politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betfair moves sharply back to Macron for French President following a run of good polls
Over the past week there has been a strong move on the betting markets to the 39 year old independent, Emmanuel Macron, for next French president following a series of polls that have him clearly in the top two for a runoff place.
Macron could still be pulled under by a scandal. Everyone else seems to be.
That's what I was thinking. With so much movement in the market this far out, surely the guy at almost evens is more likely to be a lay than a back? Or is Macron going to be the last man standing who's untouched by scandal? I think I'm sticking with laying Le Pen for now.
The French voting for Macron is them voting for more of the same. So disappointing. Ditto for the Germans voting for Merkel. Do these countries not see the economic, social, European, migration, etc crises?
Mr. L, "The speech was so tedious I was forced to shoot some bystanders in the leg simply as a means of passing the time."
Mind you, as far as a story involving a sniper and the French president goes, it could've been rather worse. Glad the unfortunate wounded aren't injured too severely.
The French voting for Macron is them voting for more of the same. So disappointing. Ditto for the Germans voting for Merkel. Do these countries not see the economic, social, European, migration, etc crises?
They will do by this summer. I fear Europe is going to be overwhelmed by migrants trying to get in and Europe has no answer whatsover. Some in Europe may out trump Trump, God forbid
Working on nothing bar the polling, it looks like the drift to Le Pen is there but it isn't quick enough for her to win against Macron. Against Fillon though....
Mr. Quidder, not quite as splendid as you, but I did hedge a bit for a minor green result for anyone else and a larger green result for Macron. If the rumours of leaks to come if he makes round two against Le Pen, I think a little bit of hedging might be wise, but entirely up to you.
If anyone is a kipper or has a copy of the UKIP rulebook, can Carswell just be expelled from the party? In normal political parties a member has to do something wrong to be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
I am now +£100 Macron, 0 the field thanks to a tip presumably here back in November. Any value in taking some profit?
I was about £800 in the Green on Macron, but have taken advantage of the shifting odds to go Green on Fillon. I am now sitting comfortably all green, but whoever comes up against LePen will win hands down.
I think a run off of Macron vs Fillon would be a more interesting final two in terms of deciding the future of France, but doesn't appear likely.
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
If anyone is a kipper or has a copy of the UKIP rulebook, can Carswell just be expelled from the party? In normal political parties a member has to do something wrong to be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
W.1.10 Any action which is in public opposition to the Party or its core aims, orwhich brings the Party into disrepute, shall be considered to be grounds for Disciplinary action under Section AA of the Rules of Procedure.
W.1.11 seems to be the bit which provides for expulsion.
The French voting for Macron is them voting for more of the same. So disappointing. Ditto for the Germans voting for Merkel. Do these countries not see the economic, social, European, migration, etc crises?
They also see and are repelled by Trumpism and Faragism.
There is no easy cure for the ills of globalism, as will become apparent here and in America.
If anyone is a kipper or has a copy of the UKIP rulebook, can Carswell just be expelled from the party? In normal political parties a member has to do something wrong to be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
W.1.10 Any action which is in public opposition to the Party or its core aims, orwhich brings the Party into disrepute, shall be considered to be grounds for Disciplinary action under Section AA of the Rules of Procedure.
W.1.11 seems to be the bit which provides for expulsion.
The only other reference to "expel" in that document is I.5 The Party Secretary has the right to suspend or expel members who clearly bring the Party into disrepute by association with or membership of an organisation, membership of which the NEC has declared to be incompatible with membership of the Party or establish a group in opposition to an official UKIP group.
PBers will be interested to know that I am currently 'doing a Jezza' and sitting on the floor of the delayed 18:00 from Kings X. Disruption due to 'a person being hit by a train at Sandy', and my train (18:03 Skipton) was cancelled.
Maybe if we had more relaxed rules on firearms ownership people would find a way to top themselves that wasn't quite so disruptive to the travelling public - or traumatising to train drivers.
