to another cabinet minister. Very odd.

    The Metro, which is the UK's most read paper , is rather neutral in my view. It gives Boris a platform certainly but rather potrays him as writing a break up letter to a partner. Ouch.

    What to read into it ? That readers are bored ? That Murdoch/Rothermere know Boris is finished ? Coincidence ? I don't know but it is quite odd.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,381
    For a second I skim-read that Express one as "Boris: Is this the beginning of the end", guess it's the big picture of him then the B R I S
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,022
    edited October 3
    FPT
    nico67 said:

    nichomar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Different tone from Blackford today on remain tactics. Nicola has obviously got in his ear and reminded him it's not some weird parlour game where you get to tell PADFIELD at Johnson as he finds some weird route round the Benn act

    PADFIELD ?
    It’s a very famous law case from I think 1968 which cemented parliamentary sovereignty. Effectively courts can’t overturn laws made by parliament . At best you might get interpretation but they will not suspend the Benn Act .

    Not sure "courts can't overturn laws made by parliament" is quite getting to the heart of the Padfield principle. From memory, nobody in the Padfield was asking for an act to be overturned or suspended - that would have been an odd thing to try for, since at the time the idea that primary legislation could not be overturned by the courts was long-established. In fact it has become more normal for courts to "disapply" statutes, where the primacy of EU law applies - the extent to which the principle of disapplication might continue in a post-Brexit environment is a subject of some academic interest.

    The Padfield principle is basically (my paraphrase, largely from memory, I Am Not A Law Textbook) "just because a Minister has discretion under an Act of Parliament, doesn't mean that they can use that discretion any which way they like - in particular, (1) they can't do something cheeky that subverts the whole point of the Act then claim 'I'm allowed to do it because the Act grants me discretion in how to apply it and my decision was to apply it thusly', (2) if they try to pull a fast one then their (mis)use of that discretion is open to judicial review, (3) the court will judge the purpose of the Act by looking at the whole Act, not just some isolated subclause with several plausible readings, and this is what the Minister's supposed use of discretion will get judged against."
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,022
    The claimed relevance of the Padfield principle to the Ben Act is that it's pretty bloody obvious to anyone who takes a look at it what the purpose was. There has been a lot of deliberate ambiguity from the government whether (and how) they intend to follow the Benn Act, with some Brexit-supporters in particular claiming the government must have a degree of discretion in its use. (Their argument being, roughly, that the bill seemed on the face of it to limit prerogative powers which ought to have required Queen's consent, yet according to the speaker this was not the case - suggesting the speaker believed some ministerial discretion remained.) When remain supporters quote Padfield in this context, their point is that ministerial discretion is surely hugely limited by the clear purpose of the Benn Act, and can be judicially reviewed, so Brexiteers shouldn't get their hopes up.

    Have to admit I haven't really got my head round why this hypothetical court case is deemed so important - if Johnson were to monkey around with the actions he's apparently required to do under the Benn Act, the precise legal grounds he claims as justification (and their likelihood of being crushed in court) are surely less important than the sheer political fact he has no majority in parliament. That kind of unilateral action with so few days left on the clock would presumably trigger the moment of unity among opposition leaders that's required to turf him out in short order, if he doesn't resign first - I'd be astonished if they wasted the Brexit countdown playing silly games over who gets to be PM if that all hits the fan. Would they really take things to the wire by letting the courts deal with it instead, even if they were fully confident Johnson would lose?
  • The claimed relevance of the Padfield principle to the Ben Act is that it's pretty bloody obvious to anyone who takes a look at it what the purpose was. There has been a lot of deliberate ambiguity from the government whether (and how) they intend to follow the Benn Act, with some Brexit-supporters in particular claiming the government must have a degree of discretion in its use. (Their argument being, roughly, that the bill seemed on the face of it to limit prerogative powers which ought to have required Queen's consent, yet according to the speaker this was not the case - suggesting the speaker believed some ministerial discretion remained.) When remain supporters quote Padfield in this context, their point is that ministerial discretion is surely hugely limited by the clear purpose of the Benn Act, and can be judicially reviewed, so Brexiteers shouldn't get their hopes up.

    Have to admit I haven't really got my head round why this hypothetical court case is deemed so important - if Johnson were to monkey around with the actions he's apparently required to do under the Benn Act, the precise legal grounds he claims as justification (and their likelihood of being crushed in court) are surely less important than the sheer political fact he has no majority in parliament. That kind of unilateral action with so few days left on the clock would presumably trigger the moment of unity among opposition leaders that's required to turf him out in short order, if he doesn't resign first - I'd be astonished if they wasted the Brexit countdown playing silly games over who gets to be PM if that all hits the fan. Would they really take things to the wire by letting the courts deal with it instead, even if they were fully confident Johnson would lose?

    There is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0 if need be. We know Bercow is in the chair till 31/10 and we now have the truncated post SC prorogation dates as well. Even if Boris manages to get round the Benn Act there is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0

    And of course preemptive challenges are already before the Court of Session both in terms of sanctioning non compliance and the Court acting instead of the PM to ensure compliance.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 1,955
    Of the 11 pollsters currently operating in the UK, only 4 of them have reported in the last two weeks: YouGov, Opinium, Survation, ComRes. The 7 that haven't done so are Ipsos Mori, Kantar, Deltapoll, Panelbase, BMG, Hanbury Reseach, ICM.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,022


    There is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0 if need be. We know Bercow is in the chair till 31/10 and we now have the truncated post SC prorogation dates as well. Even if Boris manages to get round the Benn Act there is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0

    And of course preemptive challenges are already before the Court of Session both in terms of sanctioning non compliance and the Court acting instead of the PM to ensure compliance.

    I know that legal action is rumbling on as we speak, but if it was clear Johnson was going absolutely hard-ball for 31 October, didn't care what he had to blow up to get his way, and Benn Act 1 had already failed, then entrusting that Benn Act 2 would make things all better again sounds like it would take a huge leap of faith.

    I get that you might want to pass Benn Act 2 anyway, even if you think it's a paper bullet and Johnson is going to wreck that one too, if only so you can point and shout LAW-BREAKER! or even better CRIMINAL!

