Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The efforts to undermine Obamacare – the soft underbelly of Tr

13

Comments

  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:



    That's how I see it, too. Starmer's tests are just a temporary lick of paint, to disguise the huge cracks in Labour's EU position: the leadership is pro-Hard Brexit, the MPs, activists, members and Labour voters are largely pro-Remain, some of them passionately so.

    The party is as split as the Tory party on this issue, indeed they are exact mirror images: Tories have a Remainery leadership, but a Brexity party base, and Brexity voters.

    When it comes to a vote, will Labour MPs really refuse a deal (if we are offered one) on the basis of Starmer's bullet points, as written by Seamus Milne, and then hurl us towards No Deal? I don't buy it. Most of these Labour MPs would be voting for significant hardship for their own constituencies, and they also know 70% of Labour voters are for Remain, or, failing that Soft Brexit. When it comes down to it, the PLP will mutiny, en masse and they will vote for any deal that TMay can get (if the alternative is No Deal).

    For that reason I expect TMay would be able to pass any deal, she will also likely have support from the SNP. The ERG and Corbynite core are not enough to stop her.

    Incidentally, I have several Labour friends who have officially said they will no longer vote Labour, following Corbyn's recent "benefits of Brexit" speech. They really did believe he was secretly Remainer, only now are they realising. Bless.

    The Labour Remainers really aren't going to save Theresa and keep the Tories in power over some grotty deal that Rees-Mogg has f*cked around with anyway. Their thinking will be to destroy the Tories then get back around the table with the EU once Labour are re-elected and the madness has passed. Of course, Corbyn might put his foot down and insist that hard Brexit stays, but better hard Brexit under Corbyn than under Boris.
    It's just not going to happen. Most Labour MPs will not vote for No Deal. Your brain isn't working. Also, the Tories will still be in power even if we get No Deal, so that bit isn't true either.

    Have a cold drink.
    Cracking it open now!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    I might have to impose a voluntary vow of personal silence on the subject, for the rest of this lovely summer.

    I'm just amazed and impressed that you can function in daylight hours.
    His nymph wife clearly keeps him energised for daytime use now.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    I might have to impose a voluntary vow of personal silence on the subject, for the rest of this lovely summer.

    I'm just amazed and impressed that you can function in daylight hours.
    lol. What coz of the drinking at night, or the fact my south facing period flat with its lovely floor to ceiling Georgian sash windows (Grade 2 listed) is, according to my thermometer, right now a toasty 40 BLOODY DEGREES C??
    Isn't daylight for wusses and Remainers?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Freggles said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    +CU.

    in.
    Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would not get the same benefits as the SM/CU provide?

    Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would face watering down our rights and regulations in order to gain a USA/UK free trade deal?

    Were they clear that Brexit would put the Northern Irish border arrangements at risk?

    On the contrary, we were reassured that these things *would not happen* because we are so important as a trade partner.

    Brexit is a pack of lies.
    Yes. It was expected that we would have a FTA but no one claimed that was the same as membership of the SM.

    They were clear that new trade treaties would be negotiated. The details of these are yet to be determined.

    I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?

    The Bless them.

    It’s true that the hooks that the EU had in our laws, our trade and our policies were deeper and more barbed than even the wildest ravings speculated beforehand, ravings that were laughed at and sneered by our pro EU establishment, the very same people who claim now it is all terribly difficult.

    Yep, I guess you see frictionless, EU-wide supply chains as barbed hooks that enable tyranny, while I see them as business tools that bring in high amounts of tax revenue and create good jobs.

    And a structural trade deficit worth nearly 4% of GDP a year, Joff. Not in 2030 but now and every year. It may not be the EU’s fault that we have failed to gain from the SM, it may be our own failures in education, management, infrastructure, saving ratios, whatever but it just isn’t working for us and it is not working on an unsustainable scale.

    And when we leave it will be worse. That is the problem. Leaving solves none of our problems. That's why I voted Remain. For some notional sovereignty gains we inflict a whole heap of economic and financial difficulties on ourselves. I just do not see the practical benefits.

    In the short term we certainly do, yes. Brexiteers would argue it’s a strategic decision the economic benefits of which will accrue over a 20-50 year time horizon.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    Dura_Ace said:



    I read the Chequers Plan white paper in Canada (in almost total isolation from the U.K. media) and found it an acceptable compromise. My views being similar to Gove in that regard: not ideal but the right strategic balance for the UK.

