Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on Labour’s vote share in the the Lewisham East by ele

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited May 13 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on Labour’s vote share in the the Lewisham East by election

Ladbrokes have a market up on Labour’s share of the vote in the Lewisham Easy by election where Heidi Alexander polled 67.9% last year.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,360
    FPT @Elliot
    Elliot said:

    viewcode said:

    Customs may well be about goods, but May is talking about people. She states that HMG will decide on the number of people coming into the UK, then states that there will be no hard NI/IRE border. Can't do both.

    Of course you can do both. Having an open border is no bigger problem for immigration than people coming here on holidays.
    People who come here on holidays go thru a physical border where their passports are checked. The checks may by cursory but they, the passports, and the physical controls exist as physical objects. Such a border is physically capable of preventing a person entering.

    The open border proposed for NI/IRE has no physical constraints. Such a border is not physically capable of preventing a person entering.

    The former constitutes "control". The latter does not.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 32,522
    Recommending staking £50? We're not all made of money! :)
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,179
    viewcode said:

    FPT @Elliot

    Elliot said:

    viewcode said:

    Customs may well be about goods, but May is talking about people. She states that HMG will decide on the number of people coming into the UK, then states that there will be no hard NI/IRE border. Can't do both.

    Of course you can do both. Having an open border is no bigger problem for immigration than people coming here on holidays.
    People who come here on holidays go thru a physical border where their passports are checked. The checks may by cursory but they, the passports, and the physical controls exist as physical objects. Such a border is physically capable of preventing a person entering.

    The open border proposed for NI/IRE has no physical constraints. Such a border is not physically capable of preventing a person entering.

    The former constitutes "control". The latter does not.

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 32,522
    I hate dull by-elections, at least speculating on vote share gives something to talk about I guess.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,885
    kle4 said:

    Recommending staking £50? We're not all made of money! :)

    Some of us would be if the Tories made Hunt their leader :-)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 32,522
    Liverpool seemingly back to early season ways - dominating, but not finishing. Not helped by a trial of a blind referee though.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,360
    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,179
    edited May 13
    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 32,522
    Oh ffs Liverpool, how are you not 8 up already?

    How easy is it to motivate people for these certain result by-elections? I imagine it being in London is helpful, both in finding sufficient enthusiasm, and because its easy for others to get to.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 20,741
    Mortimer said:

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    Alternatively you could create a 'hostile environment' for people who are here. What could go wrong?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,447
    edited May 13
    How are the bookies going to settle on this one?

    Will they calculate they average weight of a ballot paper in advance and let us know how many there were in the 240kg of Labour votes?

    Edit - ah, no I see it's by proportion. So they just weigh the others too and do the maths.

    More seriously, I would have said that price for 70%+ looks a bargain under the circumstances - even if 60-70 is more likely it's not five times more likely, surely? Allen wasn't far away last year.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,447
    kle4 said:

    Oh ffs Liverpool, how are you not 8 up already?

    How easy is it to motivate people for these certain result by-elections? I imagine it being in London is helpful, both in finding sufficient enthusiasm, and because its easy for others to get to.

    Ireland meanwhile are 8 down already, for just 92.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 32,522
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Oh ffs Liverpool, how are you not 8 up already?

    How easy is it to motivate people for these certain result by-elections? I imagine it being in London is helpful, both in finding sufficient enthusiasm, and because its easy for others to get to.

    Ireland meanwhile are 8 down already, for just 92.
    Eh, it happens - some teams have had to wait decades for a first win, and I doubt Ireland will have to wait that long.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,754
    edited May 13
    If Labour assume they can't possibly lose the Lewisham East by-election they could come unstuck IMO. LibDems in London will be in an enthusiastic mood after taking control of Richmond and Kingston and convincingly holding on in Sutton.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,281
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Looks like good calls, Mr. Eagles.

    F1: started the post-race nonsense. Must say I'm getting tired of near misses. Almost every bet this year has fallen into that category. This weekend my qualifying tip failed by 0.04s, and the DNF bet failed after Verstappen hit Stroll but was fine to keep going.

    The first weekend was only red because of a double pit stop failure (what're the odds?), and in the second I backed Ricciardo, who was the only driver in the whole race to suffer a reliability failure.

    Anyway. To work.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 32,522
    AndyJS said:

    If Labour assume they can't possibly lose the Lewisham East by-election they could come unstuck IMO. LibDems in London will be in an enthusiastic mood after taking control of Richmond and Kingston and convincingly holding on in Sutton.

    Granted, but come on, Labour holds every seat on the borough council - clearly the LDs have no local strength to call on. And given they have had a respectable number of seats in the 2000s according to wiki, if they had any nascent support surely they'd have managed at least one. No matter how badly they come unstuck 40-50% looks like a minimum for Labour?
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 309
    Labour are like Tottenham - they always do well except when it counts
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,887
    edited May 13

    Foxy said:


    But Corbyn did take back a dozen or so Scottish seats, and was within a whisker of many more. Itt was the SNP losing to Ruth Davidson that kept May in no 10.

    Incidentally fwiw:

    A loss to Labour I think. Seems like a candidate who could bring together a fair few strands of the party.
    Hope my blockquotes are right.

    I question whether any senior figure at the PCS Union (@MsLadyPhyll is "Head of 'Equality'") can be unifying figure for Labour at present outside the Corbynite faction, given that Union's past and current campaigns, particularly one who very recently specifically placed Israel alongside Nazi Germany as countries which have committed Holocausts.

    image

    I'm inclined to think that the unexpected family situation involved at least in part opinions being discovered unexpectedly.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,071
    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

    THe same way we have illegals in the UK, you can have them in Ireland too. It is much easier to get a visa to Ireland.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,360
    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

    That is not relevant to my point. My point was that May claims to control borders but in the case of the NI/IRE border, she is actively refusing to control it. This calls into question either her honesty or her logic. Since I believe her to be honest (or at least sincere, a subtle difference), then her logic is at fault. Given this and her increasingly-apparent inability to make a decision, this is troubling.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,711
    I expect Labour will win comfortably and even if their voteshare in Lewisham East is down a little in the by election, it will be more a question of whether the LDs can overtake the Tories for second than actually win the seat
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 20,741
    surby said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

