Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The uncertainty over Brexit and TMay are set to make this year

1235»

Comments

  • Options

    Yorkcity said:

    Off topic , does anyone think this is a good idea regarding PCSOs http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2017-10-19/norfolk-becomes-first-force-to-scrap-all-pcsos/

    Brilliant idea.

    PCSOs have no real power, they have to call in a proper police officer to do the effective stuff.
    Its a fucking stupid idea. The only thing PCSO's couldn't do was power of arrest. And surprise, surprise that is not what the police spend most of their time doing. PCSOs were boots on the ground observing and reassuring the community. They were a safety net providing early warnings of issues and witnesses for subsequent prosecutions. They also saved lives.

    Unless Norfolk are going to put PCs back on the ground to replace every one of those PCSOs they have just damaged their own effectiveness.

    Of course the trouble is that the police are no longer there to prevent crime or help the community any more. Who knows what the fuck they are for.
  • Options
    PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    Just watched the bulk of Corbyn's speech. Very nicely done.

    I don't think the idea that the Labour Party would come up with the winning Brexit strategy was something that ever crossed anyone's mind. Certainly not mine. And I doubt it occurred to the Tory euroskeptics either.

    It may be that “the winning Brexit strategy” is only available to opposition parties (on the basis that eventually the Government has to interact with reality). As I think @southamobserver mentioned earlier, “cake and eat it” will carry on being a successful electoral strategy for the time being.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,986
    stevef said:

    You always know when Corbyn is out of his depth because he reads his "speeches" rather than gives them. He is is not comfortable with any material that cannot be ranted, and when it comes to economics, he simply does not understand it -or anything outside the pages of Marxism for Dummies.

    I wonder whether Corbyn will be daft enough to go into the 2022 election promising to take the UK into the Single Market, in the EU in all but name, allowing the EU to impose its laws on the UK and Freedom of Movement, even though most Labour MPs represent constituencies which voted to end that.

    Anna Soubrey, as she hawks her "conscience" from TV studio to TV studio,is probably quite happy to have Corbyn, the Useful Idiot on her side, and who could begrudge her a little happiness before her constituents vote her out at the next general election.

    Remoaners too will be pleased to have Corbyn, the Useful Idiot, on their side today.

    And thats only fair, because we Leavers had him during the referendum.

    Corbyn has always made clear he is taking the UK out of the single market even if he is willing to stay in a form of customs union
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,986

    HYUFD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    We have to Remain in the single market.

    It’s a strong buttress against Corbyn’s economic lunacy.

    It is but neither main party is backing it
    You and your young equivalent HYUFD always make the mistake of taking what politicians say at face value. May has already u-turned on quite a few red lines and Labour are drifting inexorably to pushing for the softest of Brexits. It's perfectly obvious that we are going to end up with a Norway vassal state Brexit as the only workable way out of this mess.
    It isn't as both Corbyn and May are absolutely clear we are leaving the single market and ending free movement regardless of their difference of opinion on the customs union
    But don't you see my point here. A few weeks ago you were posting how Corbyn was definitely in favour of leaving the customs union. Now he's rowed back on that the single market could be next. Net migration from the EU is now so low that you could pretend that you have ended "free movement" with a meaningless sop and few would notice.
    Wrong I have never said Corbyn was committed to leaving the Customs Union, as with today he is willing to consider a Customs Union.

    Corbyn has however always made clear he will leave the single market as it requires free movement however you cut it which is non negotiable for Labour Leave voters and the Leave voting Tory marginal seats he has to win to become PM. The ECJ through single market membership could also block his nationalisation plans
    Well, of course, ANYBODY would CONSIDER a Customs Union - if, say, the EU were to pay us for doing so. But that isn't exactly on offer from Barnier.

    The crucial question is how much would Corbyn pay the EU to keep one in place. Take your time Jeremy, we've got all day....
    It would likely cost millions, which Tories could say is money going to Brussels which could go to the NHS
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,105
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    We have to Remain in the single market.

    It’s a strong buttress against Corbyn’s economic lunacy.

    It is but neither main party is backing it
    You and your young equivalent HYUFD always make the mistake of taking what politicians say at face value. May has already u-turned on quite a few red lines and Labour are drifting inexorably to pushing for the softest of Brexits. It's perfectly obvious that we are going to end up with a Norway vassal state Brexit as the only workable way out of this mess.
    It isn't as both Corbyn and May are absolutely clear we are leaving the single market and ending free movement regardless of their difference of opinion on the customs union
    But don't you see my point here. A few weeks ago you were posting how Corbyn was definitely in favour of leaving the customs union. Now he's rowed back on that the single market could be next. Net migration from the EU is now so low that you could pretend that you have ended "free movement" with a meaningless sop and few would notice.
    Wrong I have never said Corbyn was committed to leaving the Customs Union, as with today he is willing to consider a Customs Union.

