Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on the Alabama sentate race

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited November 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on the Alabama sentate race

Up to a few days ago it seemed the most exciting thing in the Alabama senate race would be the Republican primary, which culminated with the Donald Trump endorsed candidate Luther Strange was defeated by Roy Moore, then a story broke earlier on this week when a woman accused Roy Moore of initiating sexual conduct with her when she was 14 years old and he was 32.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,435
    First...like Fallon out of the cabinet
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,435
    polarisation in Politics can be good for getting the vote our - look at BREXIT and the subsequent youth vote in 2017....I believe one of the issues behind Hillary's result was she -did not get out the core Democrat vote in the right places (ethnic minorities, college educated etc)
    Alabama's black vote is a good example but I could be corrected.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    Second
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    edited November 2017
    FPT
    OchEye said:

    Scott_P said:
    Predictable but he is going nowhere - and I am not a fan but the onslaught for him to go is coming from those who want to remain and see him removed from cabinet influence
    It's more like anyone who thinks Boris is a clown, whether they are Brexiteers or Remainers is becoming increasingly irrelevant. He is not seen as a competent Foreign Secretary or an MP, May gave him a chance and he fluffed it.
    May gave him the chance to fluff it, is closer to the mark.

    Although today's Rawnsley:
    It was a surprise to everyone, not least himself, when she made him Britain’s face to the world. There was no love in that appointment. The prime minister can’t stand the man she made foreign secretary and it was not long after she elevated him that she made a rather vicious joke about having him put down like a dog when he had outlived his usefulness. The calculus at the time was that one of the senior offices of state had to go to a Brexiter and it would be better, in the famous expression of Lyndon Johnson, to have his namesake “pissing out of the tent”. I recall some commentators and many Tories hailing it as a May masterstroke; it doesn’t look so clever now.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    ...
    There are also some warnings from history, the most pertinent being the example of Harold Macmillan. By 1962, mould was eating his Tory government, though it had taken more than five years for the rot to set in, rather than just 16 months. He responded with “the Night of the Long Knives” when he dismissed seven of his cabinet, a third of the total, and among them the chancellor. He conceived this as a gambit that would rejuvenate his government and demonstrate that he still had a grip. There was a furious backlash and more scandals followed. He was gone from Number 10, using illness as an excuse for his retirement, the following year.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited November 2017
    IanB2 said:

    ...
    There are also some warnings from history, the most pertinent being the example of Harold Macmillan. By 1962, mould was eating his Tory government, though it had taken more than five years for the rot to set in, rather than just 16 months. He responded with “the Night of the Long Knives” when he dismissed seven of his cabinet, a third of the total, and among them the chancellor. He conceived this as a gambit that would rejuvenate his government and demonstrate that he still had a grip. There was a furious backlash and more scandals followed. He was gone from Number 10, using illness as an excuse for his retirement, the following year.

    Macmillan's night of the long knives is referred to by both Rawnsley in the Observer and Heffer in the Telegraph. Younger readers can watch this documentary on it.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEwpKCXirC8
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    IanB2 said:

    FPT

    OchEye said:

    Scott_P said:
    Predictable but he is going nowhere - and I am not a fan but the onslaught for him to go is coming from those who want to remain and see him removed from cabinet influence
    It's more like anyone who thinks Boris is a clown, whether they are Brexiteers or Remainers is becoming increasingly irrelevant. He is not seen as a competent Foreign Secretary or an MP, May gave him a chance and he fluffed it.
    May gave him the chance to fluff it, is closer to the mark.

    Although today's Rawnsley:
    It was a surprise to everyone, not least himself, when she made him Britain’s face to the world. There was no love in that appointment. The prime minister can’t stand the man she made foreign secretary and it was not long after she elevated him that she made a rather vicious joke about having him put down like a dog when he had outlived his usefulness. The calculus at the time was that one of the senior offices of state had to go to a Brexiter and it would be better, in the famous expression of Lyndon Johnson, to have his namesake “pissing out of the tent”. I recall some commentators and many Tories hailing it as a May masterstroke; it doesn’t look so clever now.
    I have to agree on the alternative version as well, but, which ever you look at it, he was given the chance to succeed. That he most spectacularly failed, really shows how close the rest of us got away from the disaster of a Boris premiership.....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    OchEye said:

    IanB2 said:

    FPT

    OchEye said:

    Scott_P said:
    Predictable but he is going nowhere - and I am not a fan but the onslaught for him to go is coming from those who want to remain and see him removed from cabinet influence
    It's more like anyone who thinks Boris is a clown, whether they are Brexiteers or Remainers is becoming increasingly irrelevant. He is not seen as a competent Foreign Secretary or an MP, May gave him a chance and he fluffed it.
    May gave him the chance to fluff it, is closer to the mark.

    Although today's Rawnsley:
    It was a surprise to everyone, not least himself, when she made him Britain’s face to the world. There was no love in that appointment. The prime minister can’t stand the man she made foreign secretary and it was not long after she elevated him that she made a rather vicious joke about having him put down like a dog when he had outlived his usefulness. The calculus at the time was that one of the senior offices of state had to go to a Brexiter and it would be better, in the famous expression of Lyndon Johnson, to have his namesake “pissing out of the tent”. I recall some commentators and many Tories hailing it as a May masterstroke; it doesn’t look so clever now.
    I have to agree on the alternative version as well, but, which ever you look at it, he was given the chance to succeed. That he most spectacularly failed, really shows how close the rest of us got away from the disaster of a Boris premiership.....
    I certainly agree with that. If there were any justice in the world or sense in the Tory party (insofar as these are different propositions), he would have been found out years ago.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    I agree with TSE: the Republicans are value here.

    That being said: could the Dems pull something out of the bag? Yes, it's possible. After all, in Virginia the gap was about 5-6 points wider than the polling in their favour.

    But in Alabama? My money's on the Republicans.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    That $ sign thing has false flag written all over it.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,274
    edited November 2017

    IanB2 said:

    ...
    There are also some warnings from history, the most pertinent being the example of Harold Macmillan. By 1962, mould was eating his Tory government, though it had taken more than five years for the rot to set in, rather than just 16 months. He responded with “the Night of the Long Knives” when he dismissed seven of his cabinet, a third of the total, and among them the chancellor. He conceived this as a gambit that would rejuvenate his government and demonstrate that he still had a grip. There was a furious backlash and more scandals followed. He was gone from Number 10, using illness as an excuse for his retirement, the following year.

    Macmillan's night of the long knives is referred to by both Rawnsley in the Observer and Heffer in the Telegraph. Younger readers can watch this documentary on it.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEwpKCXirC8
    Macmillan thought he had prostate cancer - it was not an excuse. When it subsequently transpired his ailment was benign and minor he regretted having given up the premiership. He went on to enjoy a long Indian summer, marked not least by his participation in the 1975 EEC referendum.
  • PeterC said:

    IanB2 said:

    ...
    There are also some warnings from history, the most pertinent being the example of Harold Macmillan. By 1962, mould was eating his Tory government, though it had taken more than five years for the rot to set in, rather than just 16 months. He responded with “the Night of the Long Knives” when he dismissed seven of his cabinet, a third of the total, and among them the chancellor. He conceived this as a gambit that would rejuvenate his government and demonstrate that he still had a grip. There was a furious backlash and more scandals followed. He was gone from Number 10, using illness as an excuse for his retirement, the following year.