    THe same way we have illegals in the UK, you can have them in Ireland too. It is much easier to get a visa to Ireland.
    Early on in the Brexit process, the UK government seemed to think it could take control of Ireland's borders.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/09/britain-to-push-post-brexit-uk-immigration-controls-back-to-irish-border
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 32,522
    Fenman said:

    Labour are like Tottenham - they always do well except when it counts

    Tottenham are doing enough to stop Liverpool getting third, and Labour well enough to stop the Tories getting a majority!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,795
    I’ve had worse betting days!!!!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,451
    Nice!
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,154

    surby said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

    THe same way we have illegals in the UK, you can have them in Ireland too. It is much easier to get a visa to Ireland.
    Early on in the Brexit process, the UK government seemed to think it could take control of Ireland's borders.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/09/britain-to-push-post-brexit-uk-immigration-controls-back-to-irish-border
    The UK has effectively controlled Ireland's borders for hundreds of years. It's why they are in the common travel area and not Schengen and pretty much align entirely on non EU visa policies.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,071

    surby said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

    THe same way we have illegals in the UK, you can have them in Ireland too. It is much easier to get a visa to Ireland.
    Early on in the Brexit process, the UK government seemed to think it could take control of Ireland's borders.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/09/britain-to-push-post-brexit-uk-immigration-controls-back-to-irish-border
    Which proves that whatever they say now, the prospect of lack of immigration control was thought about,
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,980
    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

    That is not relevant to my point. My point was that May claims to control borders but in the case of the NI/IRE border, she is actively refusing to control it. This calls into question either her honesty or her logic. Since I believe her to be honest (or at least sincere, a subtle difference), then her logic is at fault. Given this and her increasingly-apparent inability to make a decision, this is troubling.
    The simple question is whether the UK government is willing to sign an agreement with the EU that contains a backstop customs arrangement for Northern Ireland in exchange for a standstill "transition period". In the absence of any other agreement either within the UK government or with the EU, I suspect the deal will be eventually be agreed still containing the backstop.

    There may be a delay, perhaps in the form of a interim transition with a break after six months if no agreement is made.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 629
    edited May 13
    AndyJS said:

    If Labour assume they can't possibly lose the Lewisham East by-election they could come unstuck IMO. LibDems in London will be in an enthusiastic mood after taking control of Richmond and Kingston and convincingly holding on in Sutton.

    They are completely different types of seat in Richmond and Kingston. I can only see a convincing Labour hold especially if Labour choose a popular candidate i.e. they have a personal vote from being in local government. Even Ken Livingstone going on about Hitler and Zionists is going to have no negative consequences here!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 20,741
    brendan16 said:

    surby said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

    THe same way we have illegals in the UK, you can have them in Ireland too. It is much easier to get a visa to Ireland.
    Early on in the Brexit process, the UK government seemed to think it could take control of Ireland's borders.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/09/britain-to-push-post-brexit-uk-immigration-controls-back-to-irish-border
    The UK has effectively controlled Ireland's borders for hundreds of years. It's why they are in the common travel area and not Schengen and pretty much align entirely on non EU visa policies.
    If we left the EU and then sought to rejoin, it would effectively be up to Ireland whether to make Schengen a condition of our reentry.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,179
    edited May 13
    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

    That is not relevant to my point. My point was that May claims to control borders but in the case of the NI/IRE border, she is actively refusing to control it. This calls into question either her honesty or her logic. Since I believe her to be honest (or at least sincere, a subtle difference), then her logic is at fault. Given this and her increasingly-apparent inability to make a decision, this is troubling.
    Exercising control is often about knowing when you need to do so actively, and when you can do so passively.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,154
    edited May 13
    AndyJS said:

    If Labour assume they can't possibly lose the Lewisham East by-election they could come unstuck IMO. LibDems in London will be in an enthusiastic mood after taking control of Richmond and Kingston and convincingly holding on in Sutton.

    Barnes and Surbiton are a different world to most of Lewisham east - you might say people in the latter live more in the real world and have different priorities. Brexit may play in upmarket Blackheath but austerity and housing matter more to most locals.

    I don't see anyone coming close to Labour in winning the seat - Labour now hold every council seat on the borough which shows how much they dominate locally.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,071
    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

    That is not relevant to my point. My point was that May claims to control borders but in the case of the NI/IRE border, she is actively refusing to control it. This calls into question either her honesty or her logic. Since I believe her to be honest (or at least sincere, a subtle difference), then her logic is at fault. Given this and her increasingly-apparent inability to make a decision, this is troubling.
    Exercising control is often about knowing when you need to do so actively, and when you can do so passively.
    Make it up as you go along!
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,360
    edited May 13
    Get in there my son.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,360
    brendan16 said:

    The UK has effectively controlled Ireland's borders for hundreds of years. It's why they are in the common travel area and not Schengen and pretty much align entirely on non EU visa policies.

    An interesting question becomes: will that trend continue? Since 1801 that statement has been true (I don't know enough about prior to that to say for def) and that remained true post-secession. But now Ireland has an ally which the UK finds difficult to get to grips with. Does Ireland now have sufficient power to take border decisions out of that lockstep?

    I keep banging on about this: we understand Ireland poorly, not just its society but its government and civil service. We have British people who deliberately ignore it and Irish people living in Britain who assume that their ancestry grants wisdom. But that's really not enough.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,360
    FF43 said:

    The simple question is whether the UK government is willing to sign an agreement with the EU that contains a backstop customs arrangement for Northern Ireland in exchange for a standstill "transition period". In the absence of any other agreement either within the UK government or with the EU, I suspect the deal will be eventually be agreed still containing the backstop.

    There may be a delay, perhaps in the form of a interim transition with a break after six months if no agreement is made.

    Indeed. But I'm not as certain of the outcome.