If anyone is a kipper or has a copy of the UKIP rulebook, can Carswell just be expelled from the party? In normal political parties a member has to do something wrong to be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
In UKIP, if you do something right (or moral) you are immediately out.
Pretty near the top of the tree, if not at the pinnacle. Pratchett was still at his creative best in those works, before he became formulaic. He was inventing a new world and could get in some biting social satire whilst keeping the comedy flowing.
Pretty near the top of the tree, if not at the pinnacle. Pratchett was still at his creative best in those works, before he became formulaic. He was inventing a new world and could get in some biting social satire whilst keeping the comedy flowing.
Guards, Guards was the first one I read. Years before any of the others.
What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords Conservatives are only 252 of 805, but they've been bloody good at whipping recently, they got 207 out the other night at some time past 11. A lot of the crossbenchers will probably abstain, but if they go against the government then the ping pong will start.
W.1.10 Any action which is in public opposition to the Party or its core aims, orwhich brings the Party into disrepute, shall be considered to be grounds for Disciplinary action under Section AA of the Rules of Procedure.
W.1.11 seems to be the bit which provides for expulsion.
Thanks Ishmael, the whole of W.1. seems to only apply to ordinary members, not those that have elected office or any formal position in the party. Carswell will need to be careful of "W.5 Elected members should not make public statements which contradict Party policy except in accordance with L.12 above." and "W.6 Elected members should refrain from public criticism of other Party members" but I think he's been just within the lines.
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
PBers will be interested to know that I am currently 'doing a Jezza' and sitting on the floor of the delayed 18:00 from Kings X. Disruption due to 'a person being hit by a train at Sandy', and my train (18:03 Skipton) was cancelled.
Maybe if we had more relaxed rules on firearms ownership people would find a way to top themselves that wasn't quite so disruptive to the travelling public - or traumatising to train drivers.
What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords Conservatives are only 252 of 805, but they've been bloody good at whipping recently, they got 207 out the other night at some time past 11. A lot of the crossbenchers will probably abstain, but if they go against the government then the ping pong will start.
All others were only 228 for a total number voting of 435. That number rings a bell!
W.1.10 Any action which is in public opposition to the Party or its core aims, orwhich brings the Party into disrepute, shall be considered to be grounds for Disciplinary action under Section AA of the Rules of Procedure.
W.1.11 seems to be the bit which provides for expulsion.
Thanks Ishmael, the whole of W.1. seems to only apply to ordinary members, not those that have elected office or any formal position in the party. Carswell will need to be careful of "W.5 Elected members should not make public statements which contradict Party policy except in accordance with L.12 above." and "W.6 Elected members should refrain from public criticism of other Party members" but I think he's been just within the lines.
Surely on that basis, the elected Mr Farage has overstepped the line somewhat?
Pretty near the top of the tree, if not at the pinnacle. Pratchett was still at his creative best in those works, before he became formulaic. He was inventing a new world and could get in some biting social satire whilst keeping the comedy flowing.
Guards, Guards was the first one I read. Years before any of the others.
Maskerade and thief of time for me. Pure comic genius.
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
To be fair Parliament could change its mind later on, and repeal those provisions of the Act.
If Nissan were going to use a fund of £100m to bring more of their supply chain to the U.K. that sounds seriously good value for money for U.K. Plc. It would have a significant effect on our balance of payments.
I am now +£100 Macron, 0 the field thanks to a tip presumably here back in November. Any value in taking some profit?
I was about £800 in the Green on Macron, but have taken advantage of the shifting odds to go Green on Fillon. I am now sitting comfortably all green, but whoever comes up against LePen will win hands down.
I would normally agree but I'm still spooked by the fact we both thought that about Clinton. Yes, under the French system she would have won and yes, she was a weaker candidate than Macron (I know you will disagree with me on that, but she really was) yet even allowing for that, the way things have gone so far there seems a non-trivial risk of the rival to Le Pen being sunk by some ghastly scandal just befor the run-off, handing her the election more or less faute de mieux.