    Macmillan's night of the long knives is referred to by both Rawnsley in the Observer and Heffer in the Telegraph. Younger readers can watch this documentary on it.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEwpKCXirC8
    Macmillan thought he had prostate cancer - it was not an excuse. When it subsequently transpired his ailment was benign and minor he regretted having given up the premiership. He went on to enjoy a long Indian summer, marked not least by his participation in the 1975 EEC referendum.
    Macmillan also famously identified the flaw in Mrs Thatcher's privatisation programme: receipts were spent not invested; it was, in today's parlance, a magic money tree. Selling the family silver, in Macmillan's words.
  • tlg86 said:

    That $ sign thing has false flag written all over it.

    In what way?

    Doug Lewis appears to be a genuine right wing American idiot.Becket Adams has noted that the Russians put their currency sign after the value as Mr Lewis did.
    You're suggesting the even more unlikely scenario where a liberal posted it pretending to be a right wing idiot and deliberately getting the currency sign wrong to point to Russian involvement.

    Come on, seriously?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    If you look in the following Twitter thread other people note that "Doug Lewis" claims all kinds of contradictory things, different places where he was born and raised, service in a building that hadn't been built when he said he was there, a ludicrous and ever changing amount of military honours (which are not on any official source) etc.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,274

    PeterC said:

    IanB2 said:

    ...
    There are also some warnings from history, the most pertinent being the example of Harold Macmillan. By 1962, mould was eating his Tory government, though it had taken more than five years for the rot to set in, rather than just 16 months. He responded with “the Night of the Long Knives” when he dismissed seven of his cabinet, a third of the total, and among them the chancellor. He conceived this as a gambit that would rejuvenate his government and demonstrate that he still had a grip. There was a furious backlash and more scandals followed. He was gone from Number 10, using illness as an excuse for his retirement, the following year.

    Macmillan's night of the long knives is referred to by both Rawnsley in the Observer and Heffer in the Telegraph. Younger readers can watch this documentary on it.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEwpKCXirC8
    Macmillan thought he had prostate cancer - it was not an excuse. When it subsequently transpired his ailment was benign and minor he regretted having given up the premiership. He went on to enjoy a long Indian summer, marked not least by his participation in the 1975 EEC referendum.
    Macmillan also famously identified the flaw in Mrs Thatcher's privatisation programme: receipts were spent not invested; it was, in today's parlance, a magic money tree. Selling the family silver, in Macmillan's words.
    Although i am not old enough to remember his premiership properly, it hard not to muse regretfully that they just don't make them like that anymore.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    PeterC said:

    IanB2 said:

    ...
    There are also some warnings from history, the most pertinent being the example of Harold Macmillan. By 1962, mould was eating his Tory government, though it had taken more than five years for the rot to set in, rather than just 16 months. He responded with “the Night of the Long Knives” when he dismissed seven of his cabinet, a third of the total, and among them the chancellor. He conceived this as a gambit that would rejuvenate his government and demonstrate that he still had a grip. There was a furious backlash and more scandals followed. He was gone from Number 10, using illness as an excuse for his retirement, the following year.

    Macmillan's night of the long knives is referred to by both Rawnsley in the Observer and Heffer in the Telegraph. Younger readers can watch this documentary on it.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEwpKCXirC8
    Macmillan thought he had prostate cancer - it was not an excuse. When it subsequently transpired his ailment was benign and minor he regretted having given up the premiership. He went on to enjoy a long Indian summer, marked not least by his participation in the 1975 EEC referendum.
    Macmillan also famously identified the flaw in Mrs Thatcher's privatisation programme: receipts were spent not invested; it was, in today's parlance, a magic money tree. Selling the family silver, in Macmillan's words.
    That was very true and I remember him saying it. I think it was about then that I realised just what a crock Thatcherism was and that it wasn't actually Conservatism.
  • http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-must-start-preparing-for-dover-chaos-in-event-of-a-no-deal-a8023976.html

    Every time I raise the physical impossibilities of a no deal Brexit loons tell me I have It wrong...
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited November 2017
    10/1 against Philip Hammond to be next out of the Cabinet. I've not invested since 10/1 is not outrageously wrong but I do wonder if Hammond should perhaps be a little shorter as the budget is only ten days away and Hammond might step down if it unravels like his last budget did when he had to U-turn on his proposed NI rise.

    Edit: I shall take another look in a week or so, which will give the swords hanging over Boris and Damian Green time to fall or move away.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited November 2017

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-must-start-preparing-for-dover-chaos-in-event-of-a-no-deal-a8023976.html

    Every time I raise the physical impossibilities of a no deal Brexit loons tell me I have It wrong...

    The problem is that merely because it would be logistically and practically disastrous doesn't make it impossible.

    Merely because you have an important business appointment that means you mustn't miss a train, doesn't make it impossible for you to miss the train.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited November 2017

    10/1 against Philip Hammond to be next out of the Cabinet. I've not invested since 10/1 is not outrageously wrong but I do wonder if Hammond should perhaps be a little shorter as the budget is only ten days away and Hammond might step down if it unravels like his last budget did when he had to U-turn on his proposed NI rise.

    Edit: I shall take another look in a week or so, which will give the swords hanging over Boris and Damian Green time to fall or move away.

    I can't see May losing both her Chancellor and FS at the same time. That would make her position untenable. Therefore it's one or the other and Hammond isn't as easy to replace as Boris would be - Davis to the FO and Gove to Brexit would be an easy enough swap for the blond Yeti in a glass factory.

    Of course, a really bold move would be to return Hammond to the FO, put Rudd at the Treasury and put Gove at the Home Office - but I don't think that will happen somehow.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Everyone seems to be concentrating on the mess the UK will be in.. no one seems to factor in the huge hole in the finances of the EU as a result of our departure. Hence it must be odds on by a long way that a deal will be done.
  • Everyone seems to be concentrating on the mess the UK will be in.. no one seems to factor in the huge hole in the finances of the EU as a result of our departure. Hence it must be odds on by a long way that a deal will be done.

    1. It's a hole. But "huge"? Not something that anyone other than Brexiteers ever refer to, haven't read any reportage from across the channel that the EU would be broke without us
    2. With no prospect of a deal business will start unplugging itself in the new year. That wazzock Davis said "a deal will be done" at the last minute. Not so says anyone who understands the process where the European Parliament has to sign off any deal inside the deadline.

    A deal needs to be done. But to assess the power balance as being in our favour is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the negotiation. This has been our problem since the start.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Hmm. Not tempted either way, to be honest. The Trumptonites suffered reversals in recent contests, no?