    But surely at some point the political trigger gets pulled in this scenario? Perhaps the opposition are too divided, or have balls of steel. There'd be one heck of a blame-game if their misjudgment and inaction combined with Johnson's determination resulted in No Deal.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,894

    The claimed relevance of the Padfield principle to the Ben Act is that it's pretty bloody obvious to anyone who takes a look at it what the purpose was. There has been a lot of deliberate ambiguity from the government whether (and how) they intend to follow the Benn Act, with some Brexit-supporters in particular claiming the government must have a degree of discretion in its use. (Their argument being, roughly, that the bill seemed on the face of it to limit prerogative powers which ought to have required Queen's consent, yet according to the speaker this was not the case - suggesting the speaker believed some ministerial discretion remained.) When remain supporters quote Padfield in this context, their point is that ministerial discretion is surely hugely limited by the clear purpose of the Benn Act, and can be judicially reviewed, so Brexiteers shouldn't get their hopes up.

    Have to admit I haven't really got my head round why this hypothetical court case is deemed so important - if Johnson were to monkey around with the actions he's apparently required to do under the Benn Act, the precise legal grounds he claims as justification (and their likelihood of being crushed in court) are surely less important than the sheer political fact he has no majority in parliament. That kind of unilateral action with so few days left on the clock would presumably trigger the moment of unity among opposition leaders that's required to turf him out in short order, if he doesn't resign first - I'd be astonished if they wasted the Brexit countdown playing silly games over who gets to be PM if that all hits the fan. Would they really take things to the wire by letting the courts deal with it instead, even if they were fully confident Johnson would lose?

    The final sentence is my point. Remain tactics are looking too bloody (Particularly by the Lib Dems right now) clever by half - queasiness over Corbyn (Or someone else for Labours case) yields a seeming willingness to go crying to the courts on Benn rather than a simple PM replacement the SNP are going for

  • There is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0 if need be. We know Bercow is in the chair till 31/10 and we now have the truncated post SC prorogation dates as well. Even if Boris manages to get round the Benn Act there is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0

    And of course preemptive challenges are already before the Court of Session both in terms of sanctioning non compliance and the Court acting instead of the PM to ensure compliance.

    I know that legal action is rumbling on as we speak, but if it was clear Johnson was going absolutely hard-ball for 31 October, didn't care what he had to blow up to get his way, and Benn Act 1 had already failed, then entrusting that Benn Act 2 would make things all better again sounds like it would take a huge leap of faith.

    I get that you might want to pass Benn Act 2 anyway, even if you think it's a paper bullet and Johnson is going to wreck that one too, if only so you can point and shout LAW-BREAKER! or even better CRIMINAL!

    But surely at some point the political trigger gets pulled in this scenario? Perhaps the opposition are too divided, or have balls of steel. There'd be one heck of a blame-game if their misjudgment and inaction combined with Johnson's determination resulted in No Deal.
    " In accordance with its own constitutional requirements " - The final aribiter of whether we've left or not are the Courts - The UK Supreme Court and the CJEU. Unless Boris is going to stage a military coup he can be sucessfully bound by statute law. If Parliament wills it.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,324
    The Tories look like they used to look in the bad old days. Surprising that he flouted his girlfriend who looks like his daughter. The whole thing looks so tawdry it'll probably go down well with Leavers.

    Will the EU go along with his new plan? Probably. Anything to get rid from what I'm seeing
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 1,704
    Andy_JS said:

    Of the 11 pollsters currently operating in the UK, only 4 of them have reported in the last two weeks: YouGov, Opinium, Survation, ComRes. The 7 that haven't done so are Ipsos Mori, Kantar, Deltapoll, Panelbase, BMG, Hanbury Reseach, ICM.

    And only three of them have conducted Scottish polls in the last 18 months (Panelbase, Survation, YouGov). And the freshest one is now a month old.

    The Clown’s ascendancy and Ruth Davidson’s consequent resignation have changed the game, but we have almost no data from the critical Scottish battleground.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 35,762
    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 1,704


    There is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0 if need be. We know Bercow is in the chair till 31/10 and we now have the truncated post SC prorogation dates as well. Even if Boris manages to get round the Benn Act there is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0

    And of course preemptive challenges are already before the Court of Session both in terms of sanctioning non compliance and the Court acting instead of the PM to ensure compliance.

    I know that legal action is rumbling on as we speak, but if it was clear Johnson was going absolutely hard-ball for 31 October, didn't care what he had to blow up to get his way, and Benn Act 1 had already failed, then entrusting that Benn Act 2 would make things all better again sounds like it would take a huge leap of faith.

    I get that you might want to pass Benn Act 2 anyway, even if you think it's a paper bullet and Johnson is going to wreck that one too, if only so you can point and shout LAW-BREAKER! or even better CRIMINAL!

    But surely at some point the political trigger gets pulled in this scenario? Perhaps the opposition are too divided, or have balls of steel. There'd be one heck of a blame-game if their misjudgment and inaction combined with Johnson's determination resulted in No Deal.
    " In accordance with its own constitutional requirements " - The final aribiter of whether we've left or not are the Courts - The UK Supreme Court and the CJEU. Unless Boris is going to stage a military coup he can be sucessfully bound by statute law. If Parliament wills it.
    I’m surprised there are no prices on HMG deploying UK military forces in domestic civil contexts within 2019-20. The likelihood seems quite high to me. Or is this just too distasteful even for bookmakers?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,324

    Andy_JS said:

    Of the 11 pollsters currently operating in the UK, only 4 of them have reported in the last two weeks: YouGov, Opinium, Survation, ComRes. The 7 that haven't done so are Ipsos Mori, Kantar, Deltapoll, Panelbase, BMG, Hanbury Reseach, ICM.

    And only three of them have conducted Scottish polls in the last 18 months (Panelbase, Survation, YouGov). And the freshest one is now a month old.

    The Clown’s ascendancy and Ruth Davidson’s consequent resignation have changed the game, but we have almost no data from the critical Scottish battleground.
    I keep hearing SNP 51. It's in the bag. Nicola couldn't have dreamt this very Eglish farce in her wildest imagination. From here in France it looks horrendous!
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,022
    Pulpstar said:

    Remain tactics are looking too bloody (Particularly by the Lib Dems right now) clever by half - queasiness over Corbyn (Or someone else for Labours case) yields a seeming willingness to go crying to the courts on Benn rather than a simple PM replacement the SNP are going for

    My presumption has been that the current disunity among the opposition is something they are collectively willing to accept, so long as their strategy remains likely to bear fruit - pummelling Boris while he's in-office-but-not-in-power and trying to get him to dance as their puppet-on-a-string in a way that breaks his oft-repeated promises and undermines his credibility with leave-voters. In many ways the disunity even suits some of them - the LDs get to posture about not being scary Corbyn-enablers, Labour get to look like PM Corbyn is now a realistic opportunity and it's the LDs who, despite their sloganeering, are really putting Remain in jeopardy.