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
Pretty near the top of the tree, if not at the pinnacle. Pratchett was still at his creative best in those works, before he became formulaic. He was inventing a new world and could get in some biting social satire whilst keeping the comedy flowing.
Jingo Lords and Ladies Interesting Times
But of all Pratchett's work, Good Omens remains my favourite (OK, I know Neil Gaiman co-wrote it).
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
That is so unacceptable but seems to sum up your dislike of our own Countrymen and women .
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
Agreed. If we look like the epitome of callousness it simply makes the EU hardliners' job easier. By extending an olive branch we make it easier for those in the EU hierarchy who want the minimum damage.
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
That is so unacceptable but seems to sum up your dislike of our own Countrymen and women .
Nonsense. williamglenn has never said a bad word about EU citizens.
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
There is no value in guaranteeing the right to remain of the 16hr a week chicken shop workers who are pulling in tens of thousands a year in benefits.
I'm not even sure that my local Romanian Big Issue Seller is indispensible.
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
Agreed. If we look like the epitome of callousness it simply makes the EU hardliners' job easier. By extending an olive branch we make it easier for those in the EU hierarchy who want the minimum damage.
May has already offered to do an early deal on this, but was rebuffed.
The French voting for Macron is them voting for more of the same. So disappointing. Ditto for the Germans voting for Merkel. Do these countries not see the economic, social, European, migration, etc crises?
They will do by this summer. I fear Europe is going to be overwhelmed by migrants trying to get in and Europe has no answer whatsover. Some in Europe may out trump Trump, God forbid
We'll be mining the Channel by the end of the decade at this rate..
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
That is so unacceptable but seems to sum up your dislike of our own Countrymen and women .
To him these foreigners *are* his countrymen and -women.
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
There is no value in guaranteeing the right to remain of the 16hr a week chicken shop workers who are pulling in tens of thousands a year in benefits.
I'm not even sure that my local Romanian Big Issue Seller is indispensible.
I know there are stats showing immigrants pay more in tax than they claim in welfare. I suspect the same is true for EU immigrants.
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
Agreed. If we look like the epitome of callousness it simply makes the EU hardliners' job easier. By extending an olive branch we make it easier for those in the EU hierarchy who want the minimum damage.
Negotiation should proceed on the basis of quid pro quo.
Pretty near the top of the tree, if not at the pinnacle. Pratchett was still at his creative best in those works, before he became formulaic. He was inventing a new world and could get in some biting social satire whilst keeping the comedy flowing.
Jingo Lords and Ladies Interesting Times
But of all Pratchett's work, Good Omens remains my favourite (OK, I know Neil Gaiman co-wrote it).
For me, it would have to Thief of Time or Mort, although in the current climate I may re-read "Jingo" or "The Truth"
Small Gods was a complete thumbs-down second to only Unseen Academicals which was Pratchett's nadir IMO
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
There is no value in guaranteeing the right to remain of the 16hr a week chicken shop workers who are pulling in tens of thousands a year in benefits.
I'm not even sure that my local Romanian Big Issue Seller is indispensible.
I know there are stats showing immigrants pay more in tax than they claim in welfare. I suspect the same is true for EU immigrants.
What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?
She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in
Genuine question, how many hereditary peers are there currently in the Commons? I know of at least one. Not that May would need to fear by-elections of course...
Mr. Doethur, I do try to avoid firing both crossbows and bows in my books.
Incidentally, if anyone would like a sort of Flashman meets Discworld meets Blackadder fantasy-comedy nonsense, do try The Adventures of Sir Edric. Hoping to get the second book out this year.
What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?
She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in
Genuine question, how many hereditary peers are there currently in the Commons? I know of at least one. Not that May would need to fear by-elections of course...