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,360
    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

    That is not relevant to my point. My point was that May claims to control borders but in the case of the NI/IRE border, she is actively refusing to control it. This calls into question either her honesty or her logic. Since I believe her to be honest (or at least sincere, a subtle difference), then her logic is at fault. Given this and her increasingly-apparent inability to make a decision, this is troubling.
    Exercising control is often about knowing when you need to do so actively, and when you can do so passively.
    Passive control is not control. It's lack of control. Although oddly (and horribly) that might be what we end up with.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,711
    edited May 13
    brendan16 said:

    AndyJS said:

    If Labour assume they can't possibly lose the Lewisham East by-election they could come unstuck IMO. LibDems in London will be in an enthusiastic mood after taking control of Richmond and Kingston and convincingly holding on in Sutton.

    Barnes and Surbiton are a different world to most of Lewisham east - you might say people in the latter live more in the real world and have different priorities. Brexit may play in upmarket Blackheath but austerity and housing matter more to most locals.

    I don't see anyone coming close to Labour in winning the seat - Labour now hold every council seat on the borough which shows how much they dominate locally.
    Indeed, given the Tories came second in Lewisham East at the general election it would be amusing if CCHQ put out a leaflet with a barchart for the by election and 'Lib Dems can't win here, only the Conservatives can beat Labour in Lewisham East'
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 629
    HYUFD said:

    brendan16 said:

    AndyJS said:

    If Labour assume they can't possibly lose the Lewisham East by-election they could come unstuck IMO. LibDems in London will be in an enthusiastic mood after taking control of Richmond and Kingston and convincingly holding on in Sutton.

    Barnes and Surbiton are a different world to most of Lewisham east - you might say people in the latter live more in the real world and have different priorities. Brexit may play in upmarket Blackheath but austerity and housing matter more to most locals.

    I don't see anyone coming close to Labour in winning the seat - Labour now hold every council seat on the borough which shows how much they dominate locally.
    Indeed, given the Tories came second in Lewisham East at the general election it would be amusing if CCHQ put out a leaflet with a barchart for the by election and 'Lib Dems can't win here, only the Conservatives can beat Labour in Lewisham East'
    I doubt the Tories will do much in Lewisham East in the coming by-election, it is not even a longshot. Although it would be amusing if the Tories turned LD campaign techniques against the once formidable LD by-election machine. I think the average voter will realise that electing a LD to stop Brexit is not really a realistic goal.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,980
    edited May 13
    viewcode said:

    FF43 said:

    The simple question is whether the UK government is willing to sign an agreement with the EU that contains a backstop customs arrangement for Northern Ireland in exchange for a standstill "transition period". In the absence of any other agreement either within the UK government or with the EU, I suspect the deal will be eventually be agreed still containing the backstop.

    There may be a delay, perhaps in the form of a interim transition with a break after six months if no agreement is made.

    Indeed. But I'm not as certain of the outcome.

    I'm not certain either but I think every specific alternative less likely than agreeing the backstop. Big ask for the DUP though. I don't think Brexiteers care ultimately. They want to leave the EU at all costs.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,711

    HYUFD said:

    brendan16 said:

    AndyJS said:

    If Labour assume they can't possibly lose the Lewisham East by-election they could come unstuck IMO. LibDems in London will be in an enthusiastic mood after taking control of Richmond and Kingston and convincingly holding on in Sutton.

    Barnes and Surbiton are a different world to most of Lewisham east - you might say people in the latter live more in the real world and have different priorities. Brexit may play in upmarket Blackheath but austerity and housing matter more to most locals.

    I don't see anyone coming close to Labour in winning the seat - Labour now hold every council seat on the borough which shows how much they dominate locally.
    Indeed, given the Tories came second in Lewisham East at the general election it would be amusing if CCHQ put out a leaflet with a barchart for the by election and 'Lib Dems can't win here, only the Conservatives can beat Labour in Lewisham East'
    I doubt the Tories will do much in Lewisham East in the coming by-election, it is not even a longshot. Although it would be amusing if the Tories turned LD campaign techniques against the once formidable LD by-election machine. I think the average voter will realise that electing a LD to stop Brexit is not really a realistic goal.
    The Tories have no chance of winning almost certainly but they will want to keep second place and stop the LDs overtaking them and yes may well give the LDs a taste of their own by election tactics
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 954

    brendan16 said:

    surby said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

    THe same way we have illegals in the UK, you can have them in Ireland too. It is much easier to get a visa to Ireland.
    Early on in the Brexit process, the UK government seemed to think it could take control of Ireland's borders.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/09/britain-to-push-post-brexit-uk-immigration-controls-back-to-irish-border
    The UK has effectively controlled Ireland's borders for hundreds of years. It's why they are in the common travel area and not Schengen and pretty much align entirely on non EU visa policies.
    If we left the EU and then sought to rejoin, it would effectively be up to Ireland whether to make Schengen a condition of our reentry.
    I don’t think there’s any doubt that if Ireland ever reunified it would be applying to enter Schengen and leave the CTA the following day.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,597

    HYUFD said:

    brendan16 said:

    AndyJS said:

    If Labour assume they can't possibly lose the Lewisham East by-election they could come unstuck IMO. LibDems in London will be in an enthusiastic mood after taking control of Richmond and Kingston and convincingly holding on in Sutton.

    Barnes and Surbiton are a different world to most of Lewisham east - you might say people in the latter live more in the real world and have different priorities. Brexit may play in upmarket Blackheath but austerity and housing matter more to most locals.

    I don't see anyone coming close to Labour in winning the seat - Labour now hold every council seat on the borough which shows how much they dominate locally.
    Indeed, given the Tories came second in Lewisham East at the general election it would be amusing if CCHQ put out a leaflet with a barchart for the by election and 'Lib Dems can't win here, only the Conservatives can beat Labour in Lewisham East'
    I doubt the Tories will do much in Lewisham East in the coming by-election, it is not even a longshot. Although it would be amusing if the Tories turned LD campaign techniques against the once formidable LD by-election machine. I think the average voter will realise that electing a LD to stop Brexit is not really a realistic goal.
    So much depends on the LAB candidate. The hot favourite has pulled out today leaving the possibility of a hard left nominee. I'd say LAB in the 40-60 region.