    I also have presumed, and this might be an error, that unity could be magically found if required. There are some plausible unity PM candidates about who would be willing to serve. And the party leaders have all spent so much time talking up the dangers of a "crash-out" Brexit that I don't think any of them would lose much credibility by taking active steps to prevent it, even if it meant rowing back on some of the lines they've taken about why they haven't acted yet. I don't know what it would take to trigger it, or how the timing would work, but I'm sure there's something - some exceptional action taken by Johnson or credible threat or rumour of one being imminent - that would set it off.

  • There is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0 if need be. We know Bercow is in the chair till 31/10 and we now have the truncated post SC prorogation dates as well. Even if Boris manages to get round the Benn Act there is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0

    And of course preemptive challenges are already before the Court of Session both in terms of sanctioning non compliance and the Court acting instead of the PM to ensure compliance.

    I know that legal action is rumbling on as we speak, but if it was clear Johnson was going absolutely hard-ball for 31 October, didn't care what he had to blow up to get his way, and Benn Act 1 had already failed, then entrusting that Benn Act 2 would make things all better again sounds like it would take a huge leap of faith.

    I get that you might want to pass Benn Act 2 anyway, even if you think it's a paper bullet and Johnson is going to wreck that one too, if only so you can point and shout LAW-BREAKER! or even better CRIMINAL!

    But surely at some point the political trigger gets pulled in this scenario? Perhaps the opposition are too divided, or have balls of steel. There'd be one heck of a blame-game if their misjudgment and inaction combined with Johnson's determination resulted in No Deal.
    " In accordance with its own constitutional requirements " - The final aribiter of whether we've left or not are the Courts - The UK Supreme Court and the CJEU. Unless Boris is going to stage a military coup he can be sucessfully bound by statute law. If Parliament wills it.
    I’m surprised there are no prices on HMG deploying UK military forces in domestic civil contexts within 2019-20. The likelihood seems quite high to me. Or is this just too distasteful even for bookmakers?
    Indeed. It's been well briefed military personal will drive petrol tankers in the event of No Deal panic buying. The IGNITE initiative fronted by a former Vote Leave Coordinator has a Crowdfunder.co.uk up raising funds for civil disobedience including blockading fuel depots if we *don't* leave on 31/10. Several New Labour figures have subsequently admitted they were less than 24 hrs from doing it during the fuel protests.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,324

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Which toddler are we talking about? There's a wide choice
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,035

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Quite something!

    Interesting background on Biden and Ukraine here:



    It's hard to see what stops Warren now.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,381


    But surely at some point the political trigger gets pulled in this scenario? Perhaps the opposition are too divided, or have balls of steel.

    I think it's a combination of both. Doing a VONC to get rid of Boris then failing to get rid of Boris because they can't agree a replacement would be quite embarassing for everyone involved. This is hard to coordinate in advance because neither Corbyn nor the anti-Corbyn people wants to be seen to give way unless they have to, and the only way to prove that they have to is to first veto one of the options, most likely the Corbyn one.

    But this gets better as the situation gets worse. The more serious the crisis, the less likely it is that someone *else* will veto the last remaining alternative PM. So they need to make sure the crisis is bad enough, to be sure that they can solve it.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,934
    Roger said:

    The Tories look like they used to look in the bad old days. Surprising that he flouted his girlfriend who looks like his daughter. The whole thing looks so tawdry it'll probably go down well with Leavers.

    Will the EU go along with his new plan? Probably. Anything to get rid from what I'm seeing


    Very surprising from you Roger , a metro-liberal type living in considerable comfort in France where such things would not be commented on. Are you jealous?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,035
    Roger said:

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Which toddler are we talking about? There's a wide choice
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,381


    There is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0 if need be. We know Bercow is in the chair till 31/10 and we now have the truncated post SC prorogation dates as well. Even if Boris manages to get round the Benn Act there is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0

    And of course preemptive challenges are already before the Court of Session both in terms of sanctioning non compliance and the Court acting instead of the PM to ensure compliance.

    I know that legal action is rumbling on as we speak, but if it was clear Johnson was going absolutely hard-ball for 31 October, didn't care what he had to blow up to get his way, and Benn Act 1 had already failed, then entrusting that Benn Act 2 would make things all better again sounds like it would take a huge leap of faith.

    I get that you might want to pass Benn Act 2 anyway, even if you think it's a paper bullet and Johnson is going to wreck that one too, if only so you can point and shout LAW-BREAKER! or even better CRIMINAL!

    But surely at some point the political trigger gets pulled in this scenario? Perhaps the opposition are too divided, or have balls of steel. There'd be one heck of a blame-game if their misjudgment and inaction combined with Johnson's determination resulted in No Deal.
    " In accordance with its own constitutional requirements " - The final aribiter of whether we've left or not are the Courts - The UK Supreme Court and the CJEU. Unless Boris is going to stage a military coup he can be sucessfully bound by statute law. If Parliament wills it.
    I’m surprised there are no prices on HMG deploying UK military forces in domestic civil contexts within 2019-20. The likelihood seems quite high to me. Or is this just too distasteful even for bookmakers?
    Indeed. It's been well briefed military personal will drive petrol tankers in the event of No Deal panic buying. The IGNITE initiative fronted by a former Vote Leave Coordinator has a Crowdfunder.co.uk up raising funds for civil disobedience including blockading fuel depots if we *don't* leave on 31/10. Several New Labour figures have subsequently admitted they were less than 24 hrs from doing it during the fuel protests.
    Definitely better to leave Boris in charge of crushing that rebellion...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,324
    edited October 3

    Roger said:

    The Tories look like they used to look in the bad old days. Surprising that he flouted his girlfriend who looks like his daughter. The whole thing looks so tawdry it'll probably go down well with Leavers.

    Will the EU go along with his new plan? Probably. Anything to get rid from what I'm seeing


    Very surprising from you Roger , a metro-liberal type living in considerable comfort in France where such things would not be commented on. Are you jealous?
    Very jealous. I'd like to look that ridiculous.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 1,955
    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Which toddler are we talking about? There's a wide choice
    The sort of tweet which is probably counterproductive.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,324
    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Which toddler are we talking about? There's a wide choice
    Wow! Makes Boris look reasonably sane!
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,934
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    The Tories look like they used to look in the bad old days. Surprising that he flouted his girlfriend who looks like his daughter. The whole thing looks so tawdry it'll probably go down well with Leavers.