    F1: glad Bottas got pole but a little peeved Raikkonen couldn't be a tiny bit faster. Should've set up a hedge, so a schoolboy error on my part.

    Interesting grid for the race. Need to check the forecast.
  • Everyone seems to be concentrating on the mess the UK will be in.. no one seems to factor in the huge hole in the finances of the EU as a result of our departure. Hence it must be odds on by a long way that a deal will be done.

    What huge hole? There will be a £50 to £100 billion divorce payment followed presumably by continuing subscriptions to any European projects we want to remain in.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    edited November 2017

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-must-start-preparing-for-dover-chaos-in-event-of-a-no-deal-a8023976.html

    Every time I raise the physical impossibilities of a no deal Brexit loons tell me I have It wrong...

    I don't go into Dover very often now, but I know it well enough and I still work with clients who run into problems there. All the problems leaving the EU raises are soluble though they'll need space and money. Never mind No Deal, we'll probably lose Folkestone as well.

    But it is telling that no preparations are being made. The first step would presumably be the identifying of locations for the expanded facilities and getting compulsory purchase orders in place. Of course the other alternative is to transfer cross channel trade to Southampton and/or Felixstowe. This is quite doable but I imagine the inhabitants of Essex and Hampshire would have some opinions about the increase in traffic. And I would think that the job losses would be noticed in Kent too.

    So on the whole I think physical impossibility is a slight exaggeration, but really hard work with some extremely serious consequences and a big price tag would fit well enough.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited November 2017

    Everyone seems to be concentrating on the mess the UK will be in.. no one seems to factor in the huge hole in the finances of the EU as a result of our departure. Hence it must be odds on by a long way that a deal will be done.

    Fourteen billion euros a year - net around four billion - is not irreplaceable. It would be a nuisance rather than a disaster for the EU. Disruption to trade would be more costly, as would the disruption to their banking systems. However, again the costs are bearable and with the exception of Ireland are probably lower than they would be for us.

    That does however beg the question of where this €60 billion figure comes from. That may include pensions of course, but that should not amount to four times income!

    More information here:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    edited November 2017

    Everyone seems to be concentrating on the mess the UK will be in.. no one seems to factor in the huge hole in the finances of the EU as a result of our departure. Hence it must be odds on by a long way that a deal will be done.

    1. It's a hole. But "huge"? Not something that anyone other than Brexiteers ever refer to, haven't read any reportage from across the channel that the EU would be broke without us
    2. With no prospect of a deal business will start unplugging itself in the new year. That wazzock Davis said "a deal will be done" at the last minute. Not so says anyone who understands the process where the European Parliament has to sign off any deal inside the deadline.

    A deal needs to be done. But to assess the power balance as being in our favour is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the negotiation. This has been our problem since the start.
    A deal needs to be done? Not true from the EU perspective, for whom the UK will become a pariah state post Brexit. In many ways, the worse the deal the UK gets the better, to deter other states from considering leaving the EU and reinforce Fortress Europe. No deal wouldn't particularly harm the EU either.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Everyone seems to be concentrating on the mess the UK will be in.. no one seems to factor in the huge hole in the finances of the EU as a result of our departure. Hence it must be odds on by a long way that a deal will be done.

    Which is why the EU side are not wanting to talk about trade until they’ve secured a huge bribe bung blackmail payment there’s no basis in the Treaties for asking, they think we’ll agree to anything if the trade talks don’t start and the clock’s running down.

    I think we should say that we’re leaving to WTO terms and spending the remaining 18 months on getting everything ready for that scenario.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Good morning, everyone.

    Hmm. Not tempted either way, to be honest. The Trumptonites suffered reversals in recent contests, no?

    F1: glad Bottas got pole but a little peeved Raikkonen couldn't be a tiny bit faster. Should've set up a hedge, so a schoolboy error on my part.

    Interesting grid for the race. Need to check the forecast.

    Current forecast is dry. Now do I lay off my fiver (half-Brazilian?) for Bottas to win, or let it run?
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Sandpit said:

    Everyone seems to be concentrating on the mess the UK will be in.. no one seems to factor in the huge hole in the finances of the EU as a result of our departure. Hence it must be odds on by a long way that a deal will be done.

    Which is why the EU side are not wanting to talk about trade until they’ve secured a huge bribe bung blackmail payment there’s no basis in the Treaties for asking, they think we’ll agree to anything if the trade talks don’t start and the clock’s running down.

    I think we should say that we’re leaving to WTO terms and spending the remaining 18 months on getting everything ready for that scenario.
    I've come round to that too. It will be hugely disruptive and change Britain out of all recognition, but sometimes you've just got to spin the wheel.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited November 2017
    daodao said:

    No deal wouldn't particularly harm the EU either.

    The only way that No a Deal represents a significant - potentially fatal - threat to the current EU is if in five years' time it is seen as a success or, alternatively, as a very minor matter that made little difference (much the same thing in practice). In which case it seems very likely other countries would also wish to withdraw.

    That seems about as likely as me getting a date with Margot Robbie, TSE ordering a Hawaiian pizza or Boris Johnson showing something vaguely akin to competence. However, we live in strange and disturbing times and the only thing we can really confidently say is we have sod all idea what will happen next.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Everyone seems to be concentrating on the mess the UK will be in.. no one seems to factor in the huge hole in the finances of the EU as a result of our departure. Hence it must be odds on by a long way that a deal will be done.

    1. It's a hole. But "huge"? Not something that anyone other than Brexiteers ever refer to, haven't read any reportage from across the channel that the EU would be broke without us
    2. With no prospect of a deal business will start unplugging itself in the new year. That wazzock Davis said "a deal will be done" at the last minute. Not so says anyone who understands the process where the European Parliament has to sign off any deal inside the deadline.

    A deal needs to be done. But to assess the power balance as being in our favour is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the negotiation. This has been our problem since the start.
    I never suggested it was in our favour.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @ForecasterEnten: I can report (unless my sources have failed me) that tomorrow will showcase the first public poll to show Doug Jones with a lead in the AL-Senate race. This race is very real.
  • Sandpit said:

    Everyone seems to be concentrating on the mess the UK will be in.. no one seems to factor in the huge hole in the finances of the EU as a result of our departure. Hence it must be odds on by a long way that a deal will be done.

    Which is why the EU side are not wanting to talk about trade until they’ve secured a huge bribe bung blackmail payment there’s no basis in the Treaties for asking, they think we’ll agree to anything if the trade talks don’t start and the clock’s running down.

    I think we should say that we’re leaving to WTO terms and spending the remaining 18 months on getting everything ready for that scenario.
    According to HMRC their new customs system which switches on 6 weeks before we leave can cope with 60% of transactions needed under WTO. Assuming it runs at full capacity from switch on which it won't. They were quoted as needing 5 years to develop the infrastructure needed for WTO and we have 18 months. Nor can we "just wave EU trucks through" as some suggested in a marvellous demonstration of taking back control, because WTO rules mean we'd have to do the same for everywhere.