92 at present (not counting those that also hold life peerages)
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
There is no value in guaranteeing the right to remain of the 16hr a week chicken shop workers who are pulling in tens of thousands a year in benefits.
I'm not even sure that my local Romanian Big Issue Seller is indispensible.
I know there are stats showing immigrants pay more in tax than they claim in welfare. I suspect the same is true for EU immigrants.
The fact that many are self sustaining doesn't mean that we should guarantee to keep the ones who aren't.
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
A guarantee for anyone who has a job above a certain modest income (perhaps the same as the income spousal income threshold) unilaterally would be reasonable. It would give status to our EU Docs and Nurses, while not establishing rights for Big Issue sellers. Britain would only gain.
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Even as someone getting ever "softer" on Brexit, I agree with this. May has the right stance on EU migrants IMO: make clear that she wants those settled here already to stay, but on the condition that British expats on the Continent get the same treatment.
The Lords would be better off focussing on getting a clause which locks the government in to needing parliamentary approval for any Brexit "deal", preferably with the condition that Britain's exit won't take effect unless and until a deal's been approved, even if that means suspending or temporarily revoking Article 50.
Mr. Doethur, I do try to avoid firing both crossbows and bows in my books.
Incidentally, if anyone would like a sort of Flashman meets Discworld meets Blackadder fantasy-comedy nonsense, do try The Adventures of Sir Edric. Hoping to get the second book out this year.
What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?
She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in
Genuine question, how many hereditary peers are there currently in the Commons? I know of at least one. Not that May would need to fear by-elections of course...
92 at present (not counting those that also hold life peerages)
Edit: I'm an idiot.
I think there is only one... Viscount Thurso.
John Thurso lost his seat in the Commons in 2015. He's back in the Lords now.
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
There is no value in guaranteeing the right to remain of the 16hr a week chicken shop workers who are pulling in tens of thousands a year in benefits.
I'm not even sure that my local Romanian Big Issue Seller is indispensible.
I know there are stats showing immigrants pay more in tax than they claim in welfare. I suspect the same is true for EU immigrants.
As a whole yes, not necessarily as individuals.
Quite. Take out a couple of hundred premier league footballers and a few CEOs, and the figures look rather different.
No other country in the world pays benefits to recent immigrants, in most places you'll quickly find yourself deported if you're an unemployed foreigner.
What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?
She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in
Genuine question, how many hereditary peers are there currently in the Commons? I know of at least one. Not that May would need to fear by-elections of course...
92 at present (not counting those that also hold life peerages)
Edit: I'm an idiot.
I think there is only one... Viscount Thurso.
You may not have noticed but the SNP did rather well at the last general election. Regrettably the Highlands were cleared of nobility.
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
Agreed. If we look like the epitome of callousness it simply makes the EU hardliners' job easier. By extending an olive branch we make it easier for those in the EU hierarchy who want the minimum damage.
Negotiation should proceed on the basis of quid pro quo.
Ultimately we should do the right thing by UK residents, whether the EU agrees to reciprocate or not. We should not be dragged down to their level.
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
Agreed. If we look like the epitome of callousness it simply makes the EU hardliners' job easier. By extending an olive branch we make it easier for those in the EU hierarchy who want the minimum damage.
Negotiation should proceed on the basis of quid pro quo.
Yes it should, but you can give yourself an edge in negotiation as well. We need to minimise the disadvantage which A.50 will place us in beacuse A.50 gives the EU the upper hand.
What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?
She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in
Will no-one think of the stoats?
Surely any self-respecting hereditary would already have their robes!
I believe they're biodegradable. Or a wasting asset, if you prefer. And then, of course, there's the PETA problem. But most hereditaries will have maintained a modest stoat farm behind the fox covert, just in case.
What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?
She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in
Will no-one think of the stoats?
Surely any self-respecting hereditary would already have their robes!
I believe they're biodegradable. Or a wasting asset, if you prefer. And then, of course, there's the PETA problem. But most hereditaries will have maintained a modest stoat farm behind the fox covert, just in case.