    I come back to near universal reporting that it’s shite.

    Don't worry. We have non-specific assurances from Robotory that food supplies after Freedom Day will be "sufficient" so Brexit is going very well.
    Of all the nonsense I’ve read the idea we might run out of food has to be my favourite.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited July 2018
    TGOHF said:

    DC calling out DC

    https://dominiccummings.com/2018/07/22/on-the-referendum-24k-observer-fake-news-and-a-suggestion-me-and-the-mps-discuss-this-with-all-of-us-under-oath/

    "Also note that the whistleblowers have provably lied — so much that the Observer has been forced to delete many of their original allegations from their website and forced Carole to delete many of her tweets and the Observer has coughed up substantial legal fees (not mine, I have not hired any lawyers or threatened any hacks with lawyers).

    The normal pattern is for people to say ‘Cummings is bluffing’. When people say this it always turns out I wasn’t. Remember last year when I said the EC had written to VL saying we could make donations? Carole and @Jolyon said I was lying/bluffing for a year. What happened? The documents were produced in the High Court as part of the judicial review: I wasn’t lying and I wasn’t bluffing, though much of the media has not realised this fact and still reports fake news. I don’t bluff when my bluff will obviously be called.

    If the EC confirms they have not referred me to the police — which logically they cannot have done given they have never investigated me (unless they are lying which surely is extremely improbable?) — and MPs get in touch to fix a date I will be more than happy to answer every question any of them have.

    I will blog further about this weird affair this week."

    There's something going on with this story that isn't quite right, but I still can't see exactly what it is.

    In related news, Darren Grimes from BeLeave is crowdfunding to take the Electoral Commission to a judicial review at the Court of Appeal over his maximum 20k fine for a minor technical offence related to the referendum.
    https://order-order.com/2018/07/25/help-darren-grimes-fight-biased-electoral-commission/
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    SeanT said:

    I'm so fucking bored of Brexit. Jeez

    Best thing about my 2 week holiday was taking a break from all that.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    Perhaps Mr Varadkar should be worrying about planes nearer to home....

    https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1022079453244022784

    Whenever the boss of Ryanair makes another pronouncement about Brexit, look behind the curtain to see what he is trying to distract you from seeing.....
    It’s an amazing airline. Both the staff and passengers seem to hate it but keep coming back to it too.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959



    In your view. I disagree, they are easily managed.

    "It'll be easy, TRUST ME"
    - A brexiteer

    Awww, it's just like the olden days.

    When a brexiteer insists something will be easy, that's normally a good sign to run for the nearest fucking exit.
    Please, be our guest.

    Run to the nearst fucking exit.

    We'll manfully cope without you.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    RobC said:

    DavidL said:

    Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.

    1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
    2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
    3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
    4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
    5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
    6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

    As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.

    And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.

    Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.

    I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
    I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.

    One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.

    That does not extend to the government or to those positively advocating a course of action. Leavers have failed to come up with a coherent programme, hence the mess we are currently in.
    Which is why perhaps there is a sudden push among non-headbanging Leavers to get the Norway option back on the table. It is a tried and tested plan if nothing else which the EU might accept although of course it's not as good as remaining.
    I come back to near universal reporting that it’s shite.
    You'll have to blame Boris and DD for that. If they choose to resign over it what's everyone else supposed to think?
    I do question how many people have actually read it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950



    In your view. I disagree, they are easily managed.

    "It'll be easy, TRUST ME"
    - A brexiteer

    Awww, it's just like the olden days.

    When a brexiteer insists something will be easy, that's normally a good sign to run for the nearest fucking exit.
    Please, be our guest.

    Run to the nearst fucking exit.

    We'll manfully cope without you.
    Wouldn't even put a scratch in the ratio of PB Leavers who have fucked off vs Remainers.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    SeanT said:


    When it comes to a vote, will Labour MPs really refuse a deal (if we are offered one) on the basis of Starmer's bullet points, as written by Seamus Milne, and then hurl us towards No Deal? I don't buy it. Most of these Labour MPs would be voting for significant hardship for their own constituencies, and they also know 70% of Labour voters are for Remain, or, failing that Soft Brexit. When it comes down to it, the PLP will mutiny, en masse and they will vote for any deal that TMay can get (if the alternative is No Deal).