    And I think some have misunderstood the impossibility I refer to. Business is currently costed on just in time delivery with no delays. Add delays and you have to add inventory to cover those delays - which costs money as does the delay and the additional logistics costs. Which is where "food bills up 20%" comes from. The impossibility is that our economy can't afford 20% higher costs. BMW aremy going to shrug their shoulders and say "fine". They'll switch production, initially we'll be left with Hams Hall only building for Plant Oxford and that factory only building for the UK. Then they won't be viable and will shut due to being designed for higher volume that's no longer there.

    That's the impossibility. We can't switch back from free trade just in time to customs delays. That's why we wanted into the single market to start with. And "the EU will give us a bespoke FTO in 5 minutes" is a fantasy - impossible to achieve even if the will existed according to the people who'd negotiate it. Yet this impossible fantasy is what wazzocks pin their hopes on.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    No deal wouldn't particularly harm the EU either.

    The only way that No a Deal represents a significant - potentially fatal - threat to the current EU is if in five years' time it is seen as a success or, alternatively, as a very minor matter that made little difference (much the same thing in practice). In which case it seems very likely other countries would also wish to withdraw.

    That seems about as likely as me getting a date with Margot Robbie, TSE ordering a Hawaiian pizza or Boris Johnson showing something vaguely akin to competence. However, we live in strange and disturbing times and the only thing we can really confidently say is we have sod all idea what will happen next.
    The EU can virtually guarantee that a no deal outcome will harm the UK by treating it post Brexit as a pariah enemy state whose neck should be wrung like a chicken.
  • Mr. Sandpit, you got 13.5, right?

    He's barely over evens on Betfair. I'd probably hedge to be up 1-2 stakes if he doesn't win, and much more if he does.

    For him, the Mercedes is reliable and quick, and hot weather may hamper the Ferraris. Against, the margin is tiny and he's got two Ferraris and a Red Bull in close contention. There's also always a chance of first corner carnage at Brazil.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    rcs1000 said:

    I agree with TSE: the Republicans are value here.

    That being said: could the Dems pull something out of the bag? Yes, it's possible. After all, in Virginia the gap was about 5-6 points wider than the polling in their favour.

    But in Alabama? My money's on the Republicans.

    Sounds right to me, though it might be closeish.

    In other Alabama news, the Senate judiciary committee just rubber stamped Trump's appointment of a right wing blogger, who has never tried a case, to be a federal judge...
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-judge-20171110-story.html


  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Sandpit said:

    Everyone seems to be concentrating on the mess the UK will be in.. no one seems to factor in the huge hole in the finances of the EU as a result of our departure. Hence it must be odds on by a long way that a deal will be done.

    Which is why the EU side are not wanting to talk about trade until they’ve secured a huge bribe bung blackmail payment there’s no basis in the Treaties for asking, they think we’ll agree to anything if the trade talks don’t start and the clock’s running down.

    I think we should say that we’re leaving to WTO terms and spending the remaining 18 months on getting everything ready for that scenario.
    According to HMRC their new customs system which switches on 6 weeks before we leave can cope with 60% of transactions needed under WTO. Assuming it runs at full capacity from switch on which it won't. They were quoted as needing 5 years to develop the infrastructure needed for WTO and we have 18 months. Nor can we "just wave EU trucks through" as some suggested in a marvellous demonstration of taking back control, because WTO rules mean we'd have to do the same for everywhere.

    And I think some have misunderstood the impossibility I refer to. Business is currently costed on just in time delivery with no delays. Add delays and you have to add inventory to cover those delays - which costs money as does the delay and the additional logistics costs. Which is where "food bills up 20%" comes from. The impossibility is that our economy can't afford 20% higher costs. BMW aremy going to shrug their shoulders and say "fine". They'll switch production, initially we'll be left with Hams Hall only building for Plant Oxford and that factory only building for the UK. Then they won't be viable and will shut due to being designed for higher volume that's no longer there.

    That's the impossibility. We can't switch back from free trade just in time to customs delays. That's why we wanted into the single market to start with. And "the EU will give us a bespoke FTO in 5 minutes" is a fantasy - impossible to achieve even if the will existed according to the people who'd negotiate it. Yet this impossible fantasy is what wazzocks pin their hopes on.
    In the increasingly likely situation of No Deal, there are 3 options:

    1) Stay in (not possible politically)
    2) Take it on the chin and go WTO (need intensive preparations now)
    3) Extend A50 to allow a new team to take over from DD (May seems set to legislate this as impossible)

    To do none of these is the rankest incompetence possible, so nailed on for May to do.
  • daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    No deal wouldn't particularly harm the EU either.

    The only way that No a Deal represents a significant - potentially fatal - threat to the current EU is if in five years' time it is seen as a success or, alternatively, as a very minor matter that made little difference (much the same thing in practice). In which case it seems very likely other countries would also wish to withdraw.

    That seems about as likely as me getting a date with Margot Robbie, TSE ordering a Hawaiian pizza or Boris Johnson showing something vaguely akin to competence. However, we live in strange and disturbing times and the only thing we can really confidently say is we have sod all idea what will happen next.
    The EU can virtually guarantee that a no deal outcome will harm the UK by treating it post Brexit as a pariah enemy state whose neck should be wrung like a chicken.
    It won't have to go that far, just far enough pour encourager les autres.

    Shouldn't be difficult.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited November 2017
    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    No deal wouldn't particularly harm the EU either.

    The only way that No a Deal represents a significant - potentially fatal - threat to the current EU is if in five years' time it is seen as a success or, alternatively, as a very minor matter that made little difference (much the same thing in practice). In which case it seems very likely other countries would also wish to withdraw.

    That seems about as likely as me getting a date with Margot Robbie, TSE ordering a Hawaiian pizza or Boris Johnson showing something vaguely akin to competence. However, we live in strange and disturbing times and the only thing we can really confidently say is we have sod all idea what will happen next.
    The EU can virtually guarantee that a no deal outcome will harm the UK by treating it post Brexit as a pariah enemy state whose neck should be wrung like a chicken.
    That would actually be an even higher risk strategy for the EU which is why I was assuming they wouldn't follow it. It would be open season for a certain Power to take advantage of any temporary weakness such a trade war would cause to try and damage them as well.

    Perhaps however I am overrating their sense. When we warned of it in the briefing papers they accused us of blackmail, which stands as a rather unselfaware comment in light of subsequent events.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Mr. Sandpit, you got 13.5, right?

    He's barely over evens on Betfair. I'd probably hedge to be up 1-2 stakes if he doesn't win, and much more if he does.

    For him, the Mercedes is reliable and quick, and hot weather may hamper the Ferraris. Against, the margin is tiny and he's got two Ferraris and a Red Bull in close contention. There's also always a chance of first corner carnage at Brazil.

    Morning, Mr.D.
    I'd lay it as well - though as I laid my Bottas bet *before* qualifying you should perhaps take my views with a pinch of salt.
    Vettel does seem confident about the Ferrari's long run pace, and given the fragility of the ultrasofts, he has chances beyond the first corner.