    Will the EU go along with his new plan? Probably. Anything to get rid from what I'm seeing


    Very surprising from you Roger , a metro-liberal type living in considerable comfort in France where such things would not be commented on. Are you jealous?
    Very jealous. I'd like to look that ridiculous.
    You do by commenting so.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,894
    Biden isn't just a candidate for POTUS, he was also a central figure in the previous administration. I think it's entirely fair politically speaking for Trump to go after any corruption even tangentially linked to him.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,324
    Rosie Duffield exceptional. Quite a contrast to the blond buffoon on the same day. She's got something to say and she sounds like she means it.


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7530525/Labour-MP-reveals-domestic-abuse-victim-moving-horrifying-account-Parliament.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,492


    There is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0 if need be. We know Bercow is in the chair till 31/10 and we now have the truncated post SC prorogation dates as well. Even if Boris manages to get round the Benn Act there is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0

    And of course preemptive challenges are already before the Court of Session both in terms of sanctioning non compliance and the Court acting instead of the PM to ensure compliance.

    I know that legal action is rumbling on as we speak, but if it was clear Johnson was going absolutely hard-ball for 31 October, didn't care what he had to blow up to get his way, and Benn Act 1 had already failed, then entrusting that Benn Act 2 would make things all better again sounds like it would take a huge leap of faith.

    I get that you might want to pass Benn Act 2 anyway, even if you think it's a paper bullet and Johnson is going to wreck that one too, if only so you can point and shout LAW-BREAKER! or even better CRIMINAL!

    But surely at some point the political trigger gets pulled in this scenario? Perhaps the opposition are too divided, or have balls of steel. There'd be one heck of a blame-game if their misjudgment and inaction combined with Johnson's determination resulted in No Deal.
    " In accordance with its own constitutional requirements " - The final aribiter of whether we've left or not are the Courts - The UK Supreme Court and the CJEU. Unless Boris is going to stage a military coup he can be sucessfully bound by statute law. If Parliament wills it.
    I’m surprised there are no prices on HMG deploying UK military forces in domestic civil contexts within 2019-20. The likelihood seems quite high to me. Or is this just too distasteful even for bookmakers?
    Moral hazard.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951


    There is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0 if need be. We know Bercow is in the chair till 31/10 and we now have the truncated post SC prorogation dates as well. Even if Boris manages to get round the Benn Act there is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0

    And of course preemptive challenges are already before the Court of Session both in terms of sanctioning non compliance and the Court acting instead of the PM to ensure compliance.

    I know that legal action is rumbling on as we speak, but if it was clear Johnson was going absolutely hard-ball for 31 October, didn't care what he had to blow up to get his way, and Benn Act 1 had already failed, then entrusting that Benn Act 2 would make things all better again sounds like it would take a huge leap of faith.

    I get that you might want to pass Benn Act 2 anyway, even if you think it's a paper bullet and Johnson is going to wreck that one too, if only so you can point and shout LAW-BREAKER! or even better CRIMINAL!

    But surely at some point the political trigger gets pulled in this scenario? Perhaps the opposition are too divided, or have balls of steel. There'd be one heck of a blame-game if their misjudgment and inaction combined with Johnson's determination resulted in No Deal.
    " In accordance with its own constitutional requirements " - The final aribiter of whether we've left or not are the Courts - The UK Supreme Court and the CJEU. Unless Boris is going to stage a military coup he can be sucessfully bound by statute law. If Parliament wills it.
    I am really not sure what the EU would make of a letter signed by the Clerk of the Court of Session as requested in Aiden O'Neill's latest petition. Would they regard that as a letter written in terms of our own constitutional requirements even if the PM was saying that he does not support the application? I think that it is worth remembering that those deciding this are in the main PMs too.

    I also think we are surely at the point when the default assumption that the EU is going to say yes to anything and allow this shambles to continue has to be questioned.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 1,121
    Pulpstar said:

    Biden isn't just a candidate for POTUS, he was also a central figure in the previous administration. I think it's entirely fair politically speaking for Trump to go after any corruption even tangentially linked to him.

    Allegedly the means were illegal, however politically justified the ends may have been.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    india and Pakistan now have the capability to subject us to nuclear winter, should they decide to immolate each other:
    https://phys.org/news/2019-10-india-pakistan-nuclear-war-millions-threaten.html

    Look on the plus side, Greta won't have to lecture us about global warming.
    That came from nowhere. She obviously has got you rattled.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,324
    edited October 3
    I can't speak for every resident of Hartlepool and Stoke but if anyone thinks this nonsense is worth going on with they really do have a screw loose. Whatever the original idea behind leaving it's long been forgotten. Surely it's obvious to everyne that we're just going through the motions to realise an ill thought out idea whose moment has passed..
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951
    Foxy said:

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Quite something!

    Interesting background on Biden and Ukraine here:



    It's hard to see what stops Warren now.
    Interesting and persuasive piece. Is this not exactly what Blair did?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 39,126
    eristdoof said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    india and Pakistan now have the capability to subject us to nuclear winter, should they decide to immolate each other:
    https://phys.org/news/2019-10-india-pakistan-nuclear-war-millions-threaten.html

    Look on the plus side, Greta won't have to lecture us about global warming.
    That came from nowhere. She obviously has got you rattled.
    I was joking.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    DavidL said:


    There is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0 if need be. We know Bercow is in the chair till 31/10 and we now have the truncated post SC prorogation dates as well. Even if Boris manages to get round the Benn Act there is plenty of time for Benn Act 2.0

    And of course preemptive challenges are already before the Court of Session both in terms of sanctioning non compliance and the Court acting instead of the PM to ensure compliance.

    I know that legal action is rumbling on as we speak, but if it was clear Johnson was going absolutely hard-ball for 31 October, didn't care what he had to blow up to get his way, and Benn Act 1 had already failed, then entrusting that Benn Act 2 would make things all better again sounds like it would take a huge leap of faith.

    I get that you might want to pass Benn Act 2 anyway, even if you think it's a paper bullet and Johnson is going to wreck that one too, if only so you can point and shout LAW-BREAKER! or even better CRIMINAL!