    Parts of the seat, Blackheath in particular, are very similar in make-up to Richmond and Kingston. There are, I guess, a lot of soft LAB Remainers.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    brendan16 said:

    surby said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

    THe same way we have illegals in the UK, you can have them in Ireland too. It is much easier to get a visa to Ireland.
    Early on in the Brexit process, the UK government seemed to think it could take control of Ireland's borders.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/09/britain-to-push-post-brexit-uk-immigration-controls-back-to-irish-border
    The UK has effectively controlled Ireland's borders for hundreds of years. It's why they are in the common travel area and not Schengen and pretty much align entirely on non EU visa policies.
    If we left the EU and then sought to rejoin, it would effectively be up to Ireland whether to make Schengen a condition of our reentry.
    Just one of the reasons the UK will never join the EU again. That and Euro membership. I wonder whether the Eurozone will ever get back to full employment.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,597
    AndyJS said:

    If Labour assume they can't possibly lose the Lewisham East by-election they could come unstuck IMO. LibDems in London will be in an enthusiastic mood after taking control of Richmond and Kingston and convincingly holding on in Sutton.

    Spot on. The interesting market will be on the LD vote share.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,447
    edited May 13

    AndyJS said:

    If Labour assume they can't possibly lose the Lewisham East by-election they could come unstuck IMO. LibDems in London will be in an enthusiastic mood after taking control of Richmond and Kingston and convincingly holding on in Sutton.

    Spot on. The interesting market will be on the LD vote share.
    This is one way in which Milne's bungling may actually have helped Labour. After their disappointment over their failure to make significant advances in London - even though the overall result was one which in any other time they would have been pretty happy with - they will surely not be complacent.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,470
    'Lewisham Easy' - well it ought to be!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,447

    'Lewisham Easy' - well it ought to be!

    If Labour lose Lewisham East surely even Jeremy 'Limpet' Corbyn will have to resign.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,731
    ydoethur said:

    'Lewisham Easy' - well it ought to be!

    If Labour lose Lewisham East surely even Jeremy 'Limpet' Corbyn will have to resign.
    I suggest this was a good reason for Tories to back the LDs a week or so ago. Corbyn is great if you’re a pure Tory tribalist. Not so great if you think Corbyn is an intolerable risk to the country, and believe in decent Opposition.

    Postal votes will go out in a week or two, though. In my view these should be discouraged, as we should allow voters the benefit of a full campaign.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,838
    Elliot said:

    brendan16 said:

    surby said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

    THe same way we have illegals in the UK, you can have them in Ireland too. It is much easier to get a visa to Ireland.
    Early on in the Brexit process, the UK government seemed to think it could take control of Ireland's borders.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/09/britain-to-push-post-brexit-uk-immigration-controls-back-to-irish-border
    The UK has effectively controlled Ireland's borders for hundreds of years. It's why they are in the common travel area and not Schengen and pretty much align entirely on non EU visa policies.
    If we left the EU and then sought to rejoin, it would effectively be up to Ireland whether to make Schengen a condition of our reentry.
    Just one of the reasons the UK will never join the EU again. That and Euro membership. I wonder whether the Eurozone will ever get back to full employment.
    Funnily, I'd be very happy to job Schengen. There are clear economic benefits from making it easier to get around, and most of the control you get from passport checks from the EU is illusory.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,281
    F1: Grosjean has a 3 place grid penalty for the next race. Lucky for him it's so easy to overtake in Monaco. Ahem.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,447

    ydoethur said:

    'Lewisham Easy' - well it ought to be!

    If Labour lose Lewisham East surely even Jeremy 'Limpet' Corbyn will have to resign.
    I suggest this was a good reason for Tories to back the LDs a week or so ago. Corbyn is great if you’re a pure Tory tribalist. Not so great if you think Corbyn is an intolerable risk to the country, and believe in decent Opposition.

    Postal votes will go out in a week or two, though. In my view these should be discouraged, as we should allow voters the benefit of a full campaign.
    But even that wouldn't be enough. Labour got over two-thirds of the vote in 2017. Short of a truly abysmal turnout among Labour voters direct switchers from Labour to another party will be needed, and in substantial numbers.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 421
    Wouldn't stake anything until we see the Labour candidate is. Momentum are determined to install one of their own (and if early signs are to be believed are pretty much running their own 'selection process) - and given past statements of a lot of their leading activists, it seems there's a moderately significant chance of it being someone who becomes a national news story and embarrasses leading Labour figures. That obviously won't be enough to hand the Lib Dems the seat, nor will Corbyn's appalling uselessness on Brexit - but it would be enough to narrow the result - especially if pro-EU/ moderate left voters decide they want to give an avowed Corbynite a free kick to show they won't put up with being treated like idiots.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,474
    Since when did any administration really want a good opposition? However beneficial it might actually be.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212
    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

    That is not relevant to my point. My point was that May claims to control borders but in the case of the NI/IRE border, she is actively refusing to control it. This calls into question either her honesty or her logic. Since I believe her to be honest (or at least sincere, a subtle difference), then her logic is at fault. Given this and her increasingly-apparent inability to make a decision, this is troubling.
    Exercising control is often about knowing when you need to do so actively, and when you can do so passively.
    Passive control is not control. It's lack of control. Although oddly (and horribly) that might be what we end up with.
    No it isn't. I will assume for a moment you have never been a parent with a comment like that. Passive control is the very essence of good parenting and is generally far more effective than active control because it avoids the inevitable push back. Teaching your children boundaries and enforcing them without making it obvious is the epitome of good parenting.


    It works equally well in business and in government. Most of the control exercised over the population in a modern democracy is passive. Indeed in that case it can be very effective to the extent of being pernicious.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 32,522
    IanB2 said:

    Since when did any administration really want a good opposition? However beneficial it might actually be.