    It will be interesting to watch Hamilton, starting with a new engine, and on the more durable tyres - and with no championship to worry about.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    edited November 2017
    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    No deal wouldn't particularly harm the EU either.

    The only way that No a Deal represents a significant - potentially fatal - threat to the current EU is if in five years' time it is seen as a success or, alternatively, as a very minor matter that made little difference (much the same thing in practice). In which case it seems very likely other countries would also wish to withdraw.

    That seems about as likely as me getting a date with Margot Robbie, TSE ordering a Hawaiian pizza or Boris Johnson showing something vaguely akin to competence. However, we live in strange and disturbing times and the only thing we can really confidently say is we have sod all idea what will happen next.
    The EU can virtually guarantee that a no deal outcome will harm the UK by treating it post Brexit as a pariah enemy state whose neck should be wrung like a chicken.
    That would actually be an even higher risk strategy for the EU which is why I was assuming they wouldn't follow it. It would be open season for a certain Power to take advantage of any temporary weakness such a trade war would cause to try and damage them as well.

    Perhaps however I am overrating their sense. When we warned of it in the briefing papers they accused us of blackmail, which stands as a rather unselfaware comment in light of subsequent events.
    Who is the "certain Power"? The USA? One of the criminal middle eastern regimes? Or Russia?

    One country that the UK would need to develop friendlier relations with post a no deal Brexit would be Russia, the other major non-EU European state and no friend of the EU.
  • Mr. B, don't think they're using ultrasofts. You mean the red supersofts? [Having three types of soft tyre is a nominal failure].

    The Mercedes can suffer in traffic, though. But the long straights should be super for him. That said, the top six are in a league of their own and he may struggle versus a Williams or Force India.
  • daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    No deal wouldn't particularly harm the EU either.

    The only way that No a Deal represents a significant - potentially fatal - threat to the current EU is if in five years' time it is seen as a success or, alternatively, as a very minor matter that made little difference (much the same thing in practice). In which case it seems very likely other countries would also wish to withdraw.

    That seems about as likely as me getting a date with Margot Robbie, TSE ordering a Hawaiian pizza or Boris Johnson showing something vaguely akin to competence. However, we live in strange and disturbing times and the only thing we can really confidently say is we have sod all idea what will happen next.
    The EU can virtually guarantee that a no deal outcome will harm the UK by treating it post Brexit as a pariah enemy state whose neck should be wrung like a chicken.
    And how long before their Tiffies start falling from the skies? All economies are interdependent and rely on global supply-chains: Here the UK is not the exception (more the rule).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    Everyone seems to be concentrating on the mess the UK will be in.. no one seems to factor in the huge hole in the finances of the EU as a result of our departure. Hence it must be odds on by a long way that a deal will be done.

    Which is why the EU side are not wanting to talk about trade until they’ve secured a huge bribe bung blackmail payment there’s no basis in the Treaties for asking, they think we’ll agree to anything if the trade talks don’t start and the clock’s running down.

    I think we should say that we’re leaving to WTO terms and spending the remaining 18 months on getting everything ready for that scenario.
    I've come round to that too. It will be hugely disruptive and change Britain out of all recognition, but sometimes you've just got to spin the wheel.
    Yup. The mistake we made was in thinking that the EU would negotiate in good faith. It’s now clear that that isn’t the case so we may as well just get on with life. The EU is a quickly diminishing proportion of the world economy and increasing inward looking and protectionist. Let’s leave on our own terms and find our place in the world.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Nigelb said:

    Mr. Sandpit, you got 13.5, right?

    He's barely over evens on Betfair. I'd probably hedge to be up 1-2 stakes if he doesn't win, and much more if he does.

    For him, the Mercedes is reliable and quick, and hot weather may hamper the Ferraris. Against, the margin is tiny and he's got two Ferraris and a Red Bull in close contention. There's also always a chance of first corner carnage at Brazil.

    Morning, Mr.D.
    I'd lay it as well - though as I laid my Bottas bet *before* qualifying you should perhaps take my views with a pinch of salt.
    Vettel does seem confident about the Ferrari's long run pace, and given the fragility of the ultrasofts, he has chances beyond the first corner.

    It will be interesting to watch Hamilton, starting with a new engine, and on the more durable tyres - and with no championship to worry about.
    Lewis for a podium might be a good bet. That engine’s going to turned up to 12.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Sandpit said:

    Let’s leave on our own terms and find our place in the world.

    Vastly impoverished is the answer
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited November 2017
    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    No deal wouldn't particularly harm the EU either.

    The only way that No a Deal represents a significant - potentially fatal - threat to the current EU is if in five years' time it is seen as a success or, alternatively, as a very minor matter that made little difference (much the same thing in practice). In which case it seems very likely other countries would also wish to withdraw.

    That seems about as likely as me getting a date with Margot Robbie, TSE ordering a Hawaiian pizza or Boris Johnson showing something vaguely akin to competence. However, we live in strange and disturbing times and the only thing we can really confidently say is we have sod all idea what will happen next.
    The EU can virtually guarantee that a no deal outcome will harm the UK by treating it post Brexit as a pariah enemy state whose neck should be wrung like a chicken.
    That would actually be an even higher risk strategy for the EU which is why I was assuming they wouldn't follow it. It would be open season for a certain Power to take advantage of any temporary weakness such a trade war would cause to try and damage them as well.

    Perhaps however I am overrating their sense. When we warned of it in the briefing papers they accused us of blackmail, which stands as a rather unselfaware comment in light of subsequent events.
    Who is the "certain Power"? The USA? One of the criminal middle eastern regimes? Or Russia?

    One country that the UK would need to develop friendlier relations with post a no deal Brexit would be Russia, the other major non-EU European state and no friend of the EU.
    I left it deliberately ambiguous :smiley:

    You are also probably right in your second point which is not the least of the unfortunate consequences of Brexit.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    No deal wouldn't particularly harm the EU either.

    The only way that No a Deal represents a significant - potentially fatal - threat to the current EU is if in five years' time it is seen as a success or, alternatively, as a very minor matter that made little difference (much the same thing in practice). In which case it seems very likely other countries would also wish to withdraw.

    That seems about as likely as me getting a date with Margot Robbie, TSE ordering a Hawaiian pizza or Boris Johnson showing something vaguely akin to competence. However, we live in strange and disturbing times and the only thing we can really confidently say is we have sod all idea what will happen next.
    The EU can virtually guarantee that a no deal outcome will harm the UK by treating it post Brexit as a pariah enemy state whose neck should be wrung like a chicken.
    The EU feels that the punishment is self inflicted by ourselves. There is no need for additional kicking.

    WTO status with no talks on a FTA until the financial issues are settled by the courts is as far as it will go. Our choice.

    What further "punishment" do you expect?
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    Scott_P said:

    Sandpit said:

    Let’s leave on our own terms and find our place in the world.