    But surely at some point the political trigger gets pulled in this scenario? Perhaps the opposition are too divided, or have balls of steel. There'd be one heck of a blame-game if their misjudgment and inaction combined with Johnson's determination resulted in No Deal.
    " In accordance with its own constitutional requirements " - The final aribiter of whether we've left or not are the Courts - The UK Supreme Court and the CJEU. Unless Boris is going to stage a military coup he can be sucessfully bound by statute law. If Parliament wills it.
    I am really not sure what the EU would make of a letter signed by the Clerk of the Court of Session as requested in Aiden O'Neill's latest petition. Would they regard that as a letter written in terms of our own constitutional requirements even if the PM was saying that he does not support the application? I think that it is worth remembering that those deciding this are in the main PMs too.

    I also think we are surely at the point when the default assumption that the EU is going to say yes to anything and allow this shambles to continue has to be questioned.
    It seems to me the opposite of what you are saying. Under your scenario, those "PM"s are not going to be scared of their own parliaments becaus of what Johnson does, rather they will see the PM of the UK being too whimpish to carry out in person what he is legally obliged to do.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 2,093
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Quite something!

    Interesting background on Biden and Ukraine here:



    It's hard to see what stops Warren now.
    Interesting and persuasive piece. Is this not exactly what Blair did?
    Interesting perhaps. Not sure about persuasive as it doesnt have any solutions. How do you stop a politicians son or daughter from starting a hedge fund or joining a private companys board? Open to ideas but seems impractical to me.
  • StreeterStreeter Posts: 587
    RobD said:

    eristdoof said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    india and Pakistan now have the capability to subject us to nuclear winter, should they decide to immolate each other:
    https://phys.org/news/2019-10-india-pakistan-nuclear-war-millions-threaten.html

    Look on the plus side, Greta won't have to lecture us about global warming.
    That came from nowhere. She obviously has got you rattled.
    I was joking.
    Very funny.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,468
    RobD said:

    eristdoof said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    india and Pakistan now have the capability to subject us to nuclear winter, should they decide to immolate each other:
    https://phys.org/news/2019-10-india-pakistan-nuclear-war-millions-threaten.html

    Look on the plus side, Greta won't have to lecture us about global warming.
    That came from nowhere. She obviously has got you rattled.
    I was joking.
    How dare you?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951
    eristdoof said:

    DavidL said:

    " In accordance with its own constitutional requirements " - The final aribiter of whether we've left or not are the Courts - The UK Supreme Court and the CJEU. Unless Boris is going to stage a military coup he can be sucessfully bound by statute law. If Parliament wills it.
    I am really not sure what the EU would make of a letter signed by the Clerk of the Court of Session as requested in Aiden O'Neill's latest petition. Would they regard that as a letter written in terms of our own constitutional requirements even if the PM was saying that he does not support the application? I think that it is worth remembering that those deciding this are in the main PMs too.

    I also think we are surely at the point when the default assumption that the EU is going to say yes to anything and allow this shambles to continue has to be questioned.
    It seems to me the opposite of what you are saying. Under your scenario, those "PM"s are not going to be scared of their own parliaments becaus of what Johnson does, rather they will see the PM of the UK being too whimpish to carry out in person what he is legally obliged to do.
    I think that you are missing the point. A request for yet another extension is a legal act but it is also a political act made by the government of the UK. If the government of the UK makes it clear that whatever the legal requirements are they do not support such an application are other PMs really going to ignore that? I think not. Remainers may come to regret not VONCing Boris when they had the chance.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Quite something!

    Interesting background on Biden and Ukraine here:



    It's hard to see what stops Warren now.
    Interesting and persuasive piece. Is this not exactly what Blair did?
    Interesting perhaps. Not sure about persuasive as it doesnt have any solutions. How do you stop a politicians son or daughter from starting a hedge fund or joining a private companys board? Open to ideas but seems impractical to me.
    The point it makes well is that we are not even looking for solutions because this has become okay. Recognising the existence of the problem is the first step to a solution. So much is hidden behind "consulting" that does not bear close examination. In this country this tends to be fairly small beer, an appointment on various Boards and a contract with Goldman Sachs but we have very little influence compared to the USA.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,456
    edited October 3
    Foxy said:

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Quite something!

    Interesting background on Biden and Ukraine here:



    It's hard to see what stops Warren now.
    Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read.
    We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 16,229
    Roger said:

    Rosie Duffield exceptional. Quite a contrast to the blond buffoon on the same day. She's got something to say and she sounds like she means it.


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7530525/Labour-MP-reveals-domestic-abuse-victim-moving-horrifying-account-Parliament.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

    One strong lady. Hope she keeps her seat.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 2,093
    DavidL said:

    eristdoof said:

    DavidL said:

    " In accordance with its own constitutional requirements " - The final aribiter of whether we've left or not are the Courts - The UK Supreme Court and the CJEU. Unless Boris is going to stage a military coup he can be sucessfully bound by statute law. If Parliament wills it.
    I am really not sure what the EU would make of a letter signed by the Clerk of the Court of Session as requested in Aiden O'Neill's latest petition. Would they regard that as a letter written in terms of our own constitutional requirements even if the PM was saying that he does not support the application? I think that it is worth remembering that those deciding this are in the main PMs too.

    I also think we are surely at the point when the default assumption that the EU is going to say yes to anything and allow this shambles to continue has to be questioned.
    It seems to me the opposite of what you are saying. Under your scenario, those "PM"s are not going to be scared of their own parliaments becaus of what Johnson does, rather they will see the PM of the UK being too whimpish to carry out in person what he is legally obliged to do.
    I think that you are missing the point. A request for yet another extension is a legal act but it is also a political act made by the government of the UK. If the government of the UK makes it clear that whatever the legal requirements are they do not support such an application are other PMs really going to ignore that? I think not. Remainers may come to regret not VONCing Boris when they had the chance.
    Might they also infer the current UK govt is not one to trust on any UK EU deal if they cant be trusted to follow their own parliament and laws? If so logical responses from the EU would be making this governments time difficult and not being flexible on legal texts - both of which would pull in the opposite way and lead them to prefer extension.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951
    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Quite something!

    Interesting background on Biden and Ukraine here:



    It's hard to see what stops Warren now.
    Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read.
    We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
    Surely his latest health scare has Sanders out of a game he was struggling to get into anyway?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,894
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Quite something!