    They don't, although they do need it (and sometimes recognise they should say they want it).
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212
    edited May 13
    rpjs said:

    brendan16 said:

    surby said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

    THe same way we have illegals in the UK, you can have them in Ireland too. It is much easier to get a visa to Ireland.
    Early on in the Brexit process, the UK government seemed to think it could take control of Ireland's borders.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/09/britain-to-push-post-brexit-uk-immigration-controls-back-to-irish-border
    The UK has effectively controlled Ireland's borders for hundreds of years. It's why they are in the common travel area and not Schengen and pretty much align entirely on non EU visa policies.
    If we left the EU and then sought to rejoin, it would effectively be up to Ireland whether to make Schengen a condition of our reentry.
    I don’t think there’s any doubt that if Ireland ever reunified it would be applying to enter Schengen and leave the CTA the following day.
    I suspect there is a huge amount of doubt over that. For a start currently around 300,000 Irish nationals live and work in mainland Britain. Vastly more than work anywhere else in the EU. In addition it is almost certain that any workable reunification (which I would welcome) would have a clause insisting maintenance of the CTA for the sake of the 800,000 unionists.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,447
    IanB2 said:

    Since when did any administration really want a good opposition? However beneficial it might actually be.

    Francis Pym was famously sacked for saying that landslides don't produce successful governments (although it didn't help that he had also called Thatcher 'a corporal, not a cavalry officer').

    Yet both Blair and Thatcher would have been far better Prime Ministers for a competent opposition keeping them on their toes (although at least both had powerful enemies in their own government).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 32,522
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Since when did any administration really want a good opposition? However beneficial it might actually be.

    Francis Pym was famously sacked for saying that landslides don't produce successful governments (although it didn't help that he had also called Thatcher 'a corporal, not a cavalry officer').

    Yet both Blair and Thatcher would have been far better Prime Ministers for a competent opposition keeping them on their toes (although at least both had powerful enemies in their own government).
    I feel like a majority of 30-50 is a good number - enough to get things passed, but not so much that they can take their own members for granted, and so hopefully will be more thoughtful over time as policy is developed in response to emerging situations. But obviously the nature of the leaders will play a big part.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,396
    Looks like a solid tip, the Green (Highest) vote is inflated in the locals due to one candidate in many of the wards, and Labour have bumped up their share of the total vote from 2014 locals by around 9%.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,090

    F1: Grosjean has a 3 place grid penalty for the next race. Lucky for him it's so easy to overtake in Monaco. Ahem.

    Just catching up after a weekend on holiday trying to stay offline as much as possible. Grosjean is lucky it’s only three places for that one, creating a smokescreen in front of half the field on the first lap wasn’t the smartest thing he’s ever done.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,486
    Pulpstar said:

    Looks like a solid tip, the Green (Highest) vote is inflated in the locals due to one candidate in many of the wards, and Labour have bumped up their share of the total vote from 2014 locals by around 9%.

    How much do you want?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,838

    No it isn't. I will assume for a moment you have never been a parent with a comment like that. Passive control is the very essence of good parenting and is generally far more effective than active control because it avoids the inevitable push back. Teaching your children boundaries and enforcing them without making it obvious is the epitome of good parenting.


    It works equally well in business and in government. Most of the control exercised over the population in a modern democracy is passive. Indeed in that case it can be very effective to the extent of being pernicious.

    Are you saying I don't need the electroshock collars for the kids?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,838

    rpjs said:

    brendan16 said:

    surby said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

    THe same way we have illegals in the UK, you can have them in Ireland too. It is much easier to get a visa to Ireland.
    Early on in the Brexit process, the UK government seemed to think it could take control of Ireland's borders.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/09/britain-to-push-post-brexit-uk-immigration-controls-back-to-irish-border
    The UK has effectively controlled Ireland's borders for hundreds of years. It's why they are in the common travel area and not Schengen and pretty much align entirely on non EU visa policies.
    If we left the EU and then sought to rejoin, it would effectively be up to Ireland whether to make Schengen a condition of our reentry.
    I don’t think there’s any doubt that if Ireland ever reunified it would be applying to enter Schengen and leave the CTA the following day.
    I suspect there is a huge amount of doubt over that. For a start currently around 300,000 Irish nationals live and work in mainland Britain. Vastly more than work anywhere else in the EU. In addition it is almost certain that any workable reunification (which I would welcome) would have a clause insisting maintenance of the CTA for the sake of the 800,000 unionists.
    +1
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,396
    Omnium said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Looks like a solid tip, the Green (Highest) vote is inflated in the locals due to one candidate in many of the wards, and Labour have bumped up their share of the total vote from 2014 locals by around 9%.

    How much do you want?
    I've had £20 @ 13-5 on 60-70 and £5 on over 70 @ 16s.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,447
    rcs1000 said:

    No it isn't. I will assume for a moment you have never been a parent with a comment like that. Passive control is the very essence of good parenting and is generally far more effective than active control because it avoids the inevitable push back. Teaching your children boundaries and enforcing them without making it obvious is the epitome of good parenting.


    It works equally well in business and in government. Most of the control exercised over the population in a modern democracy is passive. Indeed in that case it can be very effective to the extent of being pernicious.

    Are you saying I don't need the electroshock collars for the kids?
    Why? Are they they getting your goat?

    (I wonder if anyone will spot this one?)
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212
    rcs1000 said:

    No it isn't. I will assume for a moment you have never been a parent with a comment like that. Passive control is the very essence of good parenting and is generally far more effective than active control because it avoids the inevitable push back. Teaching your children boundaries and enforcing them without making it obvious is the epitome of good parenting.


    It works equally well in business and in government. Most of the control exercised over the population in a modern democracy is passive. Indeed in that case it can be very effective to the extent of being pernicious.

    Are you saying I don't need the electroshock collars for the kids?
    Yes, but not for discipline. Just for fun :)
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,486
    rcs1000 said:

    No it isn't. I will assume for a moment you have never been a parent with a comment like that. Passive control is the very essence of good parenting and is generally far more effective than active control because it avoids the inevitable push back. Teaching your children boundaries and enforcing them without making it obvious is the epitome of good parenting.


    It works equally well in business and in government. Most of the control exercised over the population in a modern democracy is passive. Indeed in that case it can be very effective to the extent of being pernicious.

