Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on the Irish border shambles

24

Comments

  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:


    You sound a bit aggressive about it. The short answer is that it would be irrelevant, because watching pornography does not afaik constitute evidence of a propensity to sexually assault people. But the mere fact of Quick and Lewis being in breach of alleged duties of confidentiality in now disclosing this material would not make their evidence in court on these matters inadmissible, as far as I can see.

    Are you sure? The magistrate I work with thinks otherwise, but I'd really like to know what our legal eagles think. None of them have said though.
    The fact that a computer used by Green had legal pornography on it would not be relevant evidence were Green to be tried on a charge of sexual assault. It does not seem to me, based on what I know, to fall within scope of “similar fact evidence”.

    Assuming, for a moment, that it was allowed in evidence, there would then be the issue of its probative value: how was the computer searched it, who did it, what records were kept at the time, what other checks were made etc.... The opinions of the police officers years later do not constitute evidence.

    Generally, the prosecution are not allowed to adduce evidence of bad character except in very specific and limited circumstances. And remember it is the prosecution which would have to prove its case (of sexual assault) beyond reasonable doubt. Viewing or having legal pornography is not a criminal offence and would not be an issue in such a case.

    That is one reason why the disclosure of this information - for no good reason other than that it seemed titillating at a time when interest was focused on MPs’ sex lives - is so damaging. Green cannot clear his name of this allegation and is having to defend himself against a charge of doing something legal, however immoral some may find it. Even if it were true that he did view legal pornography, it is not the job of the police to monitor public morality or to act as Parliament’s HR department.

    Remember also that they searched his home and looked at love letters to his wife and other personal stuff. If they did not destroy data relating to the computer, as they were ordered to, how much confidence can Green have that they have not kept other material and that it might be released in future to embarrass him?

    Breaching confidentiality and abuse of power by the police are more serious, IMO, than the seedy viewing habits of middle-aged men.
    That's exactly what I wanted someone more sensible than me to say, thank you!

    As I said before, his name could be cleared by the cops being charged with falsifying the evidence.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,583

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    He's the other other side of the Alabama election - 2012 Missouri of the Todd Akin 'Legitimate Rape' incident.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Missouri,_2012#Polling_2

    The highest the Dem polled was 51 points. She won with 54.5% of the vote. The RCP polling average was a 6 point win for the Dem, whe won by 15.5% as Akin under performed the polling

    Alabama is somewhat different to Missouri in 2012. It's not just very red, but has few swing voters.
    Yes, that was another point made in the excellent 538 coverage of the election. Alabama is red in a way few other GOP strongholds are. The voters simply dpn't swing.

    We are in unknown territory here though, and flying blind on account of the lack of reliable polls. The result could be anything. At 3/1, I'm a buyer of blues though, to fairly modest stakes.
    They might not swing but do they always turn out ?
    It's so unpredictable. But that is a good enough reason for taking 7/2 the Democrat to modest stakes.
    Indeed.

    Backing favourites has not been the profitable electoral bet in recent years.
    Bang on cue, there's a new discussion of the race on 538.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-trumps-endorsement-of-roy-moore-a-mistake/

    Spoiler alert. It doesn't really help you make your mind up as to who will win!
    However, I'm still with you. The voters may not swing, but they may not vote. Which is the greater motivator?
    The alleged paedophile you want to win, or the one which would confirm every stereotype the rest of the World thinks about you?
    In such a situation any odds above around 6/4 sounds value.
    DYOR obvs.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,384

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    He's the other other side of the Alabama election - 2012 Missouri of the Todd Akin 'Legitimate Rape' incident.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Missouri,_2012#Polling_2

    The highest the Dem polled was 51 points. She won with 54.5% of the vote. The RCP polling average was a 6 point win for the Dem, whe won by 15.5% as Akin under performed the polling

    Alabama is somewhat different to Missouri in 2012. It's not just very red, but has few swing voters.
    Yes, that was another point made in the excellent 538 coverage of the election. Alabama is red in a way few other GOP strongholds are. The voters simply dpn't swing.

    We are in unknown territory here though, and flying blind on account of the lack of reliable polls. The result could be anything. At 3/1, I'm a buyer of blues though, to fairly modest stakes.
    But George Wallace was a Democrat and the dominant political figure there into the late 1970s!
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 957
    edited December 2017

    kyf_100 said:

    Trust me - being told we can't leave because some other country says we can't plays very badly in Brexitland, because it was precisely why people voted to leave in the first place.

    Tell me, in Brexitland, is Northern Ireland 'some other country'?
    I once attended a wedding reception not far outside of Hartlepool. I was the only person there who wasn't northern and working class.

    One of the people I was seated next to asked me "who are you?" and I told him my name, connection to the family, where I lived, and what I did. "Yeah but who are you?" he said. I repeated myself. He gave me an exasperated look, as if I was a complete dunce. Finally he said: "No, I mean... what team do you support?"

    Now I don't tell you this story so I can paint Northerners as football obsessed, whippet loving, flat cap wearing stereotypes, but rather because I often think back to that chap - after a couple of beers we got to chatting politics and it turned out he was a card carrying UKIP member.

    This was some years ago and at the time I assumed all kippers were retired Majors living in the Home Counties. But the way this chap thought was very simple - it was either you are on our team, or you are not. The Monkey Hangers were his team. UKIP was his team. And if Arlene Foster is the one saying F.U. to anyone trying to stop Brexit, she is his team, too.

    In most people's minds, outside of politico-wonk-land, it really is that simple. To the vast majority of ordinary people, it is not about the subtleties of hard borders or soft borders - it is about who will deliver Brexit or not. That is what they voted for. And woe betide anyone who tries to stop it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,658

    I've only ever gone to a public protest against homeopathy, but I'd definitely go to one against the Met if they don't come down hard on the bent cops.

    They have to make an example of them. If cops can get away with this sort of thing, none of us are safe.

    With what sort of thing? Are the police accused of leaking genuine evidence or of making the whole thing up?
    I refer you to Cyclefree's excellent post.
    They are accused of breach of duty of confidentiality, along with potential data protection breaches, and possible misconduct in public office... by the current Met Police Commissioner:
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/met-chief-cressida-dick-condemns-retired-officers-for-leaking-information-on-damien-green-amid-porn-a3709316.html

    Unless they have somehow retained a copy of Green's hard drive from nearly a decade back and maintained a secure chain of evidence, which seems, to put it mildly, rather unlikely, then there is no answer to your either/or.

  • Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:


    You sound a bit aggressive about it. The short answer is that it would be irrelevant, because watching pornography does not afaik constitute evidence of a propensity to sexually assault people. But the mere fact of Quick and Lewis being in breach of alleged duties of confidentiality in now disclosing this material would not make their evidence in court on these matters inadmissible, as far as I can see.

    Are you sure? The magistrate I work with thinks otherwise, but I'd really like to know what our legal eagles think. None of them have said though.
    The fact that a computer used by Green had legal pornography on it would not be relevant evidence were Green to be tried on a charge of sexual assault. It does not seem to me, based on what I know, to fall within scope of “similar fact evidence”.

    Assuming, for a moment, that it was allowed in evidence, there would then be the issue of its probative value: how was the computer searched it, who did it, what records were kept at the time, what other checks were made etc.... The opinions of the police officers years later do not constitute evidence.

    Generally, the prosecution are not allowed to adduce evidence of bad character except in very specific and limited circumstances. And remember it is the prosecution which would have to prove its case (of sexual assault) beyond reasonable doubt. Viewing or having legal pornography is not a criminal offence and would not be an issue in such a case.

    That is one reason why the disclosure of this information - for no good reason other than that it seemed titillating at a time when interest was focused on MPs’ sex lives - is so damaging. Green cannot clear his name of this allegation and is having to defend himself against a charge of doing something legal, however immoral some may find it. Even if it were true that he did view legal pornography, it is not the job of the police to monitor public morality or to act as Parliament’s HR department.

    Remember also that they searched his home and looked at love letters to his wife and other personal stuff. If they did not destroy data relating to the computer, as they were ordered to, how much confidence can Green have that they have not kept other material and that it might be released in future to embarrass him?

    Breaching confidentiality and abuse of power by the police are more serious, IMO, than the seedy viewing habits of middle-aged men.
    That's exactly what I wanted someone more sensible than me to say, thank you!

    As I said before, his name could be cleared by the cops being charged with falsifying the evidence.
    Damian Green has not sued for libel. If he did, then it would not kill the story but keep it in the headlines for months.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,080

    Ishmael_Z said:

    the mere fact of Quick and Lewis being in breach of alleged duties of confidentiality in now disclosing this material would not make their evidence in court on these matters inadmissible, as far as I can see.

    Really? Why bother telling cops to destroy evidence then?
    There is confusion between three different things going on:-

    1. There is material obtained in the course of an investigation. This is confidential. Green took action against the police to get material they seized destroyed, in part because the police did not have the appropriate warrant to seize it. Not complying with a court order is, generally, contempt of court, a serious charge.

    2. Some of this material may be actual or potentially relevant evidence if someone is charged and needs to be handled in accordance with the rules on criminal disclosure.

    3. If material, no matter how it has been obtained, is relevant evidence then, subject to the judge’s discretion and various complicated rules, it can be admissible in evidence. Put simply, the test is relevance. How it is obtained - unless the manner of doing so is offensive to general principles of British justice eg a confession obtained by torture - is much less important. What it may do is make the probative value of that evidence much less strong so that not much reliance can be placed on it.

    But don’t confuse 1 with 3. The former was civil action taken after the original infestigation was closed. 3 is what happens in a criminal investigation. For the reasons I’ve put in my earlier post I find it hard to see how evidence about legal pornography could be relevant to a criminal charge of sexual assault.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    edited December 2017
    Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    the mere fact of Quick and Lewis being in breach of alleged duties of confidentiality in now disclosing this material would not make their evidence in court on these matters inadmissible, as far as I can see.

    Really? Why bother telling cops to destroy evidence then?
    There is confusion between three different things going on:-

    1. There is material obtained in the course of an investigation. This is confidential. Green took action against the police to get material they seized destroyed, in part because the police did not have the appropriate warrant to seize it. Not complying with a court order is, generally, contempt of court, a serious charge.

    2. Some of this material may be actual or potentially relevant evidence if someone is charged and needs to be handled in accordance with the rules on criminal disclosure.