    Interesting background on Biden and Ukraine here:



    It's hard to see what stops Warren now.
    Interesting and persuasive piece. Is this not exactly what Blair did?
    Interesting perhaps. Not sure about persuasive as it doesnt have any solutions. How do you stop a politicians son or daughter from starting a hedge fund or joining a private companys board? Open to ideas but seems impractical to me.
    The point it makes well is that we are not even looking for solutions because this has become okay. Recognising the existence of the problem is the first step to a solution. So much is hidden behind "consulting" that does not bear close examination. In this country this tends to be fairly small beer, an appointment on various Boards and a contract with Goldman Sachs but we have very little influence compared to the USA.
    Oh so this is why ex politicians get fifty "jobs" each ?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,381
    DavidL said:


    Surely his latest health scare has Sanders out of a game he was struggling to get into anyway?

    Probably - great for Warren's prospects, as she doesn't have to take bold, left-wing, general-election-losing positions any more.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    DavidL said:

    eristdoof said:

    DavidL said:

    " In accordance with its own constitutional requirements " - The final aribiter of whether we've left or not are the Courts - The UK Supreme Court and the CJEU. Unless Boris is going to stage a military coup he can be sucessfully bound by statute law. If Parliament wills it.
    I am really not sure what the EU would make of a letter signed by the Clerk of the Court of Session as requested in Aiden O'Neill's latest petition. Would they regard that as a letter written in terms of our own constitutional requirements even if the PM was saying that he does not support the application? I think that it is worth remembering that those deciding this are in the main PMs too.

    I also think we are surely at the point when the default assumption that the EU is going to say yes to anything and allow this shambles to continue has to be questioned.
    It seems to me the opposite of what you are saying. Under your scenario, those "PM"s are not going to be scared of their own parliaments becaus of what Johnson does, rather they will see the PM of the UK being too whimpish to carry out in person what he is legally obliged to do.
    I think that you are missing the point. A request for yet another extension is a legal act but it is also a political act made by the government of the UK. If the government of the UK makes it clear that whatever the legal requirements are they do not support such an application are other PMs really going to ignore that? I think not. Remainers may come to regret not VONCing Boris when they had the chance.
    Of course they won't ignore it. What we are disagreeing on is how they interpret it. Whether they will be sympathetic to Johnson because a parliament wants its PM to do something he doesn't want to, or see him being cowardly by sending a civil servant to to what he should be doing in person. Angela Merkel is hardly going to be thinking "there but for the grace of God go I".
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,324
    Andy_JS said:

    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Which toddler are we talking about? There's a wide choice
    The sort of tweet which is probably counterproductive.
    Incredibly vindictive man isn't he. It tells you a lot about the sort of bullying person he is. I wonder how his various wives managed to put up with him over the years
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,418
    Pulpstar said:

    Biden isn't just a candidate for POTUS, he was also a central figure in the previous administration. I think it's entirely fair politically speaking for Trump to go after any corruption even tangentially linked to him.

    It's not like the Dems would exactly hold back on any corruption even tangentially linked to Trump....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,894

    Pulpstar said:

    Biden isn't just a candidate for POTUS, he was also a central figure in the previous administration. I think it's entirely fair politically speaking for Trump to go after any corruption even tangentially linked to him.

    It's not like the Dems would exactly hold back on any corruption even tangentially linked to Trump....
    Sure, I say that as someone who would likely vote Biden in the US.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951

    DavidL said:


    Surely his latest health scare has Sanders out of a game he was struggling to get into anyway?

    Probably - great for Warren's prospects, as she doesn't have to take bold, left-wing, general-election-losing positions any more.
    I agree. She can now adopt more centrist positions without worrying about her left flank. She is in a very strong position right now and it is not easy to see who is going to challenge her effectively if Biden comes to be regarded as damaged goods.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,339
    Good morning, everyone.

    Glad I covered Warren after earlier bets on Harris and Biden. Still prefer a Biden win, though.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951
    eristdoof said:



    DavidL said:

    eristdoof said:

    DavidL said:

    " In accordance with its own constitutional requirements " - The final aribiter of whether we've left or not are the Courts - The UK Supreme Court and the CJEU. Unless Boris is going to stage a military coup he can be sucessfully bound by statute law. If Parliament wills it.
    I am really not sure what the EU would make of a letter signed by the Clerk of the Court of Session as requested in Aiden O'Neill's latest petition. Would they regard that as a letter written in terms of our own constitutional requirements even if the PM was saying that he does not support the application? I think that it is worth remembering that those deciding this are in the main PMs too.

    I also think we are surely at the point when the default assumption that the EU is going to say yes to anything and allow this shambles to continue has to be questioned.
    It seems to me the opposite of what you are saying. Under your scenario, those "PM"s are not going to be scared of their own parliaments becaus of what Johnson does, rather they will see the PM of the UK being too whimpish to carry out in person what he is legally obliged to do.
    I think that you are missing the point. A request for yet another extension is a legal act but it is also a political act made by the government of the UK. If the government of the UK makes it clear that whatever the legal requirements are they do not support such an application are other PMs really going to ignore that? I think not. Remainers may come to regret not VONCing Boris when they had the chance.
    Of course they won't ignore it. What we are disagreeing on is how they interpret it. Whether they will be sympathetic to Johnson because a parliament wants its PM to do something he doesn't want to, or see him being cowardly by sending a civil servant to to what he should be doing in person. Angela Merkel is hardly going to be thinking "there but for the grace of God go I".
    Any acceptance is going to be hedged with conditions. If the UK PM says he is not interested in even discussing conditions then an extension will not be possible. The Benn Act is another stupid gesture by those more interested in political point scoring than actually taking responsibility for a decision.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,701
    Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 8,862

    Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.

    Why don't you just wait and see what happens? These straw clutching assertions are silly.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,456
    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Quite something!

    Interesting background on Biden and Ukraine here:



    It's hard to see what stops Warren now.
    Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read.
    We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
    Surely his latest health scare has Sanders out of a game he was struggling to get into anyway?
    Very possibly, I haven't read up on it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,035
    edited October 3
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Quite something!

    Interesting background on Biden and Ukraine here:



    It's hard to see what stops Warren now.
    Interesting and persuasive piece. Is this not exactly what Blair did?
    Pretty much.

    Former leaders who retire to the quiet life are a rarity now. Flogging influence is de rigeur even for undistinguished disgraced former cabinet members.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,381

    Why don't you just wait and see what happens?