    Are you saying I don't need the electroshock collars for the kids?
    With some historical LD sympathy in the family it's best you keep them. Nonetheless an unusually harsh starting point. What happened to sweets and teddy-vince-cables?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,090
    Eurovision: funny to see a thousand comments here about it. We are never going to win unless and until we take the competition seriously and enter established artists like most of the other countries do. As someone said yesterday we don’t even enter one of our top 100 artists, at a time when more and more British music is selling by the bucketload worldwide.

    We can even do Europop quite well. This annoyingly catchy ‘90s throwback tune is currently topping the charts all over Europe - by two British artists.


    And this British collaboration is one of the biggest selling singles of the past decade, so we have the talent in songwriting and performing to have a good go at it if we wanted to take the competition seriously.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,486
    Pulpstar said:

    Omnium said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Looks like a solid tip, the Green (Highest) vote is inflated in the locals due to one candidate in many of the wards, and Labour have bumped up their share of the total vote from 2014 locals by around 9%.

    How much do you want?
    I've had £20 @ 13-5 on 60-70 and £5 on over 70 @ 16s.
    How much more do you want?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,711

    ydoethur said:

    'Lewisham Easy' - well it ought to be!

    If Labour lose Lewisham East surely even Jeremy 'Limpet' Corbyn will have to resign.
    I suggest this was a good reason for Tories to back the LDs a week or so ago. Corbyn is great if you’re a pure Tory tribalist. Not so great if you think Corbyn is an intolerable risk to the country, and believe in decent Opposition.

    Postal votes will go out in a week or two, though. In my view these should be discouraged, as we should allow voters the benefit of a full campaign.
    Tories will want to get as many Tory votes as possible in Lewisham East and keep a solid second place, not 'lend' their votes to the LDs to get a more 'electable' Labour leader than Corbyn and give the LDs momentum when the LDs may well provide confidence and supply to Labour in the event of another hung parliament anyway
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    No it isn't. I will assume for a moment you have never been a parent with a comment like that. Passive control is the very essence of good parenting and is generally far more effective than active control because it avoids the inevitable push back. Teaching your children boundaries and enforcing them without making it obvious is the epitome of good parenting.


    It works equally well in business and in government. Most of the control exercised over the population in a modern democracy is passive. Indeed in that case it can be very effective to the extent of being pernicious.

    Are you saying I don't need the electroshock collars for the kids?
    Why? Are they they getting your goat?

    (I wonder if anyone will spot this one?)
    Ewe should get your goa... I mean coat.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,396
    Omnium said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Omnium said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Looks like a solid tip, the Green (Highest) vote is inflated in the locals due to one candidate in many of the wards, and Labour have bumped up their share of the total vote from 2014 locals by around 9%.

    How much do you want?
    I've had £20 @ 13-5 on 60-70 and £5 on over 70 @ 16s.
    How much more do you want?
    That's enough for me thanks.

    Do you think the Lib Dems are going to surge ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,711
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Since when did any administration really want a good opposition? However beneficial it might actually be.

    Francis Pym was famously sacked for saying that landslides don't produce successful governments (although it didn't help that he had also called Thatcher 'a corporal, not a cavalry officer').

    Yet both Blair and Thatcher would have been far better Prime Ministers for a competent opposition keeping them on their toes (although at least both had powerful enemies in their own government).
    Certainly neither Hague and IDS nor Foot did much to trouble Blair and Thatcher and both won easy landslide re election victories in 2001 and 1983.

    However it could be argued both Howard and Kinnock provided much tougher challenges for both as leaders of the opposition and indeed both Blair in 2005 and Thatcher in 1987 saw their majorities fall.

    Although the electorate were unwilling to make Howard or Kinnock PM both arguably reformed their parties and got them back in the game and set up the future general election victories of their successors David Cameron and Tony Blair
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,360

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    Exercising control is often about knowing when you need to do so actively, and when you can do so passively.

    Passive control is not control. It's lack of control. Although oddly (and horribly) that might be what we end up with.
    No it isn't. I will assume for a moment you have never been a parent with a comment like that. Passive control is the very essence of good parenting and is generally far more effective than active control because it avoids the inevitable push back. Teaching your children boundaries and enforcing them without making it obvious is the epitome of good parenting.

    It works equally well in business and in government. Most of the control exercised over the population in a modern democracy is passive. Indeed in that case it can be very effective to the extent of being pernicious.
    I understand that the policeman in the head is the most effective and agree that it is the most pernicious. But that was not what the OP was proposing, which was closer to absence of control.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,090
    Pulpstar said:

    Omnium said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Omnium said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Looks like a solid tip, the Green (Highest) vote is inflated in the locals due to one candidate in many of the wards, and Labour have bumped up their share of the total vote from 2014 locals by around 9%.

    How much do you want?
    I've had £20 @ 13-5 on 60-70 and £5 on over 70 @ 16s.
    How much more do you want?
    That's enough for me thanks.

    Do you think the Lib Dems are going to surge ?
    The turnout figure’s going to be the one to watch. A combination of Labour complacency and a poor turnout could make this closer than it might otherwise be. LDs and Tories are both going to work the seat hard.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,486
    Pulpstar said:

    Omnium said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Omnium said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Looks like a solid tip, the Green (Highest) vote is inflated in the locals due to one candidate in many of the wards, and Labour have bumped up their share of the total vote from 2014 locals by around 9%.

    How much do you want?
    I've had £20 @ 13-5 on 60-70 and £5 on over 70 @ 16s.
    How much more do you want?
    That's enough for me thanks.

    Do you think the Lib Dems are going to surge ?
    Not really, but the chances that Labour messes things up are high (ish).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,447

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    No it isn't. I will assume for a moment you have never been a parent with a comment like that. Passive control is the very essence of good parenting and is generally far more effective than active control because it avoids the inevitable push back. Teaching your children boundaries and enforcing them without making it obvious is the epitome of good parenting.


    It works equally well in business and in government. Most of the control exercised over the population in a modern democracy is passive. Indeed in that case it can be very effective to the extent of being pernicious.

    Are you saying I don't need the electroshock collars for the kids?
    Why? Are they they getting your goat?