    If they aren't prepared to bring down a Conservative government then what's the point of being a Labour MP?
    I don't see how it would bring down the government. TFPA. We'd have No Deal, but the Tories would still be in power. For another 3 years.
    Owning the mess they'd made.

    It'd be Corbyn's dream outcome.
    Perhaps.

    However I am pretty sure May will get some kind of deal, everyone will hate her, and it, but it will pass through the a very reluctant Commons by a decent margin, for all the reasons I have stated, not least that the only alternative will be a catastrophic No Deal.

    It will then put the spotlight back on Corbyn, as the deal is bound to adhere to EU strictures on State Aid. He will hate it. His party will be much happier. The party could descend into open civil war again.

    A Labour win following a TMay Mushy Brexit is not guaranteed, at all.

    Article 50 extension for negotiations with a Labour government is the figleaf that will take most Labour MPs through the No lobby.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    edited July 2018

    Perhaps Mr Varadkar should be worrying about planes nearer to home....

    https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1022079453244022784

    Whenever the boss of Ryanair makes another pronouncement about Brexit, look behind the curtain to see what he is trying to distract you from seeing.....
    It’s an amazing airline. Both the staff and passengers seem to hate it but keep coming back to it too.
    It's an outstanding airline which has revolutionised passenger air travel in Europe. There are a (relatively) small number of whinging passengers who don't understand the product and seem to think that air travel makes one special.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    SeanT said:

    I might have to impose a voluntary vow of personal silence on the subject, for the rest of this lovely summer.

    I doubt any of us can resist. I've mostly moved on, but it's an itch that needs scratching every now and then!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    TOPPING said:



    In your view. I disagree, they are easily managed.

    "It'll be easy, TRUST ME"
    - A brexiteer

    Awww, it's just like the olden days.

    When a brexiteer insists something will be easy, that's normally a good sign to run for the nearest fucking exit.
    Please, be our guest.

    Run to the nearst fucking exit.

    We'll manfully cope without you.
    Wouldn't even put a scratch in the ratio of PB Leavers who have fucked off been banned vs Remainers.
    Fixed that for you.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:




    The Labour Remainers really aren't going to save Theresa and keep the Tories in power over some s.
    It's just not going to happen. Most Labour MPs will not vote for No Deal. Your brain isn't working. Also, the Tories will still be in power even if we get No Deal, so that bit isn't true either.

    Have a cold drink.
    You’re assuming that May will succeed in manipulating the parliamentary process so that the only vote will be “my deal or no deal”. Grieve et al believe that her concessions last time round mean that there will be a more meaningful vote than that (although a lot depends on the Speaker with the way it’s now drafted) and it’s going to be very difficult to corral Parliament into not passing some form of binding amendment either insisting on changes to the deal or instructing the government to request an extension or revocation of article 50. In the end any deal is going to be bad enough that it’s almost certain there will be a majority for one or both courses of action, so the only way to prevent it is by keeping a tight lock on parliamentary business in order to prevent Parliament from asserting its sovereignty.

    There are two ways that could be done. First, by running down the clock so far that there is no time at all to vote on the deal, because it is literally too late to propose any alternative. That might work, but from the end of January it’ll become daily warfare to keep motions and amendments at bay if it’s looking like the government is playing that game. Second, by reheating the “government will fall if you don’t back this” line on every vote. Maybe that will work right to the end, but my sense is that the Tory rebels were giving May more time, not accepting that they would give her carte blanche to negotiate any crap deal she wants. Given the slimness of her majority, it only needs her to annoy a few more MPs and it’s game over. Chance of success? I’m not sure, it feels 50:50 at the moment, but it wouldn’t need many “buy guns and canned food” statements and the consequent polling impact to tip the balance further towards parliament and away from the government.

    Crucially, Labour should be able to find ways to oppose the government and stop the choice becoming “my deal or no deal” by citing incompetence, broken promises, and trying to prevent a no deal disaster. They’ve played that one pretty well so far and there’s no reason to think they will stop. Corbyn is neither interested in saving the country from Brexit or forcing Brexit through, he just wants a general election.


  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    SeanT said:



    That's how I see it, too. Starmer's tests are just a temporary lick of paint, to disguise the huge cracks in Labour's EU position: the leadership is pro-Hard Brexit, the MPs, activists, members and Labour voters are largely pro-Remain, some of them passionately so.

    The party is as split as the Tory party on this issue, indeed they are exact mirror images: Tories have a Remainery leadership, but a Brexity party base, and Brexity voters.