    Not just waiting and seeing what happens is kind of the point of this web site
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 2,090

    Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.

    Why don't you just wait and see what happens? These straw clutching assertions are silly.
    Predicting what’s going to happen, rather than just waiting and seeing what happens, is kind of the whole point of a political betting site.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,200
    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Quite something!

    Interesting background on Biden and Ukraine here:



    It's hard to see what stops Warren now.
    Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read.
    We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
    We need something rather closer to home, on that view.
    A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.

    As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark
    legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in:
    Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,938

    Good morning, everyone.

    Glad I covered Warren after earlier bets on Harris and Biden. Still prefer a Biden win, though.

    Hope all those betting on Ben Stokes for SPOTY at 1.2 before we lost the Ashes, haven't forgotten about Dina Asher-Smith, Katerina Johnson-Thompson, Lewis Hamilton and others who are actually winning world championships this year.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 3,256
    Foxy said:



    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Quite something!

    Interesting background on Biden and Ukraine here:



    It's hard to see what stops Warren now.
    Interesting and persuasive piece. Is this not exactly what Blair did?
    Pretty much.

    Former leaders who retire to the quiet life are a rarity now. Flogging influence is de rigeur even for undistinguished disgraced former cabinet members.
    Even Clegg & Seven Homes Huhne from the Cherubim and Seraphim Party seem to have found cosy nooks after their undistinguished and disgraced former lives.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,456
    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Quite something!

    Interesting background on Biden and Ukraine here:



    It's hard to see what stops Warren now.
    Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read.
    We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
    We need something rather closer to home, on that view.
    A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.

    As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark
    legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in:
    Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
    Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written.
    Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens.
    I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584

    Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.

    Predictions at this time are difficult.

    Colouring them with a heady cocktail of Brexit and Boris derangement syndrome are unlikely help accuracy.

  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 4,048

    Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.

    Why don't you just wait and see what happens? These straw clutching assertions are silly.
    A Brexiteer taking of clutching straws is a bit rich. Every "argument" in favour of this monumental debacle is straw clutching in extremis.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,339
    Mr. Sandpit, haven't bet on SPOTY. I do think Hamilton's slightly hamstrung by having won rather a lot and he can't get SPOTY every year.

    Be interesting to see if home teams do well at the World Cup too.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,938
    edited October 3

    Mr. Sandpit, haven't bet on SPOTY. I do think Hamilton's slightly hamstrung by having won rather a lot and he can't get SPOTY every year.

    Be interesting to see if home teams do well at the World Cup too.

    Lewis has only won SPOTY once, back in 2008 2014.

    Yes, after the athletics the one big event left is the rugby WC. We could yet have another Johnny Wilkinson in 2003 moment.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,081

    Do any of the papers other than the Mirror, which is critical, lead on Boris's speech, as opposed to Brexit progress?

    Did you expect the Mirror to be supportive
  • hamiltonacehamiltonace Posts: 581
    My business just hit one of the missed consequences of Brexit. We need to import gas from Europe as no UK supplier. The number of ship crossings are being cut as logistic companies figure brexit will mean less trade between Europe and UK. As a result my gas prices have now risen 25% so far this year due mostly to logistics. They previously rose 25% in the last decade.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,081
    I find it rather amusing that Major phones Clarke to “vent” about policy being announced at conference not the Commons...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,701
    edited October 3
    TGOHF2 said:

    Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.

    Predictions at this time are difficult.

    Colouring them with a heady cocktail of Brexit and Boris derangement syndrome are unlikely help accuracy.

    No, predictions are really easy - there is no Deal that the EU will agree to that the ERG will agree to. Johnson and everyone else knows this, but because he has said he will die in a ditch to leave on 31st October it will have to be him that brings the “negotiation” process to an end. The EU will not do that. It does not have to.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,701

    Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.

    Why don't you just wait and see what happens? These straw clutching assertions are silly.

    I will wait and see. But Johnson has to walk away because he is the one with the deadline.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 4,957
    28 days to go...
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 984
    Donald Trump is mentally ill. It’s not hyperbolic to say that. He needs help. I hope he gets it. Horrible to see.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 11,516
    My Girl the Big Liz is an Unstoppable Nomination winning machine.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 984
    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Glad I covered Warren after earlier bets on Harris and Biden. Still prefer a Biden win, though.

    Hope all those betting on Ben Stokes for SPOTY at 1.2 before we lost the Ashes, haven't forgotten about Dina Asher-Smith, Katerina Johnson-Thompson, Lewis Hamilton and others who are actually winning world championships this year.
    Lol. Who? I guess Stokes and England will just have to make do with the World Cup.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 891

    Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.

    Why don't you just wait and see what happens? These straw clutching assertions are silly.
    A Brexiteer taking of clutching straws is a bit rich. Every "argument" in favour of this monumental debacle is straw clutching in extremis.
    Waiting and seeing what happens is what you do if you don't follow PB. PBers axiomatically want to know what happens before it happens. It is a genetic trait and there is no cure.

  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Sandpit, haven't bet on SPOTY. I do think Hamilton's slightly hamstrung by having won rather a lot and he can't get SPOTY every year.

    Be interesting to see if home teams do well at the World Cup too.

    Lewis has only won SPOTY once, back in 2008 2014.

    Yes, after the athletics the one big event left is the rugby WC. We could yet have another Johnny Wilkinson in 2003 moment.
    Firstly it was not a Johnny Wilkinson moment. He played calmly and near perfectly throughout the that World Cup.

    Secondly, we have already had a "Johnny Wilkinson in a World Cup Final" this year. It would be incredible if we got another.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,339
    Mr. Doof, how do cricketers generally fare at SPOTY?

    It's not something I know that much about, but some sports seem to have more motivated fanbases than others when it comes to voting.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Glad I covered Warren after earlier bets on Harris and Biden. Still prefer a Biden win, though.

    Hope all those betting on Ben Stokes for SPOTY at 1.2 before we lost the Ashes, haven't forgotten about Dina Asher-Smith, Katerina Johnson-Thompson, Lewis Hamilton and others who are actually winning world championships this year.
    The Ashes is not a world championship. The only two eligigible countries are currently ranked 4th and 5th in the ICC rankings.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,773

    Mr. Doof, how do cricketers generally fare at SPOTY?

    It's not something I know that much about, but some sports seem to have more motivated fanbases than others when it comes to voting.

    Four wins: Laker, Steele, Botham and Flintoff.