    Vastly impoverished is the answer
    On 23/6/17, the choice, as in 1940, was between being free but poor or a vassal state directed from Berlin.
  • Mr. Sandpit, maybe... he's only 2.75 on Ladbrokes, though.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    daodao said:

    On 23/6/17, the choice, as in 1940, was between being free but poor or a vassal state directed from Berlin.

    No, it really isn't.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Good thread header, an interesting change from our daily fare.

    Personally I think the prospects of No Deal are overrated. I know the EU well and these crises are normal in negotiations. We will successfully move to the next stage of negotiations, with a financial promise that is ever so slightly fudged.

    But Brexiteers are mistaken if they think that the EU27 are desperate for a deal. Their self-image is that they are rational people trying to reach a reasonable agreement with unpredictable partners who may not be able to deliver their side of the deal - a bit like the nuclear deal with Iran. They'll patiently keep trying, but are not in the mood to make massive concessions. Consequently, No Deal is possible, and we should certainly have a workable contingency plan.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Mr. B, don't think they're using ultrasofts. You mean the red supersofts? [Having three types of soft tyre is a nominal failure].

    The Mercedes can suffer in traffic, though. But the long straights should be super for him. That said, the top six are in a league of their own and he may struggle versus a Williams or Force India.

    You are, of course, quite right - Sunday morning brain fade.
    There were some interesting pictures of some very badly worn supersofts from practice, though.
  • Good thread header, an interesting change from our daily fare.

    Personally I think the prospects of No Deal are overrated. I know the EU well and these crises are normal in negotiations. We will successfully move to the next stage of negotiations, with a financial promise that is ever so slightly fudged.

    But Brexiteers are mistaken if they think that the EU27 are desperate for a deal. Their self-image is that they are rational people trying to reach a reasonable agreement with unpredictable partners who may not be able to deliver their side of the deal - a bit like the nuclear deal with Iran. They'll patiently keep trying, but are not in the mood to make massive concessions. Consequently, No Deal is possible, and we should certainly have a workable contingency plan.

    Morning Nick.

    What would you regard as a workable contingency plan - soup kitchens?
  • Mr. B, on which car? [Not doubting you, just want to know for betting purposes].

  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Good thread header, an interesting change from our daily fare.

    Personally I think the prospects of No Deal are overrated. I know the EU well and these crises are normal in negotiations. We will successfully move to the next stage of negotiations, with a financial promise that is ever so slightly fudged.

    But Brexiteers are mistaken if they think that the EU27 are desperate for a deal. Their self-image is that they are rational people trying to reach a reasonable agreement with unpredictable partners who may not be able to deliver their side of the deal - a bit like the nuclear deal with Iran. They'll patiently keep trying, but are not in the mood to make massive concessions. Consequently, No Deal is possible, and we should certainly have a workable contingency plan.

    We certainly should have such a plan. In fact I think working it up would be a very educational experience for a lot of us. I have a feeling it would look a lot like Tony Benn's plans back in the eighties.
  • Mr. Palmer, massive concessions, or any concessions?

    The EU, amongst other things which can perhaps be fudged, want to exert judicial imperialism over the UK after we leave. Having different laws for different people in the UK is unacceptable.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited November 2017

    Having different laws for different people in the UK is unacceptable.

    Unilaterally withdrawing rights from EU citizens is unacceptable
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Good thread header, an interesting change from our daily fare.

    Personally I think the prospects of No Deal are overrated. I know the EU well and these crises are normal in negotiations. We will successfully move to the next stage of negotiations, with a financial promise that is ever so slightly fudged.

    But Brexiteers are mistaken if they think that the EU27 are desperate for a deal. Their self-image is that they are rational people trying to reach a reasonable agreement with unpredictable partners who may not be able to deliver their side of the deal - a bit like the nuclear deal with Iran. They'll patiently keep trying, but are not in the mood to make massive concessions. Consequently, No Deal is possible, and we should certainly have a workable contingency plan.

    Fixing the A50 date in stone makes any A50 extension significantly harder on ourselves. It gives much less talking time. Not that more talking time is useful. This months talks were cut from 4 days to 2 because no point in any more.

    The EU cannot resolve the UK's cognitive dissonance. The have cake and eat it policy of treating the EU as an ala carte menu needs to be resolved by ourselves.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263



    Morning Nick.


    What would you regard as a workable contingency plan - soup kitchens?


    Morning Peter, hope you are both flourishing!

    A de facto extension to A50. Yes, we're out, but we agree to consider everything for 2 years exactly as though we were still in, including ongoing payments. There would be a hit in Government credibility, but they could sell it: "As promised we are indeed leaving, on exactly the date we stated, but in the national interest it's necessary to have a transitional period where things remain as they are while we prepare for WTO." Breieers have bought the idea of transition already, so it would just be a slightly more embarrassing version of it.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    A de facto extension to A50. Yes, we're out, but we agree to consider everything for 2 years exactly as though we were still in, including ongoing payments.

    That only works legally if we are actually still in...

    The planes can't fly if we only pretend we are still signatories to Open Skies
  • Mr. Palmer, massive concessions, or any concessions?

    The EU, amongst other things which can perhaps be fudged, want to exert judicial imperialism over the UK after we leave. Having different laws for different people in the UK is unacceptable.

    Scots have different laws to the English & Welsh.

    Ditto Northern Ireland.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    edited November 2017
    Scott_P said:

    Having different laws for different people in the UK is unacceptable.

    Unilaterally withdrawing rights from EU citizens is unacceptable
    Why? Apart from Irish citizens, who have special rights in the UK, they should be treated like citizens of all other foreign non-EU states. That would be equitable.

    Post Brexit, the ECHR and ECJ should have no jurisdiction in the UK.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    daodao said:

    Scott_P said:

    Sandpit said:

    Let’s leave on our own terms and find our place in the world.

    Vastly impoverished is the answer
    On 23/6/17, the choice, as in 1940, was between being free but poor or a vassal state directed from Berlin.
    The third option, is that if Britain is so great, why aren't we in charge of the EU? Probably because we never wanted, or allowed ourselves to believe we were actually full members.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Theresa May is effectively being held to ransom over Brexit by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, a bombshell leaked letter reveals.

    The Cabinet heavyweights made a series of veiled threats in a secret missive to the Prime Minister – which contained blunt instructions on how she should deliver the ‘hard Brexit’ they demand.

    The incredible letter also contains the sinister-sounding instruction that Mrs May should make rebel Cabinet Ministers toe their line by ‘clarifying their minds’.



    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5073567/Boris-Gove-s-plot-hijack-Number-10-exposed.html#ixzz4yCrOB1JA
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • Mr. P, applying the law to all people equally being unacceptable is an unorthodox and challenging use of reason.

    Mr. Eagles, yes. And if Scots sought to impose Scottish law on England or if Englishmen sought to impose English law on Scotland, that would be unacceptable too.

    Anyway, I must pay attention to the pre-race article. Done most of it. Just need to sort out some sort of bet.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    daodao said:

    Why? Apart from Irish citizens, who have special rights in the UK

    Your argument is that some citizens have different rights for historic reasons, which is why other citizens should have their historic rights curtailed...