    Corbyn has however always made clear he will leave the single market as it requires free movement however you cut it which is non negotiable for Labour Leave voters and the Leave voting Tory marginal seats he has to win to become PM. The ECJ through single market membership could also block his nationalisation plans
    Well, of course, ANYBODY would CONSIDER a Customs Union - if, say, the EU were to pay us for doing so. But that isn't exactly on offer from Barnier.

    The crucial question is how much would Corbyn pay the EU to keep one in place. Take your time Jeremy, we've got all day....
    It would likely cost millions, which Tories could say is money going to Brussels which could go to the NHS
    If it only cost millions. We're talking BILLIONS.....
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,830

    Pulpstar said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Off topic , does anyone think this is a good idea regarding PCSOs http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2017-10-19/norfolk-becomes-first-force-to-scrap-all-pcsos/

    Brilliant idea.

    PCSOs have no real power, they have to call in a proper police officer to do the effective stuff.
    I always assumed they were invented to save money to be perfectly honest.
    As with lots of blair policy, it was all about the spin / PR than effective policy. The public were worried about bobbies on beat disappearing and so they came up with this wheeze.
    They should have allowed PCSOs to carry a Great Big Stick and Tazers, and let them inflict pain on anybody they thought looked a bit dodgy or was messing about, unimpeded by the judicial process.

    Or someone who looked at them in a funny way, or was in possession of an offensive wife.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,986
    edited February 2018
    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    HHemmelig said:

    We have to Remain in the single market.

    It’s a strong buttress against Corbyn’s economic lunacy.

    It is but neither main party is backing it
    You and your young equivalent HYUFD always make the mistake of taking what politicians say at face value. May has already u-turned on quite a few red lines and Labour are drifting inexorably to pushing for the softest of Brexits. It's perfectly obvious that we are going to end up with a Norway vassal state Brexit as the only workable way out of this mess.
    It isn't as both Corbyn and May are absolutely clear we are leaving the single market and ending free movement regardless of their difference of opinion on the customs union
    But don't you see my point here. A few weeks ago you were posting how Corbyn was definitely in favour of leaving the customs union. Now he's rowed back on that the single market could be next. Net migration from the EU is now so low that you could pretend that you have ended "free movement" with a meaningless sop and few would notice.
    Wrong I have never said Corbyn was committed to leaving the Customs Union, as with today he is willing to consider a Customs Union.

    Corbyn has however always made clear he will leave the single market as it requires free movement however you cut it which is non negotiable for Labour Leave voters and the Leave voting Tory marginal seats he has to win to become PM. The ECJ through single market membership could also block his nationalisation plans
    I also remember you saying Corbyn was committed to leaving the customs union.
    There was a long discussion about how you thought there wasn’t any difference between JC and TM on Brexit.
    There still isn't really, the fact Corbyn is willing to consider staying in 'a' Customs Union but not 'the' Customs Union (which May on a personal level would probably consider if it was not for her back benchers), does not change the fact May and Corbyn back leaving the EU, leaving the single market and ending free movement
  • Options

    Yorkcity said:

    Off topic , does anyone think this is a good idea regarding PCSOs http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2017-10-19/norfolk-becomes-first-force-to-scrap-all-pcsos/

    Brilliant idea.

    PCSOs have no real power, they have to call in a proper police officer to do the effective stuff.
    Its a fucking stupid idea. The only thing PCSO's couldn't do was power of arrest. And surprise, surprise that is not what the police spend most of their time doing. PCSOs were boots on the ground observing and reassuring the community. They were a safety net providing early warnings of issues and witnesses for subsequent prosecutions. They also saved lives.

    Unless Norfolk are going to put PCs back on the ground to replace every one of those PCSOs they have just damaged their own effectiveness.

    Of course the trouble is that the police are no longer there to prevent crime or help the community any more. Who knows what the fuck they are for.
    PCSOs saved lives?

    Tell that to this family.

    Police chiefs have defended two community support officers (PCSOs) who did not enter the water as a 10-year-old boy drowned in a pond.

    Jordon Lyon leapt into the water in Wigan, Greater Manchester, after his eight-year-old stepsister Bethany got into difficulties on 3 May.