    3. If material, no matter how it has been obtained, is relevant evidence then, subject to the judge’s discretion and various complicated rules, it can be admissible in evidence. Put simply, the test is relevance. How it is obtained - unless the manner of doing so is offensive to general principles of British justice eg a confession obtained by torture - is much less important. What it may do is make the probative value of that evidence much less strong so that not much reliance can be placed on it.

    But don’t confuse 1 with 3. The former was civil action taken after the original infestigation was closed. 3 is what happens in a criminal investigation. For the reasons I’ve put in my earlier post I find it hard to see how evidence about legal pornography could be relevant to a criminal charge of sexual assault.
    So does all that mean that the only potential crime that Quick and Lewis have reported in the public interest is their own?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,080

    Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:


    Are you sure? The magistrate I work with thinks otherwise, but I'd really like to know what our legal eagles think. None of them have said though.
    The fact that a computer used by Green had legal pornography on it would not be relevant evidence were Green to be tried on a charge of sexual assault. It does not seem to me, based on what I know, to fall within scope of “similar fact evidence”.

    Assuming, for a moment, that it was allowed in evidence, there would then be the issue of its probative value: how was the computer searched it, who did it, what records were kept at the time, what other checks were made etc.... The opinions of the police officers years later do not constitute evidence.

    Generally, the prosecution are not allowed to adduce evidence of bad character except in very specific and limited circumstances. And remember it is the prosecution which would have to prove its case (of sexual assault) beyond reasonable doubt. Viewing or having legal pornography is not a criminal offence and would not be an issue in such a case.

    That is one reason why the disclosure of this information - for no good reason other than that it seemed titillating at a time when interest was focused on MPs’ sex lives - is so damaging. Green cannot clear his name of this allegation and is having to defend himself against a charge of doing something legal, however immoral some may find it. Even if it were true that he did view legal pornography, it is not the job of the police to monitor public morality or to act as Parliament’s HR department.

    Remember also that they searched his home and looked at love letters to his wife and other personal stuff. If they did not destroy data relating to the computer, as they were ordered to, how much confidence can Green have that they have not kept other material and that it might be released in future to embarrass him?

    Breaching confidentiality and abuse of power by the police are more serious, IMO, than the seedy viewing habits of middle-aged men.
    That's exactly what I wanted someone more sensible than me to say, thank you!

    As I said before, his name could be cleared by the cops being charged with falsifying the evidence.
    Be careful. It is quite possible that there was legal pornography on Green’s computer but that it was not downloaded or viewed by him. So there may be no falsification by the police involved. And it could also be the case that Green is telling the truth.

    What is wrong here, IMO, is that some in the police have revealed confidential information into the public domain without proper process. This risks sullying peoples’ characters and also makes it impossible for a clear outcome ever to be reached. A bad business.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,866
    justin124 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    He's the other other side of the Alabama election - 2012 Missouri of the Todd Akin 'Legitimate Rape' incident.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Missouri,_2012#Polling_2

    The highest the Dem polled was 51 points. She won with 54.5% of the vote. The RCP polling average was a 6 point win for the Dem, whe won by 15.5% as Akin under performed the polling

    Alabama is somewhat different to Missouri in 2012. It's not just very red, but has few swing voters.
    Yes, that was another point made in the excellent 538 coverage of the election. Alabama is red in a way few other GOP strongholds are. The voters simply dpn't swing.

    We are in unknown territory here though, and flying blind on account of the lack of reliable polls. The result could be anything. At 3/1, I'm a buyer of blues though, to fairly modest stakes.
    But George Wallace was a Democrat and the dominant political figure there into the late 1970s!
    A different kind of Democrat. Alabama's electorate is 3:1 White. 95% of black voters support the Democrats, but usually 80% + whites vote Republican. Up till the 1990's, conservative Democrats could win Statewide, like Richard Shelby (who became a Republican) but they no longer exist.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,080
    edited December 2017

    Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:




    Assuming, for a moment, that it was allowed in evidence, there would then be the issue of its probative value: how was the computer searched it, who did it, what records were kept at the time, what other checks were made etc.... The opinions of the police officers years later do not constitute evidence.

    Generally, the prosecution are not allowed to adduce evidence of bad character except in very specific and limited circumstances. And remember it is the prosecution which would have to prove its case (of sexual assault) beyond reasonable doubt. Viewing or having legal pornography is not a criminal offence and would not be an issue in such a case.

    That is one reason why the disclosure of this information - for no good reason other than that it seemed titillating at a time when interest was focused on MPs’ sex lives - is so damaging. Green cannot clear his name of this allegation and is having to defend himself against a charge of doing something legal, however immoral some may find it. Even if it were true that he did view legal pornography, it is not the job of the police to monitor public morality or to act as Parliament’s HR department.

    Remember also that they searched his home and looked at love letters to his wife and other personal stuff. If they did not destroy data relating to the computer, as they were ordered to, how much confidence can Green have that they have not kept other material and that it might be released in future to embarrass him?

    Breaching confidentiality and abuse of power by the police are more serious, IMO, than the seedy viewing habits of middle-aged men.
    That's exactly what I wanted someone more sensible than me to say, thank you!

    As I said before, his name could be cleared by the cops being charged with falsifying the evidence.
    Damian Green has not sued for libel. If he did, then it would not kill the story but keep it in the headlines for months.
    Suing for libel is the last thing I would do were I Green. I also think that Green was unwise to make such a personal attack on Quick, however justified he may have felt it was. It risks embroiling him in a libel suit by Quick and appears to have triggered Lewis’s actions.

    A more in sorrow than in anger statement focusing on the police’s breach of confidentiality would have kept the focus where it should be. Others could have drawn the obvious conclusions about malice and/or vendettas. Sometimes it is best to leave others to join the dots.

    Anyway off to bed. The free advice session is closed!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,080

    Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    the mere fact of Quick and Lewis being in breach of alleged duties of confidentiality in now disclosing this material would not make their evidence in court on these matters inadmissible, as far as I can see.

    Really? Why bother telling cops to destroy evidence then?
    There is confusion between three different things going on:-

    1. There is material obtained in the course of an investigation. This is confidential. Green took action against the police to get material they seized destroyed, in part because the police did not have the appropriate warrant to seize it. Not complying with a court order is, generally, contempt of court, a serious charge.

    2. Some of this material may be actual or potentially relevant evidence if someone is charged and needs to be handled in accordance with the rules on criminal disclosure.

    3. If material, no matter how it has been obtained, is relevant evidence then, subject to the judge’s discretion and various complicated rules, it can be admissible in evidence. Put simply, the test is relevance. How it is obtained - unless the manner of doing so is offensive to general principles of British justice eg a confession obtained by torture - is much less important. What it may do is make the probative value of that evidence much less strong so that not much reliance can be placed on it.

    But don’t confuse 1 with 3. The former was civil action taken after the original infestigation was closed. 3 is what happens in a criminal investigation. For the reasons I’ve put in my earlier post I find it hard to see how evidence about legal pornography could be relevant to a criminal charge of sexual assault.
    So does all that mean that the only potential crime that Quick and Lewis have reported in the public interest is their own?
    Very possibly.
  • kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Trust me - being told we can't leave because some other country says we can't plays very badly in Brexitland, because it was precisely why people voted to leave in the first place.

    Tell me, in Brexitland, is Northern Ireland 'some other country'?
    I once attended a wedding reception not far outside of Hartlepool. I was the only person there who wasn't northern and working class.

    One of the people I was seated next to asked me "who are you?" and I told him my name, connection to the family, where I lived, and what I did. "Yeah but who are you?" he said. I repeated myself. He gave me an exasperated look, as if I was a complete dunce. Finally he said: "No, I mean... what team do you support?"

    Now I don't tell you this story so I can paint Northerners as football obsessed, whippet loving, flat cap wearing stereotypes, but rather because I often think back to that chap - after a couple of beers we got to chatting politics and it turned out he was a card carrying UKIP member.

    This was some years ago and at the time I assumed all kippers were retired Majors living in the Home Counties. But the way this chap thought was very simple - it was either you are on our team, or you are not. The Monkey Hangers were his team. UKIP was his team. And if Arlene Foster is the one saying F.U. to anyone trying to stop Brexit, she is his team, too.

    In most people's minds, outside of politico-wonk-land, it really is that simple. To the vast majority of ordinary people, it is not about the subtleties of hard borders or soft borders - it is about who will deliver Brexit or not. That is what they voted for. And woe betide anyone who tries to stop it.
    We have not had a situation in the UK where people have directly voted for an outcome and then that result has been disregarded - or actually blocked. I would expect that that would go down so badly that our political class wouldn't know what hit them. If an existing party didn't capture that resulting support I could see a UK Trump-like character arising - Farage on steroids.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Cyclefree said:



    Be careful. It is quite possible that there was legal pornography on Green’s computer but that it was not downloaded or viewed by him. So there may be no falsification by the police involved. And it could also be the case that Green is telling the truth.

    What is wrong here, IMO, is that some in the police have revealed confidential information into the public domain without proper process. This risks sullying peoples’ characters and also makes it impossible for a clear outcome ever to be reached. A bad business.

    I've suggested that it being a fabrication is a possibility, along with other possibilities. I don't believe, given the actions of these cops, that it can be ruled out.

    The reason i asked the question about if the court evidence would be admissible about his character was to question whether such evidence should be used by anyone to question his character.

    It is, sadly, being used to question his character, and his position. A lot of that is down to the BBC. The people responsible there are as guilty as the bad cops.

    The good cops need to act.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,583
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Trust me - being told we can't leave because some other country says we can't plays very badly in Brexitland, because it was precisely why people voted to leave in the first place.

    Tell me, in Brexitland, is Northern Ireland 'some other country'?
    I once attended a wedding reception not far outside of Hartlepool. I was the only person there who wasn't northern and working class.

    One of the people I was seated next to asked me "who are you?" and I told him my name, connection to the family, where I lived, and what I did. "Yeah but who are you?" he said. I repeated myself. He gave me an exasperated look, as if I was a complete dunce. Finally he said: "No, I mean... what team do you support?"

    Now I don't tell you this story so I can paint Northerners as football obsessed, whippet loving, flat cap wearing stereotypes, but rather because I often think back to that chap - after a couple of beers we got to chatting politics and it turned out he was a card carrying UKIP member.