    (I wonder if anyone will spot this one?)
    Ewe should get your goa... I mean coat.
    Bah! :smile:
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,619
    I have to say if you can predict this market, you deserve your winnings. For a deceptively simple bet I must admit I have no strong view
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,090
    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    You do realise that most of the world has permeable borders, right? Switzerland is a perfect example. A landlocked country. It has very low rates of illegal immigration, largely because it has laws that make it very difficult to employ illegal immigrants.

    The 'holiday' argument is pretty facile, to be honest. Control does not have to be exercised at borders.

    "permeable" is not the same as "non-existent". Even the US/Canada border, which goes thru many miles of unpopulated wilderness, is marked and policed.

    As for the facility (wrong word?) of the holiday argument, I wasn't the one who was making it.

    You are correct that "control" does not have to be exercised at borders. However if one wants to control borders (and I believe that is what May is trying to say) then one will, at some point, have to control a border. And the proposals thus far do not constitute control.

    The Irish border is a non issue for immigration control. We will continue to have a CTA with a ireland and Ireland control their airports and seaports just as NI control theirs. Just who do you think is going to enter the UK illegally through the NI border?

    That is not relevant to my point. My point was that May claims to control borders but in the case of the NI/IRE border, she is actively refusing to control it. This calls into question either her honesty or her logic. Since I believe her to be honest (or at least sincere, a subtle difference), then her logic is at fault. Given this and her increasingly-apparent inability to make a decision, this is troubling.
    Exercising control is often about knowing when you need to do so actively, and when you can do so passively.
    Passive control is not control. It's lack of control. Although oddly (and horribly) that might be what we end up with.
    Taking back control means that it’s up to the UK, rather than the EU, how we police our borders. It is clear to most people that no hard border between NI and RoI is the best solution, but the key is that it’s up to us to make the decision, our politicians are accountable for the decision, and we can change the decision in the future as circumstances dictate.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,129

    'Lewisham Easy' - well it ought to be!

    New Orleans eat your heart out! :)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,478
    edited May 13
    MattW said:

    Foxy said:


    But Corbyn did take back a dozen or so Scottish seats, and was within a whisker of many more. Itt was the SNP losing to Ruth Davidson that kept May in no 10.

    Incidentally fwiw:

    A loss to Labour I think. Seems like a candidate who could bring together a fair few strands of the party.
    Hope my blockquotes are right.

    I question whether any senior figure at the PCS Union (@MsLadyPhyll is "Head of 'Equality'") can be unifying figure for Labour at present outside the Corbynite faction, given that Union's past and current campaigns, particularly one who very recently specifically placed Israel alongside Nazi Germany as countries which have committed Holocausts.

    image

    I'm inclined to think that the unexpected family situation involved at least in part opinions being discovered unexpectedly.
    I met an Armenian lady yesterday who was very angry that Israel wouldn't accept the Armenian genocide despite overwhelming evidence that it's real. All countries have their own agendas and see things from their own perspective. Is there a genocide going on in Gaza? It certainly sounds like it.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,360
    Sandpit said:

    Taking back control means that it’s up to the UK, rather than the EU, how we police our borders. It is clear to most people that no hard border between NI and RoI is the best solution, but the key is that it’s up to us to make the decision, our politicians are accountable for the decision, and we can change the decision in the future as circumstances dictate.

    Given Simon Coveney's stance (see twitter below), it's difficult to believe that it's the UK, rather than the EU/IRE, who is deciding how we police our borders. If somebody twists your arm to make you keep your door unlocked, and you keep your door unlocked, that's not a free decision. It also makes a mockery of the statement that the UK is controlling borders because it is conspicuously refusing to control the NI/IRE border.



  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,090
    edited May 13
    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taking back control means that it’s up to the UK, rather than the EU, how we police our borders. It is clear to most people that no hard border between NI and RoI is the best solution, but the key is that it’s up to us to make the decision, our politicians are accountable for the decision, and we can change the decision in the future as circumstances dictate.

    Given Simon Coveney's stance (see twitter below), it's difficult to believe that it's the UK, rather than the EU/IRE, who is deciding how we police our borders. If somebody twists your arm to make you keep your door unlocked, and you keep your door unlocked, that's not a free decision. It also makes a mockery of the statement that the UK is controlling borders because it is conspicuously refusing to control the NI/IRE border.


    This all stems from two facts.

    1. That the EU has clear rules that the default for a border between an EU country and a non-EU country outside the customs union needs to look like a fortification, with physical barriers and customs checks.

    2. That the primary objective of the EU in the negotiations is to prevent Brexit being seen as a success by any other recalcitrant member states.

    The combination of these issues is why they are trying to use the NI / RoI border as a wedge issue, to maintain the influence of the EU in the UK after Brexit by restricting our ability to negotiate our own trade deals or by alter our product standards.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,179
    Scott_P said:
    What is that sound?

    That one?

    Yep, its the realisation that leading Remainers are just *so* popular that the one who lost to Ed is back....

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212
    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taking back control means that it’s up to the UK, rather than the EU, how we police our borders. It is clear to most people that no hard border between NI and RoI is the best solution, but the key is that it’s up to us to make the decision, our politicians are accountable for the decision, and we can change the decision in the future as circumstances dictate.

    Given Simon Coveney's stance (see twitter below), it's difficult to believe that it's the UK, rather than the EU/IRE, who is deciding how we police our borders. If somebody twists your arm to make you keep your door unlocked, and you keep your door unlocked, that's not a free decision. It also makes a mockery of the statement that the UK is controlling borders because it is conspicuously refusing to control the NI/IRE border.



    Not at all. The EU and Eire can decide how they want to police their borders. We can decide how we want to police ours. If a hard border develops it will be because they want it not because we do.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,470
    Let's face it. When your other options are Nick Clegg, Nicky Morgan or Anna Soubry, David Miliband looks appealing.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,244
    Scott_P said:
    That strikes me as very strange. He didn't seem so very influential even when he was active in UK politics. Has he really got a continuing following strong enough to make more than a ripple or two, now?

    Good evening, everybody.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,360
    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taking back control means that it’s up to the UK, rather than the EU, how we police our borders. It is clear to most people that no hard border between NI and RoI is the best solution, but the key is that it’s up to us to make the decision, our politicians are accountable for the decision, and we can change the decision in the future as circumstances dictate.