    Stokes really ought to make it five.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 16,173
    TGOHF2 said:

    Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.

    Predictions at this time are difficult.

    Colouring them with a heady cocktail of Brexit and Boris derangement syndrome are unlikely help accuracy.

    Well, stop doing it then.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 30,481
    Roger said:

    I can't speak for every resident of Hartlepool and Stoke but if anyone thinks this nonsense is worth going on with they really do have a screw loose. Whatever the original idea behind leaving it's long been forgotten. Surely it's obvious to everyne that we're just going through the motions to realise an ill thought out idea whose moment has passed..

    Classic Rogerdamus.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 16,173
    The party of negotiation, consensus and coalition building are knocking it out the park I see.

  • eekeek Posts: 5,791
    Worth reading this entire thread for why Boris's plan is doomed for failure.

  • DadgeDadge Posts: 1,878
    Johnson's efforts are doomed to failure. The response from the EU is largely irrelevant. Parliament (and the country) wants a soft Brexit and Johnson's done nothing to soften May's plan.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,132

    Next in the Blame Game game is Johnson having to break off negotiations. The EU will never do this, they’ll just keep on keeping on. When Johnson erupts in fury and says there is no chance of a deal will have been wargamed to the Nth degree, but it will still be a moment of high drama where things could go wrong. Storming out to hit an artificial deadline when the other side is saying progress can still be made is not risk-free.

    Why don't you just wait and see what happens? These straw clutching assertions are silly.

    I will wait and see. But Johnson has to walk away because he is the one with the deadline.

    I think that you will find that you have misjudged the UK public on this one. Apart from hardline Remainers and the predictable reaction of the likes of Swinson and Corbyn, there is I think a mood that the country needs to get something over the line now, and that for now this will do. Johnson has clearly compromised and yet remarkably appears to hold out the prospect of assembling a coalition of MPs sufficient to get this through in parliament if the EU says yes. So that means that if the EU resorts to just the same tired mantras as ever to back the intransigence it has shown from day one to May and now Johnson, there will be a hardening of attitudes towards the EU and an acceptance by most that they are to blame. Enough MPs are saying that they will back Johnson's plan if the EU does. So the EU can't this time offload the blame for rejection onto the UK parliament, they will have to carry the can themselves.

    If the EU do reject it, the reaction here against their unreasonable position will help Johnson as he seeks to appeal to the country in a GE.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,200
    rkrkrk said:

    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Quite something!

    Interesting background on Biden and Ukraine here:



    It's hard to see what stops Warren now.
    Thanks for sharing, very interesting and depressing read.
    We need Warren, or maybe even Sanders, to sweep away this corruption.
    We need something rather closer to home, on that view.
    A considerable amount of the City’s business consists of providing safe havens for the ill gotten gains of precisely the type of oligarch featured in the Atlantic story.

    As the Atlantic article points out, though, there is a substantial difference (and a stark
    legal difference) between this type of casual corruption, and what Trump has been engaged in:
    Voicing this question now invites an immediate objection: “false equivalence.” Let’s dispense with it. What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment....
    Yes, the bit on false equivalence was particularly well written.
    Absolutely agree, the UK is one of the leading countries for its dodgy tax havens.
    I, of course, would say the only way to clear that up is with a proper left wing government.
    Actually, the EU had begun to take regulatory baby steps in that direction.

    Which is, of course, one of the reasons some of the more ... buccaneering money managers are so keen on backing Boris/Brexit.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    DavidL said:

    eristdoof said:



    DavidL said:

    eristdoof said:

    DavidL said:

    " In accordance with its own constitutional requirements " - The final aribiter of whether we've left or not are the Courts - The UK Supreme Court and the CJEU. Unless Boris is going to stage a military coup he can be sucessfully bound by statute law. If Parliament wills it.
    I am really not sure what the EU would make of a letter signed by the Clerk of the Court of Session as requested in Aiden O'Neill's latest petition. Would they regard that as a letter written in terms of our own constitutional requirements even if the PM was saying that he does not support the application? I think that it is worth remembering that those deciding this are in the main PMs too.

    I also think we are surely at the point when the default assumption that the EU is going to say yes to anything and allow this shambles to continue has to be questioned.
    It seems to me the opposite of what you are saying. Under your scenario, those "PM"s are not going to be scared of their own parliaments becaus of what Johnson does, rather they will see the PM of the UK being too whimpish to carry out in person what he is legally obliged to do.
    I think that you are missing the point. A request for yet another extension is a legal act but it is also a political act made by the government of the UK. If the government of the UK makes it clear that whatever the legal requirements are they do not support such an application are other PMs really going to ignore that? I think not. Remainers may come to regret not VONCing Boris when they had the chance.
    Of course they won't ignore it. What we are disagreeing on is how they interpret it. Whether they will be sympathetic to Johnson because a parliament wants its PM to do something he doesn't want to, or see him being cowardly by sending a civil servant to to what he should be doing in person. Angela Merkel is hardly going to be thinking "there but for the grace of God go I".
    Any acceptance is going to be hedged with conditions. If the UK PM says he is not interested in even discussing conditions then an extension will not be possible.
    Which would result in a comtempt of parliament charge against the Prime Minister. This is essentially a variant of the "crossed fingers behind back" while appearing to ask for an exension strategy.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 15,086
    Two questions:

    1) Have the people who were making claims about hedge funds profiting from No Deal publicly supported Boris proposal ? Because if there is a Deal agreed wont those hedge funds then make equivalent losses ?

    2) Has the Conservative conference had anything to say about student debt ? With the ONS now putting the expected bad debt on the current borrowing that means there is over £10bn to reduce it each year for 'free'.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,638
    Andy_JS said:

    Of the 11 pollsters currently operating in the UK, only 4 of them have reported in the last two weeks: YouGov, Opinium, Survation, ComRes. The 7 that haven't done so are Ipsos Mori, Kantar, Deltapoll, Panelbase, BMG, Hanbury Reseach, ICM.

    I'm expecting an avalanche of polls in the next day or two, now that the conference season is over. Will there be a Boris Bounce or a Swinson Swing?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 15,086
    Foxy said:

    I see the very stable genius has had a bit of a toddler tantrum.

    Quite something!

    Interesting background on Biden and Ukraine here:



    It's hard to see what stops Warren now.
    Genuine question.

    Are you more enthusiastic about Warren than you were about HRC last time ?
This discussion has been closed.