    This was some years ago and at the time I assumed all kippers were retired Majors living in the Home Counties. But the way this chap thought was very simple - it was either you are on our team, or you are not. The Monkey Hangers were his team. UKIP was his team. And if Arlene Foster is the one saying F.U. to anyone trying to stop Brexit, she is his team, too.

    In most people's minds, outside of politico-wonk-land, it really is that simple. To the vast majority of ordinary people, it is not about the subtleties of hard borders or soft borders - it is about who will deliver Brexit or not. That is what they voted for. And woe betide anyone who tries to stop it.
    I can understand where you are coming from re: this.
    However, this is very simplistic You assume people divide their loyalties by Brexit/ anti-Brexit.
    Far more are Labour/Tory.
    Many more don't care.
    My view is that Brexit-interested v Brexit-bored breaks about 30/70.
    As a caller on R5L said today " Brexit? Is that still a thing? I thought that was last year"
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 46,188
    edited December 2017
    justin124 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    He's the other other side of the Alabama election - 2012 Missouri of the Todd Akin 'Legitimate Rape' incident.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Missouri,_2012#Polling_2

    The highest the Dem polled was 51 points. She won with 54.5% of the vote. The RCP polling average was a 6 point win for the Dem, whe won by 15.5% as Akin under performed the polling

    Alabama is somewhat different to Missouri in 2012. It's not just very red, but has few swing voters.
    Yes, that was another point made in the excellent 538 coverage of the election. Alabama is red in a way few other GOP strongholds are. The voters simply dpn't swing.

    We are in unknown territory here though, and flying blind on account of the lack of reliable polls. The result could be anything. At 3/1, I'm a buyer of blues though, to fairly modest stakes.
    But George Wallace was a Democrat and the dominant political figure there into the late 1970s!
    George Wallace was a Trumpite before Trump, he was more conservative than most Republicans let alone Northern Democrats and took a number of deep South states in 1968 helping to cost Humphrey the presidency and elect Nixon
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,384
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    He's the other other side of the Alabama election - 2012 Missouri of the Todd Akin 'Legitimate Rape' incident.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Missouri,_2012#Polling_2

    The highest the Dem polled was 51 points. She won with 54.5% of the vote. The RCP polling average was a 6 point win for the Dem, whe won by 15.5% as Akin under performed the polling

    Alabama is somewhat different to Missouri in 2012. It's not just very red, but has few swing voters.
    Yes, that was another point made in the excellent 538 coverage of the election. Alabama is red in a way few other GOP strongholds are. The voters simply dpn't swing.

    We are in unknown territory here though, and flying blind on account of the lack of reliable polls. The result could be anything. At 3/1, I'm a buyer of blues though, to fairly modest stakes.
    But George Wallace was a Democrat and the dominant political figure there into the late 1970s!
    George Wallace was a Trumpite before Trump, he was more conservative than most Republicans let alone Northern Democrats and took a number of deep South states in 1968 helping to cost Humphrey the presidency and elect Nixon
    Indeed - though he did run for the Democratic Presidential nomination several times!
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 957
    edited December 2017
    dixiedean said:

    kyf_100 said:



    I once attended a wedding reception not far outside of Hartlepool. I was the only person there who wasn't northern and working class.

    One of the people I was seated next to asked me "who are you?" and I told him my name, connection to the family, where I lived, and what I did. "Yeah but who are you?" he said. I repeated myself. He gave me an exasperated look, as if I was a complete dunce. Finally he said: "No, I mean... what team do you support?"

    Now I don't tell you this story so I can paint Northerners as football obsessed, whippet loving, flat cap wearing stereotypes, but rather because I often think back to that chap - after a couple of beers we got to chatting politics and it turned out he was a card carrying UKIP member.

    This was some years ago and at the time I assumed all kippers were retired Majors living in the Home Counties. But the way this chap thought was very simple - it was either you are on our team, or you are not. The Monkey Hangers were his team. UKIP was his team. And if Arlene Foster is the one saying F.U. to anyone trying to stop Brexit, she is his team, too.

    In most people's minds, outside of politico-wonk-land, it really is that simple. To the vast majority of ordinary people, it is not about the subtleties of hard borders or soft borders - it is about who will deliver Brexit or not. That is what they voted for. And woe betide anyone who tries to stop it.

    I can understand where you are coming from re: this.
    However, this is very simplistic You assume people divide their loyalties by Brexit/ anti-Brexit.
    Far more are Labour/Tory.
    Many more don't care.
    My view is that Brexit-interested v Brexit-bored breaks about 30/70.
    As a caller on R5L said today " Brexit? Is that still a thing? I thought that was last year"
    Quite possibly the vast majority of people who voted in 2016 don't care so much now (though I think my card-carrying UKIP example may be an exception), but I'm pretty sure if they are dragged to the ballot box again, either for a second referendum or because the government falls over Brexit and GE2018 becomes a de facto referendum, a lot of people will be voting on the "oi, didn't you hear us when we told you the first time?" principle.

    I also agree that tribal allegiances Labour vs Tory run very deep. Which is why it was a terrible mistake for the Tories to go wooing the kind of UKIP voter I describe in my anecdote above in GE2017. The fact is a fair proportion of the people who voted Brexit in 2016 a) would never vote Conservative and b) quite like Corbyn, which means that all he has to do is keep shtum on Brexit - forcing him to take an unequivocal stance would have to be a central plank of a hypothetical 2018 campaign, else he wins by default.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 46,188
    edited December 2017
    dixiedean said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Trust me - being told we can't leave because some other country says we can't plays very badly in Brexitland, because it was precisely why people voted to leave in the first place.

    Tell me, in Brexitland, is Northern Ireland 'some other country'?
    I once attended a wedding reception not far outside of Hartlepool. I was the only person there who wasn't northern and working class.

    One of the people I was seated next to asked me "who are you?" and I told him my name, connection to the family, where I lived, and what I did. "Yeah but who are you?" he said. I repeated myself. He gave me an exasperated look, as if I was a complete dunce. Finally he said: "No, I mean... what team do you support?"

    Now I don't tell you this story so I can paint Northerners as football obsessed, whippet loving, flat cap wearing stereotypes, but rather because I often think back to that chap - after a couple of beers we got to chatting politics and it turned out he was a card carrying UKIP member.

    This was some years ago and at the time I assumed all kippers were retired Majors living in the Home Counties. But the way this chap thought was very simple - it was either you are on our team, or you are not. The Monkey Hangers were his team. UKIP was his team. And if Arlene Foster is the one saying F.U. to anyone trying to stop Brexit, she is his team, too.

    In most people's minds, outside of politico-wonk-land, it really is that simple. To the vast majority of ordinary people, it is not about the subtleties of hard borders or soft borders - it is about who will deliver Brexit or not. That is what they voted for. And woe betide anyone who tries to stop it.
    I can understand where you are coming from re: this.
    However, this is very simplistic You assume people divide their loyalties by Brexit/ anti-Brexit.
    Far more are Labour/Tory.
    Many more don't care.
    My view is that Brexit-interested v Brexit-bored breaks about 30/70.
    As a caller on R5L said today " Brexit? Is that still a thing? I thought that was last year"
    Given the lowest the Tories have fallen since WW2 is 30% in 1997 and the lowest Labour have fallen is 28% in 1983, 58% of voters never vote anything but Labour or Tory. Add in roughly 8% who always vote LD and that only leaves about 34% as potential swing voters (even excluding the SNP, Greens and UKIP and the NI parties etc).

    I expect about 40% would vote Leave and 40% Remain regardless, leaving only 20% who could change their mind.

  • We have not had a situation in the UK where people have directly voted for an outcome and then that result has been disregarded - or actually blocked.

    Not UK wide, certainly..
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,585


    We have not had a situation in the UK where people have directly voted for an outcome and then that result has been disregarded - or actually blocked.

    Not UK wide, certainly..
    Would you like some ketchup with your chip?

    Night all :smile:
  • Just heard Alistair Campbell on R4 earlier, saying about the attention to detail, confidence building and communication that delivered the GFA in 1998.

    I am starting to think the Tory BREXIT strategy (which is the opposite to that )will never deliver a BREXIT solution on Northern Ireland, the best I can imagine is a fudge - the Daily Mail and Express for example just wont allow it - I cannot see how a way ahead can be found before Xmas
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,386
    edited December 2017
    RoyalBlue said:


    We have not had a situation in the UK where people have directly voted for an outcome and then that result has been disregarded - or actually blocked.

    Not UK wide, certainly..
    Would you like some ketchup with your chip?

    Night all :smile:

    Sorry, very bad form to distract Brexitloons from their unending prolapse about even the slight possibility of their 'democratic' will being thwarted.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,026
    edited December 2017
    First, voters, including not least those who voted Leave in the EU referendum, have become more critical of the way the negotiations are being handled and more pessimistic about what the consequences of Brexit will be. However, and second, this development has apparently not changed the balance of public opinion on what the eventual shape of Brexit should be....

    it should not be presumed that growing disappointment and discontent with the Brexit process (of which there already seems to be plenty) will necessarily persuade voters to change their minds about the kind of Brexit the UK should be seeking, or their view about the wisdom of leaving the EU in the first place.


    https://whatukthinks.org/eu/voters-half-time-brexit-judgment-not-going-well-but-little-change-of-heart/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,989
    Sean_F said:

    Don't you just yearn for the days when negotiations were carried out without Twitter in smoke-filled rooms by unaccountable men in grey suits?

    I don't think there's anything to be lost by remaining discreet, when trying to negotiate a deal. Selective leaks, tweets, running commentaries, just make the job harder.
    Which is exactly why the EU side and their friends in the media are trying to keep everything as public as possible.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 2,192

    Just heard Alistair Campbell on R4 earlier, saying about the attention to detail, confidence building and communication that delivered the GFA in 1998.

    The chasm in competence is simply staggering and Brexit is even harder and more complicated than the GFA with a looming deadline thrown in to spice things up...
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Just heard Alistair Campbell on R4 earlier, saying about the attention to detail, confidence building and communication that delivered the GFA in 1998.

    The chasm in competence is simply staggering and Brexit is even harder and more complicated than the GFA with a looming deadline thrown in to spice things up...
    One of its signatories has implicitly criticised the current Irish government’s approach....
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,645
    Dura_Ace said:

    Just heard Alistair Campbell on R4 earlier, saying about the attention to detail, confidence building and communication that delivered the GFA in 1998.