    The chaos is going to be so delightful.
    Nah, Brexit will end with a whimper rather than a bang. A transition to vassal state will be fudged, and in a couple of years people will just wonder what the point was as they stand in the queue while going on holiday.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Just looking at the Trump proposal for EU trade. The Commission should seize the opportunity and look at a mutual dropping of all tariffs and quotas on goods trade. It would be a huge win for both sides and, IMO, pave the way for a similar UK-US deal and form the basis of a UK-EU deal. Don't even get involved in the standards or recognition question, just drop the tariffs and allow the US to export goods that meet EU standards tariff and quota free (and vice versa).
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Freggles said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    +CU.

    in.
    Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would not get the same benefits as the SM/CU provide?

    Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would face watering down our rights and regulations in order to gain a USA/UK free trade deal?

    Were they clear that Brexit would put the Northern Irish border arrangements at risk?

    On the contrary, we were reassured that these things *would not happen* because we are so important as a trade partner.

    Brexit is a pack of lies.
    Yes. It was expected that we would have a FTA but no one claimed that was the same as membership of the SM.

    They were clear that new trade treaties would be negotiated. The details of these are yet to be determined.

    I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?

    The Bless them.

    It’s true that the hooks that the EU had in our laws, our trade and our policies were deeper and more barbed than even the wildest ravings speculated beforehand, ravings that were laughed at and sneered by our pro EU establishment, the very same people who claim now it is all terribly difficult.

    Yep, I guess you see frictionless, EU-wide supply chains as barbed hooks that enable tyranny, while I see them as business tools that bring in high amounts of tax revenue and create good jobs.

    And a structural trade deficit worth nearly 4% of GDP a e.

    And when we leave it will be worse. That is the problem. Leaving solves none of our problems. That's why I voted Remain. For some notional sovereignty gains we inflict a whole heap of economic and financial difficulties on ourselves. I just do not see the practical benefits.

    In the short term we certainly do, yes. Brexiteers would argue it’s a strategic decision the economic benefits of which will accrue over a 20-50 year time horizon.
    Bit of an issue given that most Leave voters are aged over 60...
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    To reassure those tremulous Remainers, here is my prediction for what the self-elected Great and the Good have decided will ensue in the next three years. As the two-year softening up period of delay and obfuscation hasn't succeeded, the final deal will be based on the original Chequers deal.

    However, as a sop to the opponents of freedom of movement, some minor modifications will be allowed across Europe. A mixture of a brief emergency brake and some small latitude being allowed to individual governments as long as it is passed by their legislature. The May government will, of course, promise to introduce these reforms. This will wrong-foot Labour, who will be reluctant to vote against.

    Of course, no meaningful changes of FOM will actually happen, but the minor upswing in Ukip's fortunes will be small and easily contained. That's the theory anyway.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    MaxPB said:

    Just looking at the Trump proposal for EU trade. The Commission should seize the opportunity and look at a mutual dropping of all tariffs and quotas on goods trade. It would be a huge win for both sides and, IMO, pave the way for a similar UK-US deal and form the basis of a UK-EU deal. Don't even get involved in the standards or recognition question, just drop the tariffs and allow the US to export goods that meet EU standards tariff and quota free (and vice versa).

    Yep, but I can’t see the EU going for it.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited July 2018

    There is an interesting decision of the Supreme Court today on notional election expenses and the reporting thereof. This could well have significant implications.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0091-judgment.pdf

    Please note the reporting restrictions around this case.

    The TL;DR courtesy of Matrix Chambers:

    "The Supreme Court held that there is no requirement for property, goods, services or facilities transferred to or provided for the use or benefit of a candidate free of charge or at a discount to be authorised by the candidate or his or her election agent in order to constitute election expenses."

    This looks to be a fair interpretation of the law (as you might expect from the SC :D ). However it now puts candidates and agents in an impossible position with regards to their overall limit, which can now be breached by their national parties, or indeed supportive third parties. Obviously, co-ordination is a partial solution, but I suspect Parliament may need to look again at this whole area of law.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited July 2018
    Sad news, former Fiat and Ferrari boss Sergio Marchionne has passed away at the age of 66. He was the man behind Ferrari’s recent stock market floatation and was heavily involved in their F1 team until only a few months ago. He was formally replaced on the board last week.

    https://www.motorsportweek.com/joeblogsf1/id/00277
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr on_fire.