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
Agreed. If we look like the epitome of callousness it simply makes the EU hardliners' job easier. By extending an olive branch we make it easier for those in the EU hierarchy who want the minimum damage.
Negotiation should proceed on the basis of quid pro quo.
Ultimately we should do the right thing by UK residents, whether the EU agrees to reciprocate or not. We should not be dragged down to their level.
But what if that would be doing the wrong thing by our citizens?
Basically feelings on this issue seem to come down to whether people are more likely to know people in category (a) or in category (b). Unsurprisingly the media is dominated by category (a) types.
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living and working in Britain is in Britain's interests, and sod what anyone else, including British ex-pats, thinks about it.
A guarantee for anyone who has a job above a certain modest income (perhaps the same as the income spousal income threshold) unilaterally would be reasonable. It would give status to our EU Docs and Nurses, while not establishing rights for Big Issue sellers. Britain would only gain.
That sounds reasonable, although I can see Mrs May's point about wanting assurances about Brits living in the EU simultaneously. We should allow pretty much unlimited immigration of medical professionals, and bend over backwards to stop them leaving.
Pretty near the top of the tree, if not at the pinnacle. Pratchett was still at his creative best in those works, before he became formulaic. He was inventing a new world and could get in some biting social satire whilst keeping the comedy flowing.
Jingo Lords and Ladies Interesting Times
But of all Pratchett's work, Good Omens remains my favourite (OK, I know Neil Gaiman co-wrote it).
For me, it would have to Thief of Time or Mort, although in the current climate I may re-read "Jingo" or "The Truth"
Small Gods was a complete thumbs-down second to only Unseen Academicals which was Pratchett's nadir IMO
Thief of Time is very good, and I enjoyed The Truth. Could never quite get on with Mort.
As for Unseen Academicals, Snuff, I Shall Wear Midnight, Raising Steam and The Shepherd's Crown, I don't count them as Pratchetts because I'm 99% sure they were actually written by his secretary - the rather incompetent shoehorning in of favourite characters whose story arcs had come to a natural end long ago with which those novels abounded is all too typical of ghost writing and/or fan fiction.
What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?
She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in
Genuine question, how many hereditary peers are there currently in the Commons? I know of at least one. Not that May would need to fear by-elections of course...
92 at present (not counting those that also hold life peerages)
Edit: I'm an idiot.
I think there is only one... Viscount Thurso.
John Thurso lost his seat in the Commons in 2015. He's back in the Lords now.
Thanks to the epic election with more candidates than voters, with a North Koreanesque result!
Such a stupid thing to defeat the government over. Parliament should be concerned with the rights of British citizens not just EU citizens. The government have already made clear they wish to respect the rights of EU citizens and it is simply conditional on a reciprocal agreement from Europe that they'll respect our citizens rights.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
I cannot begin to imagine how any sentient being could conceivably think it's a good idea for one side to guarantee the rights of the other side's citizens unconditionally. Even if our EU friends decide to chuck out British citizens? Even if there's no deal at all? What about healthcare costs? What about welfare payments?
What on earth are these peers smoking?
To be fair Parliament could change its mind later on, and repeal those provisions of the Act.
You think the HoL are merely indulging in a spot of Villager Gin Units (anagram to circumvent possible ban)?
What is the breakdown of the house of lords. May surely cannot win on Tory votes alone?
She merely has to repeal the HoL Act to allow the hereditaries back in
Genuine question, how many hereditary peers are there currently in the Commons? I know of at least one. Not that May would need to fear by-elections of course...
92 at present (not counting those that also hold life peerages)
Edit: I'm an idiot.
I think there is only one... Viscount Thurso.
The one I was thinking of was Michael Ancram, which was silly because he retired a long time ago as well. Thurso has lost his seat, Gummer has gone, Benn is not a peer. Are there in fact any in the Commons now?