    The chasm in competence is simply staggering and Brexit is even harder and more complicated than the GFA with a looming deadline thrown in to spice things up...
    GFA much tougher IMO but perhaps less complicated.
    The deadline makes Brexit easy- just makes a good Brexit hard.
    There was no guarantee of anything happening with GFA - indeed in Powell’s book the deal was nearly called off on the day because of a row about how politicians would be sat around a table.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,266
    edited December 2017
    Trump appears to require a punch up every day....

    US to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital in world first

    US President Donald Trump will unilaterally recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital, senior administration officials say.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42246564
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,645
    Cyclefree said:


    Suing for libel is the last thing I would do were I Green. I also think that Green was unwise to make such a personal attack on Quick, however justified he may have felt it was. It risks embroiling him in a libel suit by Quick and appears to have triggered Lewis’s actions.

    A more in sorrow than in anger statement focusing on the police’s breach of confidentiality would have kept the focus where it should be. Others could have drawn the obvious conclusions about malice and/or vendettas. Sometimes it is best to leave others to join the dots.

    Anyway off to bed. The free advice session is closed!

    Does Green have any evidence it was Quicke who leaked it?
    If he doesn’t - then I think it is wrong he has accused one person when it could easily have been someone else.

    This whole episode shows the Met in a sorry situation.
  • rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Suing for libel is the last thing I would do were I Green. I also think that Green was unwise to make such a personal attack on Quick, however justified he may have felt it was. It risks embroiling him in a libel suit by Quick and appears to have triggered Lewis’s actions.

    A more in sorrow than in anger statement focusing on the police’s breach of confidentiality would have kept the focus where it should be. Others could have drawn the obvious conclusions about malice and/or vendettas. Sometimes it is best to leave others to join the dots.

    Anyway off to bed. The free advice session is closed!

    Does Green have any evidence it was Quicke who leaked it?
    If he doesn’t - then I think it is wrong he has accused one person when it could easily have been someone else.

    This whole episode shows the Met in a sorry situation.
    I don't think Green has accused Quick of leaking it - but Quick was pretty swift to confirm the allegations rather 'no comment on a closed investigation from 9 years ago'........
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,989
    edited December 2017
    Oh dear, Woakes lasts two balls before edging one behind. Moeen Ali in at 7.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,645

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Suing for libel is the last thing I would do were I Green. I also think that Green was unwise to make such a personal attack on Quick, however justified he may have felt it was. It risks embroiling him in a libel suit by Quick and appears to have triggered Lewis’s actions.

    A more in sorrow than in anger statement focusing on the police’s breach of confidentiality would have kept the focus where it should be. Others could have drawn the obvious conclusions about malice and/or vendettas. Sometimes it is best to leave others to join the dots.

    Anyway off to bed. The free advice session is closed!

    Does Green have any evidence it was Quicke who leaked it?
    If he doesn’t - then I think it is wrong he has accused one person when it could easily have been someone else.

    This whole episode shows the Met in a sorry situation.
    I don't think Green has accused Quick of leaking it - but Quick was pretty swift to confirm the allegations rather 'no comment on a closed investigation from 9 years ago'........
    This quotes him as saying Quicke has been leaking against him for years:
    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/damian-green-latest-former-metropolitan-police-assistant-commissionser-bob-quick-extreme-porn-office-a8038136.html?amp
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,989
    And now Root edges one behind as well. Visitors in trouble at 177/6.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,989
    edited December 2017
    And Ali lasts 20 balls for his two runs. Pleased for my bet but this is a shocking middle order performance from England. Seven overs until the new ball, if we last that long. 190/7.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,989
    RobD said:
    That’s shocking, glad that the security services managed to take them down before they posed a risk to the PM and cabinet. Brings back memories of the IRA mortar attack on Downing St back in 1991.

    Scary that this is one of nine foiled plots in the last twelve months, plus obviously those that slipped through the net.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,576

    I'm amazed that after days noone's answered.. We do have some people on here with legal expertise, don't we?

    If there were a current court case into an alleged sexual assault by Green, would the evidence presented by Quick and Lewis be admissible? Or would the judge insist that it be disregarded? Or something else?

    Surely one of you brains knows?

    Conventionally, you pay lawyers to answer your questions
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,861
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Trust me - being told we can't leave because some other country says we can't plays very badly in Brexitland, because it was precisely why people voted to leave in the first place.

    Tell me, in Brexitland, is Northern Ireland 'some other country'?
    I once attended a wedding reception not far outside of Hartlepool. I was the only person there who wasn't northern and working class.
    (Snip)

    In most people's minds, outside of politico-wonk-land, it really is that simple. To the vast majority of ordinary people, it is not about the subtleties of hard borders or soft borders - it is about who will deliver Brexit or not. That is what they voted for. And woe betide anyone who tries to stop it.
    I can understand where you are coming from re: this.
    However, this is very simplistic You assume people divide their loyalties by Brexit/ anti-Brexit.
    Far more are Labour/Tory.
    Many more don't care.
    My view is that Brexit-interested v Brexit-bored breaks about 30/70.
    As a caller on R5L said today " Brexit? Is that still a thing? I thought that was last year"
    Given the lowest the Tories have fallen since WW2 is 30% in 1997 and the lowest Labour have fallen is 28% in 1983, 58% of voters never vote anything but Labour or Tory. Add in roughly 8% who always vote LD and that only leaves about 34% as potential swing voters (even excluding the SNP, Greens and UKIP and the NI parties etc).

    I expect about 40% would vote Leave and 40% Remain regardless, leaving only 20% who could change their mind.
    Forgive me, HY, but you really should try to treat PB'ers to better than this cod analysis of yours here. Firstly, the population since WW2 is obviously not static - at each successive GE, on average, more than 5% of the previous electorate will have died and 5% will be brand new, due to aging. Then there is immigration and emigration. Then there is the fact that, with turnouts normally in the 60-70% range, it isn't the same people who vote every time - there is a considerable population of "sometimes voters". All of this pretty much demolishes any sense there might have been in your post.

    On the fundamental point, Dixie is right that most people don't care that much about the EU either way. They do care, however, about the economy, ease of trade and travel, and a host of other things that might go horrendously wrong if your government continues to progress toward Brexit in such a cack handed way, and indeed might go wrong regardless of how Brexit is done. As I anticipate you will be discovering.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,989
    No-one actually thought that England would get close to 357, did they?
    Pleased I didn’t have to sweat too much, but we need more depth in batting if we’re going to win any match in this series.
  • “Hammond didn’t fight the Treasury when he was defence secretary and now that we have got a defence secretary that is prepared to stand up against the Treasury, the Treasury are fighting dirty, including by not paying their bills. Well done Williamson for being prepared to stand up to the bully boys at the Treasury.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b2330304-da09-11e7-9b16-edd3826708d6
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 38,750
    Ishmael_Z said:

    It was filmed there in the limited sense that it was, er, filmed there.

    Apart from all the bits that were, er, filmed in Edinburgh...
  • Sandpit said:

    No-one actually thought that England would get close to 357, did they?
    Pleased I didn’t have to sweat too much, but we need more depth in batting if we’re going to win any match in this series.

    They did pretty well for a B Team. Makes you wonder what might have happened if we had sent the A side.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,635
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Trust me - being told we can't leave because some other country says we can't plays very badly in Brexitland, because it was precisely why people voted to leave in the first place.

    Tell me, in Brexitland, is Northern Ireland 'some other country'?
    ...
    (Snip)

    In most people's minds, outside of politico-wonk-land, it really is that simple. To the vast majority of ordinary people, it is not about the subtleties of hard borders or soft borders - it is about who will deliver Brexit or not. That is what they voted for. And woe betide anyone who tries to stop it.
    I can understand where you are coming from re: this.
    However, this is very simplistic You assume people divide their loyalties by Brexit/ anti-Brexit.
    Far more are Labour/Tory.
    Many more don't care.
    My view is that Brexit-interested v Brexit-bored breaks about 30/70.
    As a caller on R5L said today " Brexit? Is that still a thing? I thought that was last year"
    Given the lowest the Tories have fallen since WW2 is 30% in 1997 and the lowest Labour have fallen is 28% in 1983, 58% of voters never vote anything but Labour or Tory. Add in roughly 8% who always vote LD and that only leaves about 34% as potential swing voters (even excluding the SNP, Greens and UKIP and the NI parties etc).

    I expect about 40% would vote Leave and 40% Remain regardless, leaving only 20% who could change their mind.
    Forgive me, HY, but you really should try to treat PB'ers to better than this cod analysis of yours here. Firstly, the population since WW2 is obviously not static - at each successive GE, on average, more than 5% of the previous electorate will have died and 5% will be brand new, due to aging. Then there is immigration and emigration. Then there is the fact that, with turnouts normally in the 60-70% range, it isn't the same people who vote every time - there is a considerable population of "sometimes voters". All of this pretty much demolishes any sense there might have been in your post.

    On the fundamental point, Dixie is right that most people don't care that much about the EU either way. They do care, however, about the economy, ease of trade and travel, and a host of other things that might go horrendously wrong if your government continues to progress toward Brexit in such a cack handed way, and indeed might go wrong regardless of how Brexit is done. As I anticipate you will be discovering.
    LDs continually underestimate Britain's dislike of the EU. You'd think the previous few years might have taught them that lesson.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,635
    edited December 2017

    Sandpit said:

    No-one actually thought that England would get close to 357, did they?
    Pleased I didn’t have to sweat too much, but we need more depth in batting if we’re going to win any match in this series.

    They did pretty well for a B Team. Makes you wonder what might have happened if we had sent the A side.
    Peter, I know you keep making this point, but there are not 11 players at home with the experience combined with talent that would replace the 11 which are there.

    One or two changes, perhaps, but not many more than that....
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,635
    edited December 2017
    Ho hum. Set the alarm early because cricket, and today is the last really busy day of the day - I should have been finished by lunchtime.

    With the cricket over, I've got cracking on work early - might be done by 11.30! Silver linings and all that.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,645
    Sandpit said:

    No-one actually thought that England would get close to 357, did they?
    Pleased I didn’t have to sweat too much, but we need more depth in batting if we’re going to win any match in this series.

    I was going to bet they would until I saw the odds.
    If Root had made his century - England would have been close I think.