    Needs work
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Mr. P, applying the law to all people equally being unacceptable is an unorthodox and challenging use of reason.

    The law applies equally now. It's the Brexiteers that want to change that, not me.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Good thread header, an interesting change from our daily fare.

    Personally I think the prospects of No Deal are overrated. I know the EU well and these crises are normal in negotiations. We will successfully move to the next stage of negotiations, with a financial promise that is ever so slightly fudged.

    But Brexiteers are mistaken if they think that the EU27 are desperate for a deal. Their self-image is that they are rational people trying to reach a reasonable agreement with unpredictable partners who may not be able to deliver their side of the deal - a bit like the nuclear deal with Iran. They'll patiently keep trying, but are not in the mood to make massive concessions. Consequently, No Deal is possible, and we should certainly have a workable contingency plan.

    Fixing the A50 date in stone makes any A50 extension significantly harder on ourselves. It gives much less talking time. Not that more talking time is useful. This months talks were cut from 4 days to 2 because no point in any more.

    The EU cannot resolve the UK's cognitive dissonance. The have cake and eat it policy of treating the EU as an ala carte menu needs to be resolved by ourselves.
    By that logic our negotiating at all is unreasonabLe since trying to get the best deal we can us cognitive dissonance, only able to he resolved by doing what they say, which isn't a negotiation.
  • Isn't sleeping with 14 year olds a vote winner in Alabama?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited November 2017
    Betting Post

    Hamilton is 2.4 (7/5) on Betfair Sportsbook #Oddsonthat to not finish on the podium.

    He's 3.3 on Betfair Exchange to finish on the podium.

    Edited extra bit: damn, gone already from the #Oddsonthat market. Can't count it as a tip really, given it instantly vanished.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @janemerrick23: Sadiq Khan tells #marr of Boris Johnson: “I think he’s got to go.”

    @jessicaelgot: Sadiq Khan says Boris Johnson should quit as foreign secretary, says he has not performed his first duty which is diplomacy
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Mr. Sandpit, you got 13.5, right?

    He's barely over evens on Betfair. I'd probably hedge to be up 1-2 stakes if he doesn't win, and much more if he does.

    For him, the Mercedes is reliable and quick, and hot weather may hamper the Ferraris. Against, the margin is tiny and he's got two Ferraris and a Red Bull in close contention. There's also always a chance of first corner carnage at Brazil.

    On the phone now and BF website blocked but yeah, if he’s evens I’ll lay him an Ayrton
  • Mr. Sandpit, yep, barely over. Lovely bet you've got.

    I just got a pale imitation on Hamilton but guaranteed green is always nice.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    Off topic this is worth listening to:

    https://audioboom.com/posts/6463162-peter-hitchens-says-the-uk-is-in-a-pre-civil-war-condition

    It's on getting out of the Euro-mess, not on impending civil war. But the govt has seemed since 2015 to be in headless chicken mode. So this compromise may be too much to hope for. It 'only' leaves the Irish border to be resolved.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Betting Post

    Hamilton is 2.4 (7/5) on Betfair Sportsbook #Oddsonthat to not finish on the podium.

    He's 3.3 on Betfair Exchange to finish on the podium.

    Edited extra bit: damn, gone already from the #Oddsonthat market. Can't count it as a tip really, given it instantly vanished.

    Had trouble finding where I saw the tyre report, Mr.D, but came up with this:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/7c16ob/blistering_on_the_inside_of_the_left_front_tyre/
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Isn't sleeping with 14 year olds a vote winner in Alabama?

    Only if you are cousins...
  • Mr. B, always irksome when you can't find something you saw in the past. Anyway, it won't affect the tip I'm offering (or may even prove helpful).

    Just going through the pre-race ramble now.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    PeterC said:

    IanB2 said:

    ...
    There are also some warnings from history, the most pertinent being the example of Harold Macmillan. By 1962, mould was eating his Tory government, though it had taken more than five years for the rot to set in, rather than just 16 months. He responded with “the Night of the Long Knives” when he dismissed seven of his cabinet, a third of the total, and among them the chancellor. He conceived this as a gambit that would rejuvenate his government and demonstrate that he still had a grip. There was a furious backlash and more scandals followed. He was gone from Number 10, using illness as an excuse for his retirement, the following year.

    Macmillan's night of the long knives is referred to by both Rawnsley in the Observer and Heffer in the Telegraph. Younger readers can watch this documentary on it.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEwpKCXirC8
    Macmillan thought he had prostate cancer - it was not an excuse. When it subsequently transpired his ailment was benign and minor he regretted having given up the premiership. He went on to enjoy a long Indian summer, marked not least by his participation in the 1975 EEC referendum.
    Macmillan also famously identified the flaw in Mrs Thatcher's privatisation programme: receipts were spent not invested; it was, in today's parlance, a magic money tree. Selling the family silver, in Macmillan's words.
    Magic money tree and selling the family silver are different - both poor governance.

    STFS is realising capital assets and using the proceeds for current spending rather than liability reduction or reinvestment in new assets

    MMT is the belief that government spending can be completely independent of revenue generation (the more conservative* view is not that budgets need to be in balance all the time, but that over the life of the business cycle the debt/gbp ratio should fall. The implies that debt can rise (i.e. there can be a deficit) provided that it is less than the increase in the size of the economy

    (NB deliberately a small c - not meant to be party politicial, so responses about how the Tory government has racked up more debt in the last 5 years that anyone since King John are missing the point)
  • OchEye said:

    daodao said:

    Scott_P said:

    Sandpit said:

    Let’s leave on our own terms and find our place in the world.

    Vastly impoverished is the answer
    On 23/6/17, the choice, as in 1940, was between being free but poor or a vassal state directed from Berlin.
    The third option, is that if Britain is so great, why aren't we in charge of the EU? Probably because we never wanted, or allowed ourselves to believe we were actually full members.
    This has been the trouble from the very start. Too many pro EEC/EU politicians saw the EU as a replacement for the Empire. In their arrogance they thought the UK would naturally end up leading the EU because it was our destiny. Of course this ignored all those other countries who had just as much right to lead on Europe and whose vision for the EU was very different to ours and had already shaped the edifice through its treaties and institutions.

    It was arrogance that dragged us into the EU project and it is only by understanding the reality of both the project and our place in it that we will come to understand it is not in our interests to Remain.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Sir James Dyson on Marr says the government should walk away from negotiations with the EU and not pay an exit bill and let the EU come to the UK for any trade bill. He also called for an end to corporation tax
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    This story reminded me of American Beauty, another film we won't be seeing again anytime soon.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Mr. Palmer, massive concessions, or any concessions?

    The EU, amongst other things which can perhaps be fudged, want to exert judicial imperialism over the UK after we leave. Having different laws for different people in the UK is unacceptable.

    Scots have different laws to the English & Welsh.