    "Bit of an issue given that most Leave voters are aged over 60."

    But we're altruists, we want the best for you young scamps. When your child tries to play with fire, we teach you to avoid it. Only when you grow up, can you be allowed to make your own decisions.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969

    There is an interesting decision of the Supreme Court today on notional election expenses and the reporting thereof. This could well have significant implications.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0091-judgment.pdf

    Please note the reporting restrictions around this case.

    The TL;DR courtesy of Matrix Chambers:

    "The Supreme Court held that there is no requirement for property, goods, services or facilities transferred to or provided for the use or benefit of a candidate free of charge or at a discount to be authorised by the candidate or his or her election agent in order to constitute election expenses."

    This looks to be a fair interpretation of the law (as you might expect from the SC :D ). However it now puts candidates and agents in an impossible position with regards to their overall limit, which can now be breached by their national parties, or indeed supportive third parties. Obviously, co-ordination is a partial solution, but I suspect Parliament may need to look again at this whole area of law.
    So it'll all come down to Actus Rea v Chris Mens Rea.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    edited July 2018
    After a series of Cabinet splits, a resignation or two, Corbyn emerges triumphantly with a 1% point lead over The Tories.

    I had a look at figures from Alec Emerges on Twitter for 1963, Harold Wilson had an 20% point lead over the Tories.

    Corbyn is not really doing that well.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    Polruan said:

    Crucially, Labour should be able to find ways to oppose the government and stop the choice becoming “my deal or no deal” by citing incompetence, broken promises, and trying to prevent a no deal disaster. They’ve played that one pretty well so far and there’s no reason to think they will stop. Corbyn is neither interested in saving the country from Brexit or forcing Brexit through, he just wants a general election.

    Suppose Corbyn does come into power before the leaving date and an extension of negotiations is granted. Then what?

    Corbyn's speech hardly represents firm policy but does at least suggest his personal preference is one in which Britain breaks from the EU in several key respects.

    Starmer's "tests" seem to require Britain to remain a member at least of the CU and EEA. Anything else would require inventivity over the meaning of benefits being "exactly" the same - a far stricter hurdle than merely being "as good" or "equivalent" or "we might lose out on some things but make up for them elsewhere". And benefits would not be allowed to be cherry-picked.

    It isn't clear to me that the shadow cabinet have a united, clear vision of what form of Brexit they want any more than the cabinet does. Nor that, once in power, Corbyn would be able to get the backing of senior Labour figures for his preferred Brexit plans, or get backbenchers to vote that vision through.

    If Corbyn were to come to power after Brexit has occurred, he'd obviously have a freer hand to reshape Britain as he wanted. But before, his hands would be tied to some extent by the expectation of his party that he could seal some kind of deal with the EU. Even if he had a parliamentary majority I'm not sure what he'd be able to carry through. Are people who talk up Labour as the best hopes of the Norway model doing some hard-headed analysis, because they know that lots of Labour MPs would back it, or are they doing some wishful thinking because they have failed to read Corbyn's own intentions?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    https://twitter.com/alecemerges/status/1022074294455742464

    Polling for Harold Wilson in 1963 during the final stages of MacMillan's government.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    dr_spyn said:

    After a series of Cabinet splits, a resignation or two, Corbyn emerges triumphantly with a 1% point lead over The Tories.

    I had a look at figures from Alec Emerges on Twitter for 1963, Harold Wilson had an 20% point lead over the Tories.

    Corbyn is not really doing that well.
    That polling was right in the middle of the Profumo affair and with a trial just about to start.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    edited July 2018
    dr_spyn said:

    https://twitter.com/alecemerges/status/1022074294455742464

    Polling for Harold Wilson in 1963 during the final stages of MacMillan's government.

    Some serious swing back to the government come polling day.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    There is an interesting decision of the Supreme Court today on notional election expenses and the reporting thereof. This could well have significant implications.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0091-judgment.pdf

    Please note the reporting restrictions around this case.

    The TL;DR courtesy of Matrix Chambers:

    "The Supreme Court held that there is no requirement for property, goods, services or facilities transferred to or provided for the use or benefit of a candidate free of charge or at a discount to be authorised by the candidate or his or her election agent in order to constitute election expenses."