    But by my reckoning the top 7 are averaging 27. Hard to win a series with that.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,576

    I'm amazed that after days noone's answered.. We do have some people on here with legal expertise, don't we?

    If there were a current court case into an alleged sexual assault by Green, would the evidence presented by Quick and Lewis be admissible? Or would the judge insist that it be disregarded? Or something else?

    Surely one of you brains knows?

    Well you should remember that several MPs ended up in prison because of information was leaked* to the media during the expenses saga.

    *Some say illegally leaked.
    As a lawyer I'm sure you will understand the public interest defence
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,156
    edited December 2017
    Sandpit said:

    No-one actually thought that England would get close to 357, did they?
    Pleased I didn’t have to sweat too much, but we need more depth in batting if we’re going to win any match in this series.

    Ahem..
    Pulpstar said:

    4th innings chasesalways look on track, then all the wickets come at once !

    I've not looked but Aus 1.35 perhaps from here ?

    Edit: 1.315 according to Betfair, looks about right.

  • Mortimer said:

    Sandpit said:

    No-one actually thought that England would get close to 357, did they?
    Pleased I didn’t have to sweat too much, but we need more depth in batting if we’re going to win any match in this series.

    They did pretty well for a B Team. Makes you wonder what might have happened if we had sent the A side.
    Peter, I know you keep making this point, but there are not 11 players at home with the experience combined with talent that would replace the 11 which are there.

    One or two changes, perhaps, but not many more than that....
    No, not eleven, of course, but half a dozen, and some utterly inexplicable selections which the selectors have never felt obliged to explain.

    And then you might ask who is selecting the side - Whittaker, Strauss, Bayliss, Fraser, Pietersen? We just don't know. Best guess is that it's some sort of committee, but nobody has put their hand up and said 'I'm the one who decided Crane was a better choice than [email protected], or 'Buttler is no good at Test cricket'?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,635

    Mortimer said:

    Sandpit said:

    No-one actually thought that England would get close to 357, did they?
    Pleased I didn’t have to sweat too much, but we need more depth in batting if we’re going to win any match in this series.

    They did pretty well for a B Team. Makes you wonder what might have happened if we had sent the A side.
    Peter, I know you keep making this point, but there are not 11 players at home with the experience combined with talent that would replace the 11 which are there.

    One or two changes, perhaps, but not many more than that....
    No, not eleven, of course, but half a dozen, and some utterly inexplicable selections which the selectors have never felt obliged to explain.

    And then you might ask who is selecting the side - Whittaker, Strauss, Bayliss, Fraser, Pietersen? We just don't know. Best guess is that it's some sort of committee, but nobody has put their hand up and said 'I'm the one who decided Crane was a better choice than [email protected], or 'Buttler is no good at Test cricket'?
    Its a funny old world.

    In an age when everything seems appealable, and the twitter mob moan and whinge until something is changed, retracted or apologised for, I'm quite pleased that the ECB take that line.
  • Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Sandpit said:

    No-one actually thought that England would get close to 357, did they?
    Pleased I didn’t have to sweat too much, but we need more depth in batting if we’re going to win any match in this series.

    They did pretty well for a B Team. Makes you wonder what might have happened if we had sent the A side.
    Peter, I know you keep making this point, but there are not 11 players at home with the experience combined with talent that would replace the 11 which are there.

    One or two changes, perhaps, but not many more than that....
    No, not eleven, of course, but half a dozen, and some utterly inexplicable selections which the selectors have never felt obliged to explain.

    And then you might ask who is selecting the side - Whittaker, Strauss, Bayliss, Fraser, Pietersen? We just don't know. Best guess is that it's some sort of committee, but nobody has put their hand up and said 'I'm the one who decided Crane was a better choice than [email protected], or 'Buttler is no good at Test cricket'?
    Its a funny old world.

    In an age when everything seems appealable, and the twitter mob moan and whinge until something is changed, retracted or apologised for, I'm quite pleased that the ECB take that line.
    Lol! The ECB do it out of cowardice. Nobody can be held responsible.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,635

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Sandpit said:

    No-one actually thought that England would get close to 357, did they?
    Pleased I didn’t have to sweat too much, but we need more depth in batting if we’re going to win any match in this series.

    They did pretty well for a B Team. Makes you wonder what might have happened if we had sent the A side.
    Peter, I know you keep making this point, but there are not 11 players at home with the experience combined with talent that would replace the 11 which are there.

    One or two changes, perhaps, but not many more than that....
    No, not eleven, of course, but half a dozen, and some utterly inexplicable selections which the selectors have never felt obliged to explain.

    And then you might ask who is selecting the side - Whittaker, Strauss, Bayliss, Fraser, Pietersen? We just don't know. Best guess is that it's some sort of committee, but nobody has put their hand up and said 'I'm the one who decided Crane was a better choice than [email protected], or 'Buttler is no good at Test cricket'?
    Its a funny old world.

    In an age when everything seems appealable, and the twitter mob moan and whinge until something is changed, retracted or apologised for, I'm quite pleased that the ECB take that line.
    Lol! The ECB do it out of cowardice. Nobody can be held responsible.
    Sounds like collective responsibility to me.

    Seriously, I'm pro this. If the selection committee make the wrong calls, then they are all accountable - surely? But of course it is highly subjective.
  • Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Sandpit said:

    No-one actually thought that England would get close to 357, did they?
    Pleased I didn’t have to sweat too much, but we need more depth in batting if we’re going to win any match in this series.

    They did pretty well for a B Team. Makes you wonder what might have happened if we had sent the A side.
    Peter, I know you keep making this point, but there are not 11 players at home with the experience combined with talent that would replace the 11 which are there.

    One or two changes, perhaps, but not many more than that....
    No, not eleven, of course, but half a dozen, and some utterly inexplicable selections which the selectors have never felt obliged to explain.

    And then you might ask who is selecting the side - Whittaker, Strauss, Bayliss, Fraser, Pietersen? We just don't know. Best guess is that it's some sort of committee, but nobody has put their hand up and said 'I'm the one who decided Crane was a better choice than [email protected], or 'Buttler is no good at Test cricket'?
    Its a funny old world.

    In an age when everything seems appealable, and the twitter mob moan and whinge until something is changed, retracted or apologised for, I'm quite pleased that the ECB take that line.
    Lol! The ECB do it out of cowardice. Nobody can be held responsible.
    Sounds like collective responsibility to me.

    Seriously, I'm pro this. If the selection committee make the wrong calls, then they are all accountable - surely? But of course it is highly subjective.
    But is it a committee? And who is on it? I like collective responsibiity too, but not no responsibility, which is what you have with the ECB.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,255
    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Trust me - being told we can't leave because some other country says we can't plays very badly in Brexitland, because it was precisely why people voted to leave in the first place.

    Tell me, in Brexitland, is Northern Ireland 'some other country'?
    ...
    (Snip)

    In most people's minds, outside of politico-wonk-land, it really is that simple. To the vast majority of ordinary people, it is not about the subtleties of hard borders or soft borders - it is about who will deliver Brexit or not. That is what they voted for. And woe betide anyone who tries to stop it.
    I can understand where you are coming from re: this.
    However, this is very simplistic You assume people divide their loyalties by Brexit/ anti-Brexit.
    Far more are Labour/Tory.
    Many more don't care.
    My view is that Brexit-interested v Brexit-bored breaks about 30/70.
    As a caller on R5L said today " Brexit? Is that still a thing? I thought that was last year"
    I expect about 40% would vote Leave and 40% Remain regardless, leaving only 20% who could change their mind.
    Forgive me, HY, but you really should try to treat PB'ers to better than this cod analysis of yours here. Firstly, the population since WW2 is obviously not static - at each successive GE, on average, more than 5% of the previous electorate will have died and 5% will be brand new, due to aging. Then there is immigration and emigration. Then there is the fact that, with turnouts normally in the 60-70% range, it isn't the same people who vote every time - there is a considerable population of "sometimes voters". All of this pretty much demolishes any sense there might have been in your post.

    On the fundamental point, Dixie is right that most people don't care that much about the EU either way. They do care, however, about the economy, ease of trade and travel, and a host of other things that might go horrendously wrong if your government continues to progress toward Brexit in such a cack handed way, and indeed might go wrong regardless of how Brexit is done. As I anticipate you will be discovering.
    LDs continually underestimate Britain's dislike of the EU. You'd think the previous few years might have taught them that lesson.
    About 15-20 years ago one or two influential people started to treat the EU as some sort of bogeyman. Straight bananas and all that. “Another EU regulation” headlines. A few comdeians started making jokes along the same lines,
    And all that has poisoned the well of public opinion.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,576

    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Trust me - being told we can't leave because some other country says we can't plays very badly in Brexitland, because it was precisely why people voted to leave in the first place.

    Tell me, in Brexitland, is Northern Ireland 'some other country'?
    ...
    (Snip)

    To the vast majority of ordinary people, it is not about the subtleties of hard borders or soft borders - it is about who will deliver Brexit or not. That is what they voted for. And woe betide anyone who tries to stop it.
    I can understand where you are coming from re: this.
    However, this is very simplistic You assume people divide their loyalties by Brexit/ anti-Brexit.
    Far more are Labour/Tory.
    Many more don't care.
    My view is that Brexit-interested v Brexit-bored breaks about 30/70.
    As a caller on R5L said today " Brexit? Is that still a thing? I thought that was last year"
    I expect about 40% would vote Leave and 40% Remain regardless, leaving only 20% who could change their mind.
    Forgive me, HY, but you really should try to treat PB'ers to better than this cod analysis of yours here. Firstly, the population since WW2 is obviously not static - at each successive GE, on average, more than 5% of the previous electorate will have died and 5% will be brand new, due to aging. Then there is immigration and emigration. Then there is the fact that, with turnouts normally in the 60-70% range, it isn't the same people who vote every time - there is a considerable population of "sometimes voters". All of this pretty much demolishes any sense there might have been in your post.