    Ditto Northern Ireland.
    Very much less ditto Northern Ireland, and leaving Scotland with its own legal system as a sop to the legal profession severely hampered it integration into the UK and now significantly boosts the independence case. I don't say that is a bad thing, but I think you are a Unionist?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited November 2017
    Despite the allegations Moore should win. Alabama has not voted for the Democratic candidate for President since 1976. Indeed if the Democrats do win Alabama it would be like when Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's old seat for the Republicans in January 2010
  • Betting Post

    F1: pre-race ramble now up:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/brazil-pre-race-2017.html

    I considered a very large number of bets, but in the end just went with Ricciardo to not be classified at 5.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Good thread header, an interesting change from our daily fare.

    Personally I think the prospects of No Deal are overrated. I know the EU well and these crises are normal in negotiations. We will successfully move to the next stage of negotiations, with a financial promise that is ever so slightly fudged.

    But Brexiteers are mistaken if they think that the EU27 are desperate for a deal. Their self-image is that they are rational people trying to reach a reasonable agreement with unpredictable partners who may not be able to deliver their side of the deal - a bit like the nuclear deal with Iran. They'll patiently keep trying, but are not in the mood to make massive concessions. Consequently, No Deal is possible, and we should certainly have a workable contingency plan.

    Why have they refused to provide evidentiary support for their Eur 60bn claim. They took it as a huge affront when it was requested. That suggests they are not interested in a rational discussion - clearly they are likely to end up close to there given the distribution of cards, but acremabd without evidence is just a demand
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Countries where the age of consent is 14: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Montenegro, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia.

    Refreshing to see the Remainariat having a "Let's all laugh at the pervy foreigners" moment.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Scott_P said:

    A de facto extension to A50. Yes, we're out, but we agree to consider everything for 2 years exactly as though we were still in, including ongoing payments.

    That only works legally if we are actually still in...

    The planes can't fly if we only pretend we are still signatories to Open Skies
    Willie Walsh went on the record a couple of weeks ago saying planes will still fly
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    Mr. Palmer, massive concessions, or any concessions?

    The EU, amongst other things which can perhaps be fudged, want to exert judicial imperialism over the UK after we leave. Having different laws for different people in the UK is unacceptable.

    Scots have different laws to the English & Welsh.

    Ditto Northern Ireland.
    A cousin of mine from Oxfordshire moved to Scotland in the 80s, got married and had kids. She then got divorced. But she wasn't able to leave Scotland because under Scottish law she had to stay in Scotland so that the kids were near their dad.

    That she was English mattered not one jot (and rightly so, by the way).
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    Countries where the age of consent is 14: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Montenegro, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia.

    Refreshing to see the Remainariat having a "Let's all laugh at the pervy foreigners" moment.

    That's not a proper understanding of the laws.

    IIRC no one over the age of 21 can have sexual relations with a 14/15 year old in Germany.
  • "If a self confessed pussy grabber can win Alabama then so should Roy Moore" TSE

    Some relevant differences:

    1. Trump never ran pretending to be a saint. His story was unpleasant, but not that shocking given his public persona. Moore has run on an explicitly religious ticket - literally holier than thou.

    2. Trump's comments were crass... but could be written off as 'locker room bravado'. If you wanted to (I don't, but I'm not a Trump man), you could say it was a hollow boast and not actually something he does in reality. The allegation about Moore is that he did in fact prey on young girls.

    3. Trump was talking about adult women. It's not my view at all (there is a lot of stuff about financial power, physical size, a dominating personality etc in play) but I do know that there are generations and cultures who say, 'if you're an adult, all's fair - just slap his hand away'. But with Moore, the most serious allegation is about a child and the argument doesn't apply.

    4. Trump was up against Clinton. Some of his supporters no doubt had a long night of the soul after pussy-gate. But Clinton was still Clinton, and hugely divisive. Doug Jones is a conservative, reasonably inoffensive (for Alabamans) Democrat. He favours further restrictions on abortion, for example. If you're a moderate Republican, he's a real option. If you're an evangelical, you remain at home, and Doug Jones gets in, you may lose little sleep - he'll probably be out in 2020 and isn't exactly a west coast liberal.

    5. Moore is a poor candidate anyway. He has a vocal, large, organised core of supporters - that's great for primaries, but he's always alienated a lot of moderates and Independents. Trump won Alabama by 28% - the same as Shelby in 2016. Sessions was unopposed in 2014. Romney by 22% in 2012. Polls were giving Moore a only high single digit lead BEFORE this scandal broke - enough to be confident, but crap for the GOP in Alabama.

    6. The Republicans are well down and Democrats well up on last year. That was clear in the off-year elections, and Democrats tended to outperform the polls last week (notably in Virginia, where it was meant to be a nail-biter but ended up comfortable, but also elsewhere). The suggestion is Democrats are motivated and will probably vote so, if they go into election day level, I'd back Jones.

    The value on the odds quoted is (just about) with Jones. I'd say Moore is just favourite, but narrowly. Indeed, I'd be interested in write-in odds. If this gets worse for Moore, Strange is still in play - the same happened, of course, in Alaska in 2010 when Murkowski lost the primary and won the write-in.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Countries where the age of consent is 14: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Montenegro, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia.

    Refreshing to see the Remainariat having a "Let's all laugh at the pervy foreigners" moment.

    That's not a proper understanding of the laws.

    IIRC no one over the age of 21 can have sexual relations with a 14/15 year old in Germany.
    Just looking at the Wiki page, it looks like there are no restrictions for 14+ in Austria. Which doesn't surprise me.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Countries where the age of consent is 14: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Montenegro, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia.

    Refreshing to see the Remainariat having a "Let's all laugh at the pervy foreigners" moment.

    That's not a proper understanding of the laws.

    IIRC no one over the age of 21 can have sexual relations with a 14/15 year old in Germany.
    Quite often the window moves down, not (or as well as) up: 12 in Hungary, 13 in Italy if you are under 18.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Surely the age of consent should simply be half your age plus seven.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    rcs1000 said:

    I agree with TSE: the Republicans are value here.

    That being said: could the Dems pull something out of the bag? Yes, it's possible. After all, in Virginia the gap was about 5-6 points wider than the polling in their favour.

    But in Alabama? My money's on the Republicans.

    Agreed, US politics is so tribal now that it’s hard to see anything that could cause Republcians to switch sides. The best the Dems can hope for is that it causes a few Republicans to stay home
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    No deal wouldn't particularly harm the EU either.

    The only way that No a Deal represents a significant - potentially fatal - threat to the current EU is if in five years' time it is seen as a success or, alternatively, as a very minor matter that made little difference (much the same thing in practice). In which case it seems very likely other countries would also wish to withdraw.

    That seems about as likely as me getting a date with Margot Robbie, TSE ordering a Hawaiian pizza or Boris Johnson showing something vaguely akin to competence. However, we live in strange and disturbing times and the only thing we can really confidently say is we have sod all idea what will happen next.
    The EU can virtually guarantee that a no deal outcome will harm the UK by treating it post Brexit as a pariah enemy state whose neck should be wrung like a chicken.
    I think the response was "some neck....some chicken...."
This discussion has been closed.