    This looks to be a fair interpretation of the law (as you might expect from the SC :D ). However it now puts candidates and agents in an impossible position with regards to their overall limit, which can now be breached by their national parties, or indeed supportive third parties. Obviously, co-ordination is a partial solution, but I suspect Parliament may need to look again at this whole area of law.
    Came across this as a problem some years ago when an acquaintance, an officer of the local taxicabs organisation, was standing for election to the local council. For reasons which need not concern us, said association, pretty well all self-employed owner-drivers, decided that it wanted their man on the council, and so, for election day, while a skeleton public taxi service was operated the vast majority of the drivers donated their time and use of their cars to take voters to the polls. The RO held that it was lawful, although it put the non-taxi association candidates at somewhat of a disadvantage.
    And yes the guy got in.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    Polruan said:

    Crucially, Labour should be able to find ways to oppose the government and stop the choice becoming “my deal .

    Suppose Corbyn does come into power before the leaving date and an extension of negotiations is granted. Then what?

    Corbyn's speech hardly represents firm policy but does at least suggest his personal preference is one in which Britain breaks from the EU in several key respects.

    Starmer's "tests" seem to require Britain to remain a member at least of the CU and EEA. Anything else would require inventivity over the meaning of benefits being "exactly" the same - a far stricter hurdle than merely being "as good" or "equivalent" or "we might lose out on some things but make up for them elsewhere". And benefits would not be allowed to be cherry-picked.

    It isn't clear to me that the shadow cabinet have a united, clear vision of what form of Brexit they want any more than the cabinet does. Nor that, once in power, Corbyn would be able to get the backing of senior Labour figures for his preferred Brexit plans, or get backbenchers to vote that vision through.

    If Corbyn were to come to power after Brexit has occurred, he'd obviously have a freer hand to reshape Britain as he wanted. But before, his hands would be tied to some extent by the expectation of his party that he could seal some kind of deal with the EU. Even if he had a parliamentary majority I'm not sure what he'd be able to carry through. Are people who talk up Labour as the best hopes of the Norway model doing some hard-headed analysis, because they know that lots of Labour MPs would back it, or are they doing some wishful thinking because they have failed to read Corbyn's own intentions?
    I think it just depends on the polling. If there’s a clear majority to remain by that point, I would expect any Labour government to try and make that happen, along with some propaganda about how immigration will be better controlled (cf Tory failure to use powers available) and how they’ve concluded that their industrial policy is compatible with EU rules after all. If the country is still split it’s A50 revocation buying time to decide for certain what we want and make necessary preparations, such as tarmaccing Kent and East Sussex.

    Having learned from the Scottish referendum I don’t think Labour will sacrifice itself for the good of the country by engineering an unpopular irreversible Remain, but there are plenty of ways to kick the can much further down the road than has currently been possible.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    There is an interesting decision of the Supreme Court today on notional election expenses and the reporting thereof. This could well have significant implications.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0091-judgment.pdf

    Please note the reporting restrictions around this case.

    The TL;DR courtesy of Matrix Chambers:

    "The Supreme Court held that there is no requirement for property, goods, services or facilities transferred to or provided for the use or benefit of a candidate free of charge or at a discount to be authorised by the candidate or his or her election agent in order to constitute election expenses."

    This looks to be a fair interpretation of the law (as you might expect from the SC :D ). However it now puts candidates and agents in an impossible position with regards to their overall limit, which can now be breached by their national parties, or indeed supportive third parties. Obviously, co-ordination is a partial solution, but I suspect Parliament may need to look again at this whole area of law.
    So it'll all come down to Actus Rea v Chris Mens Rea.
    Chris Rea would be easier to understand than electoral law.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:

    DC calling out DC

    https://dominiccummings.com/2018/07/22/on-the-referendum-24k-observer-fake-news-and-a-suggestion-me-and-the-mps-discuss-this-with-all-of-us-under-oath/

    "Also note that the whistleblowers have provably lied — so much that the Observer has been forced to delete many of their original allegations from their website and forced Carole to delete many of her tweets and the Observer has coughed up substantial legal fees (not mine, I have not hired any lawyers or threatened any hacks with lawyers).

    The normal pattern is for people to say ‘Cummings is bluffing’. When people say this it always turns out I wasn’t. Remember last year when I said the EC had written to VL saying we could make donations? Carole and @Jolyon said I was lying/bluffing for a year. What happened? The documents were produced in the High Court as part of the judicial review: I wasn’t lying and I wasn’t bluffing, though much of the media has not realised this fact and still reports fake news. I don’t bluff when my bluff will obviously be called.