    On the fundamental point, Dixie is right that most people don't care that much about the EU either way. They do care, however, about the economy, ease of trade and travel, and a host of other things that might go horrendously wrong if your government continues to progress toward Brexit in such a cack handed way, and indeed might go wrong regardless of how Brexit is done. As I anticipate you will be discovering.
    LDs continually underestimate Britain's dislike of the EU. You'd think the previous few years might have taught them that lesson.
    About 15-20 years ago one or two influential people started to treat the EU as some sort of bogeyman. Straight bananas and all that. “Another EU regulation” headlines. A few comdeians started making jokes along the same lines,
    And all that has poisoned the well of public opinion.
    So not the fault of the EU and its acolytes for failing to make a positive case?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 38,750
    Charles said:

    So not the fault of the EU and its acolytes for failing to make a positive case?

    The case was made, but "we have had enough of experts", right?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    As PB now seems to offer free legal advice, could anyone clarify how the Panda defence works? :

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,407
    Well that is disappointing. England did not make a fight of it after all. A decision really needs to be made about Stokes ASAP. At the moment 5-0 is once again hoving into view.
  • Charles said:

    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Trust me - being told we can't leave because some other country says we can't plays very badly in Brexitland, because it was precisely why people voted to leave in the first place.

    Tell me, in Brexitland, is Northern Ireland 'some other country'?
    ...
    (Snip)

    To the vast majority of ordinary people, it is not about the subtleties of hard borders or soft borders - it is about who will deliver Brexit or not. That is what they voted for. And woe betide anyone who tries to stop it.
    I can understand where you are coming from re: this.
    thought that was last year"
    I expect about 40% would vote Leave and 40% Remain regardless, leaving only 20% who could change their mind.
    rs". All of this pretty much demolishes any sense there might have been in your post.

    On the fundamental point, Dixie is right that most people don't care that much about the EU either way. They do care, however, about the economy, ease of trade and travel, and a host of other things that might go horrendously wrong if your government continues to progress toward Brexit in such a cack handed way, and indeed might go wrong regardless of how Brexit is done. As I anticipate you will be discovering.
    LDs continually underestimate Britain's dislike of the EU. You'd think the previous few years might have taught them that lesson.
    About 15-20 years ago one or two influential people started to treat the EU as some sort of bogeyman. Straight bananas and all that. “Another EU regulation” headlines. A few comdeians started making jokes along the same lines,
    And all that has poisoned the well of public opinion.
    So not the fault of the EU and its acolytes for failing to make a positive case?
    Absolutely, Charles.

    If I may take a brief break from slagging of the England selectors (whoever they may be) I would start by placing the main blame for Brexit where it belongs - at the top. That means the EU itself, and all those who failed to make an honest and open case for it. Then I'd work my way down through the relevant politicians and bureaucrats until I got down to the electorate, which bears some responsibility but does at least have its excuses.

    Now back to important matters, and the question of who on earth thought Malan was one of the best five batsmen in England. He wouldn't even be one of the best five in Essex.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,255
    Charles said:

    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Trust me - being told we can't leave because some other country says we can't plays very badly in Brexitland, because it was precisely why people voted to leave in the first place.

    Tell me, in Brexitland, is Northern Ireland 'some other country'?
    ...
    (Snip)

    To the vast majority of ordinary people, it is not about the subtleties of hard borders or soft borders - it is about who will deliver Brexit or not. That is what they voted for. And woe betide anyone who tries to stop it.
    I can understand where you are coming from re: this.
    However, this is very simplistic You assume people divide their loyalties by Brexit/ anti-Brexit.
    As a caller on R5L said today " Brexit? Is that still a thing? I thought that was last year"
    I expect about 40% would vote Leave and 40% Remain regardless, leaving only 20% who could change their mind.
    Forgive me, HY, but you really should try to treat PB'ers to better than this cod analysis of yours here. Firstly, the population since WW2 is obviously not static - at each successive GE, on average, more than 5% of the previous electorate will have died and 5% will be brand new, due to aging. Then there is immigration and emigration. Then there is the fact that, with turnouts normally in the 60-70% range, it isn't the same people who vote every time - there is a considerable population of "sometimes voters". All of this pretty much demolishes any sense there might have been in your post.

    On the fundamental point, Dixie is right that most people don't care that much about the EU either way. They do care, however, about the economy, ease of trade and travel, and a host of other things that might go horrendously wrong if your government continues to progress toward Brexit in such a cack handed way, and indeed might go wrong regardless of how Brexit is done. As I anticipate you will be discovering.
    LDs continually underestimate Britain's dislike of the EU. You'd think the previous few years might have taught them that lesson.
    About 15-20 years ago one or two influential people started to treat the EU as some sort of bogeyman. Straight bananas and all that. “Another EU regulation” headlines. A few comdeians started making jokes along the same lines,
    And all that has poisoned the well of public opinion.
    So not the fault of the EU and its acolytes for failing to make a positive case?
    Partly, true, but a demonstration of ‘Nudge Theory’.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,635

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Sandpit said:

    No-one actually thought that England would get close to 357, did they?
    Pleased I didn’t have to sweat too much, but we need more depth in batting if we’re going to win any match in this series.

    They did pretty well for a B Team. Makes you wonder what might have happened if we had sent the A side.
    Peter, I know you keep making this point, but there are not 11 players at home with the experience combined with talent that would replace the 11 which are there.

    One or two changes, perhaps, but not many more than that....
    No, not eleven, of course, but half a dozen, and some utterly inexplicable selections which the selectors have never felt obliged to explain.

    And then you might ask who is selecting the side - Whittaker, Strauss, Bayliss, Fraser, Pietersen? We just don't know. Best guess is that it's some sort of committee, but nobody has put their hand up and said 'I'm the one who decided Crane was a better choice than [email protected], or 'Buttler is no good at Test cricket'?
    Its a funny old world.

    In an age when everything seems appealable, and the twitter mob moan and whinge until something is changed, retracted or apologised for, I'm quite pleased that the ECB take that line.
    Lol! The ECB do it out of cowardice. Nobody can be held responsible.
    Sounds like collective responsibility to me.

    Seriously, I'm pro this. If the selection committee make the wrong calls, then they are all accountable - surely? But of course it is highly subjective.
    But is it a committee? And who is on it? I like collective responsibiity too, but not no responsibility, which is what you have with the ECB.
    Oh I see. I've always (perhaps blithely) assumed 'the selectors' are an actual body. Are they not?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 38,750
    @PickardJE: Keir Starmer says without deliberate irony that the Tories have a "contorted position" on Brexit. #today
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Mortimer said:

    Sandpit said:

    No-one actually thought that England would get close to 357, did they?
    Pleased I didn’t have to sweat too much, but we need more depth in batting if we’re going to win any match in this series.

    They did pretty well for a B Team. Makes you wonder what might have happened if we had sent the A side.
    Peter, I know you keep making this point, but there are not 11 players at home with the experience combined with talent that would replace the 11 which are there.

    One or two changes, perhaps, but not many more than that....
    No, not eleven, of course, but half a dozen, and some utterly inexplicable selections which the selectors have never felt obliged to explain.

    And then you might ask who is selecting the side - Whittaker, Strauss, Bayliss, Fraser, Pietersen? We just don't know. Best guess is that it's some sort of committee, but nobody has put their hand up and said 'I'm the one who decided Crane was a better choice than [email protected], or 'Buttler is no good at Test cricket'?
    I have seen Buttler and Hales play. Someone has to tell me that Vince, Stoneman and Malan are better than those two.

    We seem to compartmentalise test players. If Hales can hit a 100 in 70 balls, means Hales can score 100's to start with.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Ever since we have gone in to the EU, the England Cricket team has been shite !
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,255

    Charles said:

    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Trust me - being told we can't leave because some other country says we can't plays very badly in Brexitland, because it was precisely why people voted to leave in the first place.

    Tell me, in Brexitland, is Northern Ireland 'some other country'?
    ...
    (Snip)
    I can understand where you are coming from re: this.
    thought that was last year"
    I expect about 40% would vote Leave and 40% Remain regardless, leaving only 20% who could change their mind.
    rs". All of this pretty much demolishes any sense there might have been in your post.

    On the fundamental point, Dixie is right that most people don't care that much about the EU either way. They do care, however, about the economy, ease of trade and travel, and a host of other things that might go horrendously wrong if your government continues to progress toward Brexit in such a cack handed way, and indeed might go wrong regardless of how Brexit is done. As I anticipate you will be discovering.
    LDs continually underestimate Britain's dislike of the EU. You'd think the previous few years might have taught them that lesson.
    About 15-20 years ago one or two influential people started to treat the EU as some sort of bogeyman. Straight bananas and all that. “Another EU regulation” headlines. A few comdeians started making jokes along the same lines,
    And all that has poisoned the well of public opinion.
    So not the fault of the EU and its acolytes for failing to make a positive case?
    Absolutely, Charles.

    If I may take a brief break from slagging of the England selectors (whoever they may be) I would start by placing the main blame for Brexit where it belongs - at the top. That means the EU itself, and all those who failed to make an honest and open case for it. Then I'd work my way down through the relevant politicians and bureaucrats until I got down to the electorate, which bears some responsibility but does at least have its excuses.

    Now back to important matters, and the question of who on earth thought Malan was one of the best five batsmen in England. He wouldn't even be one of the best five in Essex.
    To be fair, Essex remarkable success last season was also down to our bowlers. And, sadly one of our main bowlers is injured. Was pisked for the Lions, but can’t even go on that.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 38,750
    @PolhomeEditor: Keir Starmer tells #r4today he "wouldn't rule out" the UK staying in the single market and customs union after Brexit - which Jeremy Corbyn previously has.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,635

    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Trust me - being told we can't leave because some other country says we can't plays very badly in Brexitland, because it was precisely why people voted to leave in the first place.

    Tell me, in Brexitland, is Northern Ireland 'some other country'?
    ...
    (Snip)

    In most people's minds, outside of politico-wonk-land, it really is that simple. To the vast majority of ordinary people, it is not about the subtleties of hard borders or soft borders - it is about who will deliver Brexit or not. That is what they voted for. And woe betide anyone who tries to stop it.
    ...
    ...
    ...

    On the fundamental point, Dixie is right that most people don't care that much about the EU either way. They do care, however, about the economy, ease of trade and travel, and a host of other things that might go horrendously wrong if your government continues to progress toward Brexit in such a cack handed way, and indeed might go wrong regardless of how Brexit is done. As I anticipate you will be discovering.
    LDs continually underestimate Britain's dislike of the EU. You'd think the previous few years might have taught them that lesson.
    About 15-20 years ago one or two influential people started to treat the EU as some sort of bogeyman. Straight bananas and all that. “Another EU regulation” headlines. A few comdeians started making jokes along the same lines,
    And all that has poisoned the well of public opinion.
    Yep, people's experience of more competition for resources like housing, education and healthcare and for good pay - its all a figment of their imagination.