    Two anglers jumped in and saved Bethany but Jordon became submerged.

    The inquest into his death heard the PCSOs did not rescue him as they were not trained to deal with the incident.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7006412.stm

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1565292/PCSOs-who-stood-by-as-boy-drowned-named.html
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908

    We're getting closer to the day where the Evening Standard, edited by George Osborne, endorses Jeremy Corbyn for PM in the next general election.

    Strange times.

    Doubt it.
    But wouldn’t be stunned to see a very tepid Tory endorsement or even an endorsement of Lib Dem’s in the hope of a coalition with Tories..
  • Options
    sarissasarissa Posts: 1,772


    Countries that send goods, people, and services across borders are less likely to send tanks and infantry cross those borders.

    Now all of this is under threat.

    This is a bit hyperbolic. Germany doesn't have any tanks. Not working ones, anyway.

    I expect there to be easy movement of people, as there is pretty much everywhere else in the world.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_equipment_of_the_German_Army
    John_M said:

    Free markets lead to freer people.

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,917

    Yorkcity said:

    Off topic , does anyone think this is a good idea regarding PCSOs http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2017-10-19/norfolk-becomes-first-force-to-scrap-all-pcsos/

    Brilliant idea.

    PCSOs have no real power, they have to call in a proper police officer to do the effective stuff.
    Its a fucking stupid idea. The only thing PCSO's couldn't do was power of arrest. And surprise, surprise that is not what the police spend most of their time doing. PCSOs were boots on the ground observing and reassuring the community. They were a safety net providing early warnings of issues and witnesses for subsequent prosecutions. They also saved lives.

    Unless Norfolk are going to put PCs back on the ground to replace every one of those PCSOs they have just damaged their own effectiveness.

    Of course the trouble is that the police are no longer there to prevent crime or help the community any more. Who knows what the fuck they are for.
    PCSOs saved lives?

    Tell that to this family.

    Police chiefs have defended two community support officers (PCSOs) who did not enter the water as a 10-year-old boy drowned in a pond.

    Jordon Lyon leapt into the water in Wigan, Greater Manchester, after his eight-year-old stepsister Bethany got into difficulties on 3 May.

    Two anglers jumped in and saved Bethany but Jordon became submerged.

    The inquest into his death heard the PCSOs did not rescue him as they were not trained to deal with the incident.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7006412.stm

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1565292/PCSOs-who-stood-by-as-boy-drowned-named.html
    Being able to swim is no longer a requirement to be a police officer...

    https://www.policeuk.com/general_criteria.php
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,989
    Scott_P said:
    That's an incredibly powerful editorial! Wow.
  • Options

    Yorkcity said:

    Off topic , does anyone think this is a good idea regarding PCSOs http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2017-10-19/norfolk-becomes-first-force-to-scrap-all-pcsos/

    Brilliant idea.

    PCSOs have no real power, they have to call in a proper police officer to do the effective stuff.
    Its a fucking stupid idea. The only thing PCSO's couldn't do was power of arrest. And surprise, surprise that is not what the police spend most of their time doing. PCSOs were boots on the ground observing and reassuring the community. They were a safety net providing early warnings of issues and witnesses for subsequent prosecutions. They also saved lives.

    Unless Norfolk are going to put PCs back on the ground to replace every one of those PCSOs they have just damaged their own effectiveness.

    Of course the trouble is that the police are no longer there to prevent crime or help the community any more. Who knows what the fuck they are for.
    PCSOs saved lives?

    Tell that to this family.

    Police chiefs have defended two community support officers (PCSOs) who did not enter the water as a 10-year-old boy drowned in a pond.

    Jordon Lyon leapt into the water in Wigan, Greater Manchester, after his eight-year-old stepsister Bethany got into difficulties on 3 May.

    Two anglers jumped in and saved Bethany but Jordon became submerged.

    The inquest into his death heard the PCSOs did not rescue him as they were not trained to deal with the incident.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7006412.stm

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1565292/PCSOs-who-stood-by-as-boy-drowned-named.html
    So in fact it made no difference if they were there or not.

    Where as in these cases it did:

    http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2013/06/lincoln-pcso-crawls-through-burning-flat-to-save-resident/

    https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/pcso-helps-save-life-collapsed-815752

    https://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/chester-hero-pcso-saves-man-13253132

    http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/11524557.PCSO_saves_life_of_choking_baby_whose_heart_had_stopped/

    http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/15065647.Heroic_PCSO_receives_award_after_saving_life_of_suicidal_woman/

    There are literally dozens of such cases if you bother to actually look.