Comments
The perfect wine to accompany pheasant.
He is a worthy favourite, but Fillon is hanging in there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017
Mind you, as far as a story involving a sniper and the French president goes, it could've been rather worse. Glad the unfortunate wounded aren't injured too severely.
She looks like she could poll in the 40-45% band.
I think a run off of Macron vs Fillon would be a more interesting final two in terms of deciding the future of France, but doesn't appear likely.
So what do the Lords hope to achieve here? If our citizens rights are respected then an agreement can be made quickly. If they're not then should Parliament encourage that?
W.1.10 Any action which is in public opposition to the Party or its core aims, orwhich
brings the Party into disrepute, shall be considered to be grounds for Disciplinary
action under Section AA of the Rules of Procedure.
W.1.11 seems to be the bit which provides for expulsion.
There is no easy cure for the ills of globalism, as will become apparent here and in America.
Maybe if we had more relaxed rules on firearms ownership people would find a way to top themselves that wasn't quite so disruptive to the travelling public - or traumatising to train drivers.
As I type we are now slowing down and stopping...
Conservative 252
Labour 202
Crossbench 178
Lib Dem 102
Bishops 26
Non-affiliated 31
Other 14 (3 DUP, 3 UKIP, 2 UUP, 2 Ind Lab, 1 Grn, 1 Ind Soc Dem, 1 Ind UU, 1 PC)
Total 805
Conservatives are only 252 of 805, but they've been bloody good at whipping recently, they got 207 out the other night at some time past 11. A lot of the crossbenchers will probably abstain, but if they go against the government then the ping pong will start.
Enjoyed the books, excepting the absence of chapters and the use of 'should of'.
VVD (Rutte) tied with PVV (WIlders) on 22
and
PVV 28 lead by 1 over VVD
Fair value now 2.5 IMO which puts a little value in Hills and Ladbrokes @ 2.75
policy except in accordance with L.12 above." and "W.6 Elected members should refrain from public criticism of other Party members" but I think he's been just within the lines.
What on earth are these peers smoking?
Surprisingly, I find that there are markedly more suicides than homicides by firearm in the US: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/
Not sure what to conclude from this, but I think your proposal causes more problems than it solves.
Lords and Ladies
Interesting Times
But of all Pratchett's work, Good Omens remains my favourite (OK, I know Neil Gaiman co-wrote it).
Still, even my GCSE textbooks get that wrong.
I'm not even sure that my local Romanian Big Issue Seller is indispensible.
Fingers crossed they can get you on your way soon.
Small Gods was a complete thumbs-down second to only Unseen Academicals which was Pratchett's nadir IMO
Incidentally, if anyone would like a sort of Flashman meets Discworld meets Blackadder fantasy-comedy nonsense, do try The Adventures of Sir Edric. Hoping to get the second book out this year.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Adventures-Edric-Hero-Hornska-Book-ebook/dp/B01DOSP9ZK/
Mrs C, May was willing to do an early reciprocal deal. The EU declined.
Edit: I'm an idiot.
I think there is only one... Viscount Thurso.
The Lords would be better off focussing on getting a clause which locks the government in to needing parliamentary approval for any Brexit "deal", preferably with the condition that Britain's exit won't take effect unless and until a deal's been approved, even if that means suspending or temporarily revoking Article 50.
No other country in the world pays benefits to recent immigrants, in most places you'll quickly find yourself deported if you're an unemployed foreigner.
Basically feelings on this issue seem to come down to whether people are more likely to know people in category (a) or in category (b). Unsurprisingly the media is dominated by category (a) types.
As for Unseen Academicals, Snuff, I Shall Wear Midnight, Raising Steam and The Shepherd's Crown, I don't count them as Pratchetts because I'm 99% sure they were actually written by his secretary - the rather incompetent shoehorning in of favourite characters whose story arcs had come to a natural end long ago with which those novels abounded is all too typical of ghost writing and/or fan fiction.