    Oh, and our trade deficit with the EU? Just a joke, right? And the idea that laws should be made in this country, by our own Govt, not handed down from a foreign capital, yeh. What a laff.

    Seriously. Remainers need to accept that EU membership is considered a real problem in this country for real reasons.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,635
    Scott_P said:

    @PolhomeEditor: Keir Starmer tells #r4today he "wouldn't rule out" the UK staying in the single market and customs union after Brexit - which Jeremy Corbyn previously has.

    How is this man still in the shadcab?
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 1,449

    As PB now seems to offer free legal advice, could anyone clarify how the Panda defence works? :

    Apparently a retired policeman claimed to have found thousands of pictures of bamboo on her computer (though it remains unclear whether his evidence was admissible).
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,024
    kyf_100 said:



    Quite possibly the vast majority of people who voted in 2016 don't care so much now (though I think my card-carrying UKIP example may be an exception), but I'm pretty sure if they are dragged to the ballot box again, either for a second referendum or because the government falls over Brexit and GE2018 becomes a de facto referendum, a lot of people will be voting on the "oi, didn't you hear us when we told you the first time?" principle.

    I also agree that tribal allegiances Labour vs Tory run very deep. Which is why it was a terrible mistake for the Tories to go wooing the kind of UKIP voter I describe in my anecdote above in GE2017. The fact is a fair proportion of the people who voted Brexit in 2016 a) would never vote Conservative and b) quite like Corbyn, which means that all he has to do is keep shtum on Brexit - forcing him to take an unequivocal stance would have to be a central plank of a hypothetical 2018 campaign, else he wins by default.

    I think that only works if people feel the Tories are handling Brexit pretty well. If it's seen as a bit of a shambles (the current position, surely, even if some sort of scramble to stage 2 is achieved), then banging on about it will just make people feel they're obsessed about something they're actually bad at. Labour's line would be "We'll negotiate a better Brexit - it could hardly be worse than what you've been doing. Now, about falling wages, the NHS, education..."
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,576
    Scott_P said:

    Charles said:

    So not the fault of the EU and its acolytes for failing to make a positive case?

    The case was made, but "we have had enough of experts", right?
    Experts are fine but assess data not make overarching judgement calls.

    Arguments based on appeals to authority are pathetic
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,851
    Well done @Sandpit on your bet. You traitorous pig dog.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,989
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    No-one actually thought that England would get close to 357, did they?
    Pleased I didn’t have to sweat too much, but we need more depth in batting if we’re going to win any match in this series.

    Ahem..
    Pulpstar said:

    4th innings chasesalways look on track, then all the wickets come at once !

    I've not looked but Aus 1.35 perhaps from here ?

    Edit: 1.315 according to Betfair, looks about right.

    Yes, well done. I got about the worst odds of the match and was a little nervous as the runs ticked up yesterday evening. But of course I shouldn’t have worried, this England side were never going to end up in the top ten run chases of all time.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,576

    As PB now seems to offer free legal advice, could anyone clarify how the Panda defence works? :

    Mens rea?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,989
    TOPPING said:

    Well done @Sandpit on your bet. You traitorous pig dog.

    Well if we’re not going to watch England win, we might as well profit from them losing!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,851
    edited December 2017
    I'm just disappointed that Remainers Leavers put economic gain ahead of patriotism and national pride.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,576

    Charles said:

    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Trust me - being told we can't leave because some other country says we can't plays very badly in Brexitland, because it was precisely why people voted to leave in the first place.

    d, is Northern Ireland 'some other country'?
    ...
    (Snip)

    That is what they voted for. And woe betide anyone who tries to stop it.
    today " Brexit? Is that still a thing? I thought that was last year"
    only 20% who could change their mind.
    Forgive me, HY, but you really should try to treat PB'ers to better than this cod analysis of yours here. Firstly, the population since WW2 is obviously not static - at each successive GE, on average, more than 5% of the previous electorate will have died and 5% will be brand new, due to aging. Then there is immigration and emigration. Then there is the fact that, with turnouts normally in the 60-70% range, it isn't the same people who vote every time - there is a considerable population of "sometimes voters". All of this pretty much demolishes any sense there might have been in your post.

    On the fundamental point, Dixie is right that most people don't care that much about the EU either way. They do care, however, about the economy, ease of trade and travel, and a host of other things that might go horrendously wrong if your government continues to progress toward Brexit in such a cack handed way, and indeed might go wrong regardless of how Brexit is done. As I anticipate you will be discovering.
    LDs continually underestimate Britain's dislike of the EU. You'd think the previous few years might have taught them that lesson.
    About 15-20 years ago one or two influential people started to treat the EU as some sort of bogeyman. Straight bananas and all that. “Another EU regulation” headlines. A few comdeians started making jokes along the same lines,
    And all that has poisoned the well of public opinion.
    So not the fault of the EU and its acolytes for failing to make a positive case?
    Partly, true, but a demonstration of ‘Nudge Theory’.
    Nudge Theory is about economic incentives

    Dacre (who I assume you mean) doesn't create: he reflects and reinforces. British suspicion of continental power structures - the islander mentality - goes back to Boudicca and beyond

    (I'm not going to argue that as the descendents* of Brutus of Troy that we've always opposed Aeneas' usurption of our rights)

    * at least according to Our Island Story
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,007
    What larks on BBC breakfast interview of Manchester terrorism victim. Invited to criticise the failure to prevent it he blamed too much 'political correctness '. Moments later the interview was cut short. I suspect we'll see no more of him.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,024
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    No-one actually thought that England would get close to 357, did they?
    Pleased I didn’t have to sweat too much, but we need more depth in batting if we’re going to win any match in this series.

    Ahem..
    Pulpstar said:

    4th innings chasesalways look on track, then all the wickets come at once !

    I've not looked but Aus 1.35 perhaps from here ?

    Edit: 1.315 according to Betfair, looks about right.

    Yes, well done. I got about the worst odds of the match and was a little nervous as the runs ticked up yesterday evening. But of course I shouldn’t have worried, this England side were never going to end up in the top ten run chases of all time.
    +1. Thanks to Sandpit for the £s, though not for my blood pressure last night...
  • Charles said:

    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Trust me - being told we can't leave because some other country says we can't plays very badly in Brexitland, because it was precisely why people voted to leave in the first place.

    Tell me, in Brexitland, is Northern Ireland 'some other country'?
    ...
    (Snip)
    I can understand where you are coming from re: this.
    thought that was last year"
    I expect about 40% would vote Leave and 40% Remain regardless, leaving only 20% who could change their mind.
    rs". All of this pretty much demolishes any sense there might have been in your post.

    LDs continually underestimate Britain's dislike of the EU. You'd think the previous few years might have taught them that lesson.
    About 15-20 years ago one or two influential people started to treat the EU as some sort of bogeyman. Straight bananas and all that. “Another EU regulation” headlines. A few comdeians started making jokes along the same lines,
    And all that has poisoned the well of public opinion.
    So not the fault of the EU and its acolytes for failing to make a positive case?
    Absolutely, Charles.

    If I may take a brief break from slagging of the England selectors (whoever they may be) I s one of the best five batsmen in England. He wouldn't even be one of the best five in Essex.
    To be fair, Essex remarkable success last season was also down to our bowlers. And, sadly one of our main bowlers is injured. Was pisked for the Lions, but can’t even go on that.
    Nobody can legislate for injuries but Porter is a better bowler than Roland-Jones, as became painfully clear when Middlesex played Essex on a flattish track at Chelmsford in mid-summer. (Jones was first picked for England soon after, which makes you wonder if the selectors take any notice at all of four-day county championship matches.)

    I agree the bowling was good, and the South African spinner led the charge, but all the batters performed creditably, and you'd have to say that if Malan were on the Essex staff he wouldn't be picked unless, possibly, you dropped Westley. (That would be a very close call, but he certainly would not get in ahead of Cook, Browne, Lawrence and Bopara.)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,753
    edited December 2017
    OT. If this before and after had been reversed it might have changed the history of the Tory Party. ....


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/CKeeler1.jpg

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/24/article-0-1B726BF0000005DC-633_634x904.jpg
  • Prof Curtice:

    “Between them our two findings point to an important lesson – it should not be presumed that growing disappointment and discontent with the Brexit process will necessarily persuade voters to change their minds about the kind of Brexit the UK should be seeking, or their view about the wisdom of leaving the EU in the first place.

    So far, at least, voters seem inclined to blame the actors in the Brexit process for their perceived failure to be delivering what voters want rather than draw the conclusion that the act of leaving is misguided.

    A difficult Brexit could simply prove politically costly for Mrs May and her beleaguered government rather than a catalyst for a change of heart on Brexit.”


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5076555/majority-of-brits-now-think-well-get-a-bad-brexit-deal-and-they-blame-the-eu/
  • Prof Curtice:

    “Between them our two findings point to an important lesson – it should not be presumed that growing disappointment and discontent with the Brexit process will necessarily persuade voters to change their minds about the kind of Brexit the UK should be seeking, or their view about the wisdom of leaving the EU in the first place.

    So far, at least, voters seem inclined to blame the actors in the Brexit process for their perceived failure to be delivering what voters want rather than draw the conclusion that the act of leaving is misguided.

    A difficult Brexit could simply prove politically costly for Mrs May and her beleaguered government rather than a catalyst for a change of heart on Brexit.”


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5076555/majority-of-brits-now-think-well-get-a-bad-brexit-deal-and-they-blame-the-eu/

    Lol! Well of course the voters blame anybody but themselves - they always do.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,482

    Going back to another favourite topic, remember all that repeated fuss about the government's alleged excessive generosity to pensioners?

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/dec/05/oecd-uk-has-lowest-state-pension-of-any-developed-country

    Any comparison with other countries ought to take into account the many other pensioner goodies - winter fuel, Tv licenses, bus pass, exemption from benefit cap, exemption from NI, etc....
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,635

    kyf_100 said:



    Quite possibly the vast majority of people who voted in 2016 don't care so much now (though I think my card-carrying UKIP example may be an exception), but I'm pretty sure if they are dragged to the ballot box again, either for a second referendum or because the government falls over Brexit and GE2018 becomes a de facto referendum, a lot of people will be voting on the "oi, didn't you hear us when we told you the first time?" principle.