    Given Simon Coveney's stance (see twitter below), it's difficult to believe that it's the UK, rather than the EU/IRE, who is deciding how we police our borders. If somebody twists your arm to make you keep your door unlocked, and you keep your door unlocked, that's not a free decision. It also makes a mockery of the statement that the UK is controlling borders because it is conspicuously refusing to control the NI/IRE border.


    This all stems from two facts.

    1. That the EU has clear rules that the default for a border between an EU country and a non-EU country outside the customs union needs to look like a fortification, with physical barriers and customs checks.

    2. That the primary objective of the EU in the negotiations is to prevent Brexit being seen as a success by any other recalcitrant member states.

    The combination of these issues is why they are trying to use the NI / RoI border as a wedge issue, to maintain the influence of the EU in the UK after Brexit by restricting our ability to negotiate our own trade deals or by alter our product standards.
    This is actually a real problem, isn't it.

    1) EU/Ireland is insisting on a totally open, uncontrolled border between IRE&NI, and will not grant a withdrawal agreement without it.
    2) DUP is insisting on a totally open, uncontrolled border between NI&GB
    3) HMG is dealing with this by insisting that we're controlling it *really* using some kind of magic forcefield.

    This may explain why May is insisting on her customs partnership thingy, even though her cabinet thinks its bollocks and the EU has already rejected it.






  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,802

    If a hard border develops it will be because they want it not because we do.

    TAKE BACK CONTROL OF OUR BORDERS !!!!

    (not that one...)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,447

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taking back control means that it’s up to the UK, rather than the EU, how we police our borders. It is clear to most people that no hard border between NI and RoI is the best solution, but the key is that it’s up to us to make the decision, our politicians are accountable for the decision, and we can change the decision in the future as circumstances dictate.

    Given Simon Coveney's stance (see twitter below), it's difficult to believe that it's the UK, rather than the EU/IRE, who is deciding how we police our borders. If somebody twists your arm to make you keep your door unlocked, and you keep your door unlocked, that's not a free decision. It also makes a mockery of the statement that the UK is controlling borders because it is conspicuously refusing to control the NI/IRE border.



    Not at all. The EU and Eire can decide how they want to police their borders. We can decide how we want to police ours. If a hard border develops it will be because they want it not because we do.
    We have of course the advantage that all our land borders are with the EU (Ireland and Spain) so we don't get into trouble if we elect not to police them.

    The issue for the EU (and exasperated though I am with them at the moment, it is a real issue) is that they cannot have no border in Ireland and a hard border with Russia and Belorussia to the East, unless we have a WTO ratified agreement. And while I think they would be stark mad to unilaterally impose a hard border in Ireland, they would be considerably madder to have no border with a brace of hostile Fascist dictatorships infamous for their criminality and aggression.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,360
    Scott_P said:
    So Theresa May is insisting that keeping one border totally open is consistent with keeping all borders closed, we're hosting a conference to encourage people to join the EU, and the Once and Future Dork has decided to draw his banana and reenter the fray, some time after it would have made a difference and far too late. You no longer need me to supply parody as real life seems to be doing it for me. I shall now bid you adieu and go catch my train. Laters, alligators.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,090
    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taking back control means that it’s up to the UK, rather than the EU, how we police our borders. It is clear to most people that no hard border between NI and RoI is the best solution, but the key is that it’s up to us to make the decision, our politicians are accountable for the decision, and we can change the decision in the future as circumstances dictate.

    Given Simon Coveney's stance (see twitter below), it's difficult to believe that it's the UK, rather than the EU/IRE, who is deciding how we police our borders. If somebody twists your arm to make you keep your door unlocked, and you keep your door unlocked, that's not a free decision. It also makes a mockery of the statement that the UK is controlling borders because it is conspicuously refusing to control the NI/IRE border.


    This all stems from two facts.

    1. That the EU has clear rules that the default for a border between an EU country and a non-EU country outside the customs union needs to look like a fortification, with physical barriers and customs checks.

    2. That the primary objective of the EU in the negotiations is to prevent Brexit being seen as a success by any other recalcitrant member states.

    The combination of these issues is why they are trying to use the NI / RoI border as a wedge issue, to maintain the influence of the EU in the UK after Brexit by restricting our ability to negotiate our own trade deals or by alter our product standards.
    This is actually a real problem, isn't it.

    1) EU/Ireland is insisting on a totally open, uncontrolled border between IRE&NI, and will not grant a withdrawal agreement without it.
    2) DUP is insisting on a totally open, uncontrolled border between NI&GB
    3) HMG is dealing with this by insisting that we're controlling it *really* using some kind of magic forcefield.

    This may explain why May is insisting on her customs partnership thingy, even though her cabinet thinks its bollocks and the EU has already rejected it.
    Something of a customs partnership, with the U.K. collecting tariffs for the EU, could be made to work. The proposal involving collecting tariffs on all UK imports then refunding those that would stay in the U.K. is bonkers though, and would severely limit how effective our third-party trade deals could be.

    An electronic border already works between the USA and Canada, the world’s longest land border. It would be easy to make it work in NI if there was the political will to do so, but Varakdar and Barnier want to make sure it doesn’t happen.

    All this is making a no-deal Brexit more likely by the day.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,470
    FFS. Why do people keep taking the words 'border' and 'freedom of movement' literally instead of realising that these are shorthand for deciding who can live and work in the UK.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 20,741
    viewcode said:

    This may explain why May is insisting on her customs partnership thingy, even though her cabinet thinks its bollocks and the EU has already rejected it.

    The trick with May's customs partnership is that unless we actually have an independent trade deal to implement, it would be identical to a customs union, so it allows her to keep up the pretence that we can be Global Britain, while actually following totally in the EU's footsteps.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 20,741

    Not at all. The EU and Eire can decide how they want to police their borders. We can decide how we want to police ours. If a hard border develops it will be because they want it not because we do.

    As @HYUFD will tell you, the government has already agreed to maintain enough alignment to avoid the need to police the NI border.
This discussion has been closed.