    There will always be cases of people not doing what they should. We saw exactly that with the US cop last week with the shooting where he sat in his car. Are you saying that is an argument to get rid of all police?

    Another stupid and ignorant argument from you.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,105
    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Off topic , does anyone think this is a good idea regarding PCSOs http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2017-10-19/norfolk-becomes-first-force-to-scrap-all-pcsos/

    Brilliant idea.

    PCSOs have no real power, they have to call in a proper police officer to do the effective stuff.
    I always assumed they were invented to save money to be perfectly honest.
    As with lots of blair policy, it was all about the spin / PR than effective policy. The public were worried about bobbies on beat disappearing and so they came up with this wheeze.
    They should have allowed PCSOs to carry a Great Big Stick and Tazers, and let them inflict pain on anybody they thought looked a bit dodgy or was messing about, unimpeded by the judicial process.

    Or someone who looked at them in a funny way, or was in possession of an offensive wife.
    PCSO Savage.....
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,986
    edited February 2018
    rkrkrk said:

    We're getting closer to the day where the Evening Standard, edited by George Osborne, endorses Jeremy Corbyn for PM in the next general election.

    Strange times.

    Doubt it.
    But wouldn’t be stunned to see a very tepid Tory endorsement or even an endorsement of Lib Dem’s in the hope of a coalition with Tories..
    Osborne's son campaigned for the LDs and had there been a hung parliament and another Coalition between the Tories and LDs in 2015 there would have been no EU referendum and Osborne would still be Chancellor.

    Winning a Tory majority was the worst thing to happen to the Cameroons
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725
    One thing Corbyn's team managed well back when he was doing very poorly was trail even worse potential results in things like the locals so that their impact was blunted. I would be unsurprised if the Tories similarly trail disaster scenarios (particularly in London, where in all fairness perhaps it will be disaster) in an effort to blunt the impact, and not require a challenge in the aftermath given it doesn't seem like anyone would want to take on the job right now (although since Tusk and his ilk have been clear there is no cherry picking, and thus only one outcome, it turns out government incompetence won't have an impact after all).
  • Options
    RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    We're getting closer to the day where the Evening Standard, edited by George Osborne, endorses Jeremy Corbyn for PM in the next general election.

    Strange times.

    Doubt it.
    But wouldn’t be stunned to see a very tepid Tory endorsement or even an endorsement of Lib Dem’s in the hope of a coalition with Tories..
    Osborne's son campaigned for the LDs and had there been a hung parliament and another Coalition between the Tories and LDs in 2015 there would have been no EU referendum and Osborne would still be Chancellor.

    Winning a Tory majority was the worst thing to happen to the Cameroons
    And the country.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,594
    Yorkcity said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Off topic , does anyone think this is a good idea regarding PCSOs http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2017-10-19/norfolk-becomes-first-force-to-scrap-all-pcsos/

    Brilliant idea.

    PCSOs have no real power, they have to call in a proper police officer to do the effective stuff.
    I always assumed they were invented to save money to be perfectly honest.
    As with lots of blair policy, it was all about the spin / PR than effective policy. The public were worried about bobbies on beat disappearing and so they came up with this wheeze.
    That is very true.The other Blair suggestion. I remember , was the Police making an arrest , then taking them to the cashpoint to pay the fine.
    A system long established at African roadblocks, so much more convenient for police and perp.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,541

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    The worst abuses of the English language (by which I mean the ones I personally find annoying) are 'pre-prepared' and 'could care less'. The former is ridiculous (it already has the damned prefix, and what other kind of prepared is there?) and the latter sounds like a mentally deficient oaf trying to be sarcastic and making himself sound like a buffoon...

    Surely the latter is merely eliding the rest of the phrase "..., but I can't summon up the energy to do so..." , Mr.D ?

    I quite like it: draw what conclusions you will about my mental deficiencies.
    :smile:
    So you're saying you do care but with effort you might not care quite so much?
    Rather, I don’t care, and with a bit of effort couldn’t care an iota... but I can’t be bothered to make the effort.
    ‘Could care less’ is a more economical way of expressing the thought.
    If somebody asked me how I was feeling and I said "Could be better", I wouldn't expect them to substitute in "But only if I put in some effort, because I already feel great!"
    Language is rarely as logical as one might wish.
    There's a good discussion of this particular linguistic trope here:
    http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001202.html
  • Options

    NEW THREAD

This discussion has been closed.