    I also agree that tribal allegiances Labour vs Tory run very deep. Which is why it was a terrible mistake for the Tories to go wooing the kind of UKIP voter I describe in my anecdote above in GE2017. The fact is a fair proportion of the people who voted Brexit in 2016 a) would never vote Conservative and b) quite like Corbyn, which means that all he has to do is keep shtum on Brexit - forcing him to take an unequivocal stance would have to be a central plank of a hypothetical 2018 campaign, else he wins by default.

    I think that only works if people feel the Tories are handling Brexit pretty well. If it's seen as a bit of a shambles (the current position, surely, even if some sort of scramble to stage 2 is achieved), then banging on about it will just make people feel they're obsessed about something they're actually bad at. Labour's line would be "We'll negotiate a better Brexit - it could hardly be worse than what you've been doing. Now, about falling wages, the NHS, education..."
    And of course the first question from 60% of Labour voters and 72% of Remainers would be - 'hang on, we don't know what you guys think about Europe 'cos you keep changing your mind and banging on about the NEC slate instead'.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 38,750
    Charles said:

    Arguments based on appeals to authority are pathetic

    You claimed the case had not been made.

    The case was made. And dismissed by the charlatans and demagogues fronting the leave campaigns.

    Bullshit beats facts. Brexit, Corbyn, Trump.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,026
    edited December 2017
    Boosting the regions is a great idea when someone else has to do it!

    Channel 4 given New Year deadline to 'get on board' and agree to move out of London
    Boost for Birmingham's campaign to become new home of Channel 4 as Government takes a tough line with broadcaster

    http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/channel-4-given-new-year-13999212#ICID=sharebar_twitter
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 38,750
    @PolhomeEditor: Safe to say Labour is on a Remain-wards journey over Brexit. But you wouldn't bet on Jeremy Corbyn talking about it at #PMQs.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    kyf_100 said:



    Quite possibly the vast majority of people who voted in 2016 don't care so much now (though I think my card-carrying UKIP example may be an exception), but I'm pretty sure if they are dragged to the ballot box again, either for a second referendum or because the government falls over Brexit and GE2018 becomes a de facto referendum, a lot of people will be voting on the "oi, didn't you hear us when we told you the first time?" principle.

    I also agree that tribal allegiances Labour vs Tory run very deep. Which is why it was a terrible mistake for the Tories to go wooing the kind of UKIP voter I describe in my anecdote above in GE2017. The fact is a fair proportion of the people who voted Brexit in 2016 a) would never vote Conservative and b) quite like Corbyn, which means that all he has to do is keep shtum on Brexit - forcing him to take an unequivocal stance would have to be a central plank of a hypothetical 2018 campaign, else he wins by default.

    I think that only works if people feel the Tories are handling Brexit pretty well. If it's seen as a bit of a shambles (the current position, surely, even if some sort of scramble to stage 2 is achieved), then banging on about it will just make people feel they're obsessed about something they're actually bad at. Labour's line would be "We'll negotiate a better Brexit - it could hardly be worse than what you've been doing. Now, about falling wages, the NHS, education..."
    While a significant proportion (perhaps 30%?) of the population are obsessed with Brexit, Corbyn was astute enough to ignore the issue in the 17 GE, and greatly benefited from speaking to the other 70%. It is a strategy that works in a GE, but not a second referendum.

    At present there seems no way out of Brexit hell. I see 3 possibilities: Brexit abandonment, No Deal Hard as Nails Brexit and Capitulating to the EU27 Deal and selling the DUP down the river. Of these, the last seems the least damaging and the one that May is characteristically ineptly fumbling towards. There is simply no good answer to a stupid question.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Roger said:

    OT. If this before and after had been reversed it might have changed the history of the Tory Party. ....


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/CKeeler1.jpg

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/24/article-0-1B726BF0000005DC-633_634x904.jpg

    Not all of us age as elegantly as yourself! :)
  • Prof Curtice:

    “Between them our two findings point to an important lesson – it should not be presumed that growing disappointment and discontent with the Brexit process will necessarily persuade voters to change their minds about the kind of Brexit the UK should be seeking, or their view about the wisdom of leaving the EU in the first place.

    So far, at least, voters seem inclined to blame the actors in the Brexit process for their perceived failure to be delivering what voters want rather than draw the conclusion that the act of leaving is misguided.

    A difficult Brexit could simply prove politically costly for Mrs May and her beleaguered government rather than a catalyst for a change of heart on Brexit.”


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5076555/majority-of-brits-now-think-well-get-a-bad-brexit-deal-and-they-blame-the-eu/

    Lol! Well of course the voters blame anybody but themselves - they always do.
    So those waiting for BREGRET will continue to wait in vain.....
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,255

    Charles said:

    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Trust me - being told we can't leave because some other country says we can't plays very badly in Brexitland, because it was precisely why people voted to leave in the first place.

    Tell me, in Brexitland, is Northern Ireland 'some other country'?
    ...
    (Snip)
    I can understand where you are coming from re: this.
    thought that was last year"
    rs". All of this pretty much demolishes any sense there might have been in your post.

    About 15-20 years ago one or two influential people started to treat the EU as some sort of bogeyman. Straight bananas and all that. “Another EU regulation” headlines. A few comdeians started making jokes along the same lines,
    And all that has poisoned the well of public opinion.
    So not the fault of the EU and its acolytes for failing to make a positive case?
    Absolutely, Charles.
    To be fair, Essex remarkable success last season was also down to our bowlers. And, sadly one of our main bowlers is injured. Was pisked for the Lions, but can’t even go on that.
    Nobody can legislate for injuries but Porter is a better bowler than Roland-Jones, as became painfully clear when Middlesex played Essex on a flattish track at Chelmsford in mid-summer. (Jones was first picked for England soon after, which makes you wonder if the selectors take any notice at all of four-day county championship matches.)

    I agree the bowling was good, and the South African spinner led the charge, but all the batters performed creditably, and you'd have to say that if Malan were on the Essex staff he wouldn't be picked unless, possibly, you dropped Westley. (That would be a very close call, but he certainly would not get in ahead of Cook, Browne, Lawrence and Bopara.)
    Good analysis. I saw some part at least of pretty well all the real games last summer (not t20) and while I agree about the players there was another element which doesn’t quite appear to be there with this England side; team spirit.
    I do wonder, though, what more Browne has to do to get picked for at least the Lions.

    I wonder what part cricket politics play in this; Essex were one of (I think) only two who opposed the City t20 Cup planned for the next but one (?) season.
  • kyf_100 said:



    Quite possibly the vast majority of people who voted in 2016 don't care so much now (though I think my card-carrying UKIP example may be an exception), but I'm pretty sure if they are dragged to the ballot box again, either for a second referendum or because the government falls over Brexit and GE2018 becomes a de facto referendum, a lot of people will be voting on the "oi, didn't you hear us when we told you the first time?" principle.

    I also agree that tribal allegiances Labour vs Tory run very deep. Which is why it was a terrible mistake for the Tories to go wooing the kind of UKIP voter I describe in my anecdote above in GE2017. The fact is a fair proportion of the people who voted Brexit in 2016 a) would never vote Conservative and b) quite like Corbyn, which means that all he has to do is keep shtum on Brexit - forcing him to take an unequivocal stance would have to be a central plank of a hypothetical 2018 campaign, else he wins by default.

    I think that only works if people feel the Tories are handling Brexit pretty well. If it's seen as a bit of a shambles (the current position, surely, even if some sort of scramble to stage 2 is achieved), then banging on about it will just make people feel they're obsessed about something they're actually bad at. Labour's line would be "We'll negotiate a better Brexit - it could hardly be worse than what you've been doing. Now, about falling wages, the NHS, education..."
    There is simply no good answer to a stupid question.
    If it’s a “stupid question” why did Nick Clegg call for one in 2008 and put it in the 2010 manifesto?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Prof Curtice:

    “Between them our two findings point to an important lesson – it should not be presumed that growing disappointment and discontent with the Brexit process will necessarily persuade voters to change their minds about the kind of Brexit the UK should be seeking, or their view about the wisdom of leaving the EU in the first place.

    So far, at least, voters seem inclined to blame the actors in the Brexit process for their perceived failure to be delivering what voters want rather than draw the conclusion that the act of leaving is misguided.

    A difficult Brexit could simply prove politically costly for Mrs May and her beleaguered government rather than a catalyst for a change of heart on Brexit.”


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5076555/majority-of-brits-now-think-well-get-a-bad-brexit-deal-and-they-blame-the-eu/

    Lol! Well of course the voters blame anybody but themselves - they always do.
    So those waiting for BREGRET will continue to wait in vain.....
    Brexiteers will not benefit from the passive aggressive electorate either: "now look at what you've made me do, how are you going to fix it?"
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,866

    kyf_100 said:



    Quite possibly the vast majority of people who voted in 2016 don't care so much now (though I think my card-carrying UKIP example may be an exception), but I'm pretty sure if they are dragged to the ballot box again, either for a second referendum or because the government falls over Brexit and GE2018 becomes a de facto referendum, a lot of people will be voting on the "oi, didn't you hear us when we told you the first time?" principle.

    I also agree that tribal allegiances Labour vs Tory run very deep. Which is why it was a terrible mistake for the Tories to go wooing the kind of UKIP voter I describe in my anecdote above in GE2017. The fact is a fair proportion of the people who voted Brexit in 2016 a) would never vote Conservative and b) quite like Corbyn, which means that all he has to do is keep shtum on Brexit - forcing him to take an unequivocal stance would have to be a central plank of a hypothetical 2018 campaign, else he wins by default.

    I think that only works if people feel the Tories are handling Brexit pretty well. If it's seen as a bit of a shambles (the current position, surely, even if some sort of scramble to stage 2 is achieved), then banging on about it will just make people feel they're obsessed about something they're actually bad at. Labour's line would be "We'll negotiate a better Brexit - it could hardly be worse than what you've been doing. Now, about falling wages, the NHS, education..."
    There is simply no good answer to a stupid question.
    If it’s a “stupid question” why did Nick Clegg call for one in 2008 and put it in the 2010 manifesto?
    He never expected to have to implement the proposal.
This discussion has been closed.