    If the EC confirms they have not referred me to the police — which logically they cannot have done given they have never investigated me (unless they are lying which surely is extremely improbable?) — and MPs get in touch to fix a date I will be more than happy to answer every question any of them have.

    I will blog further about this weird affair this week."

    There's something going on with this story that isn't quite right, but I still can't see exactly what it is.

    In related news, Darren Grimes from BeLeave is crowdfunding to take the Electoral Commission to a judicial review at the Court of Appeal over his maximum 20k fine for a minor technical offence related to the referendum.
    https://order-order.com/2018/07/25/help-darren-grimes-fight-biased-electoral-commission/
    One has to hope that he's a bit more careful this time about where the money comes from.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    tlg86 said:

    dr_spyn said:

    https://twitter.com/alecemerges/status/1022074294455742464

    Polling for Harold Wilson in 1963 during the final stages of MacMillan's government.

    Some serious swing back to the government come polling day.
    Or some seriously unadjusted polling, probably based on differential non-response. Or, more likely, a bit of both.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Freggles said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    +CU.

    in.
    Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would not get the same benefits as the SM/CU provide?

    Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would face watering down our rights and regulations in order to gain a USA/UK free trade deal?

    Were they clear that Brexit would put the Northern Irish border arrangements at risk?

    On the contrary, we were reassured that these things *would not happen* because we are so important as a trade partner.

    Brexit is a pack of lies.
    Yes. It was expected that we would have a FTA but no one claimed that was the same as membership of the SM.

    They were clear that new trade treaties would be negotiated. The details of these are yet to be determined.

    I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?

    The Bless them.

    It’s true that the hooks that the EU had in our laws, our trade and our policies were deeper and more barbed than even the wildest ravings speculated beforehand, ravings that were laughed at and sneered by our pro EU establishment, the very same people who claim now it is all terribly difficult.

    Yep, I guess you see frictionless, EU-wide supply chains as barbed hooks that enable tyranny, while I see them as business tools that bring in high amounts of tax revenue and create good jobs.

    And a structural trade deficit worth nearly 4% of GDP a e.

    And

    In the short term we certainly do, yes. Brexiteers would argue it’s a strategic decision the economic benefits of which will accrue over a 20-50 year time horizon.
    Bit of an issue given that most Leave voters are aged over 60...
    Why?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    matt said:

    Perhaps Mr Varadkar should be worrying about planes nearer to home....

    https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1022079453244022784

    Whenever the boss of Ryanair makes another pronouncement about Brexit, look behind the curtain to see what he is trying to distract you from seeing.....
    It’s an amazing airline. Both the staff and passengers seem to hate it but keep coming back to it too.
    It's an outstanding airline which has revolutionised passenger air travel in Europe. There are a (relatively) small number of whinging passengers who don't understand the product and seem to think that air travel makes one special.
    It’s certainly shaken up the industry but I wouldn’t call it outstanding.

    I think the quality of experience of flying has deteriorated over the last 20 years and I avoid flying wherever possible, Ryanair being near the bottom of my list.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1022090774106853377

    About time the world caught up. I was getting called a traitor on here about 2 days after Brexit...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    Sandpit said:

    There is an interesting decision of the Supreme Court today on notional election expenses and the reporting thereof. This could well have significant implications.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0091-judgment.pdf

    Please note the reporting restrictions around this case.

    The TL;DR courtesy of Matrix Chambers:

    "The Supreme Court held that there is no requirement for property, goods, services or facilities transferred to or provided for the use or benefit of a candidate free of charge or at a discount to be authorised by the candidate or his or her election agent in order to constitute election expenses."

    This looks to be a fair interpretation of the law (as you might expect from the SC :D ). However it now puts candidates and agents in an impossible position with regards to their overall limit, which can now be breached by their national parties, or indeed supportive third parties. Obviously, co-ordination is a partial solution, but I suspect Parliament may need to look again at this whole area of law.
    So it'll all come down to Actus Rea v Chris Mens Rea.
    Chris Rea would be easier to understand than electoral law.
    I have a very simple solution.

    Abolish constituency spending limits and set an overall spending limit.

    It is up to the parties where they target their resources.

    If you live in a safe seat you'll love it, if you live in a marginals seat expect a lot mailouts and contacts.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited July 2018
    tlg86 said:

    dr_spyn said:

    https://twitter.com/alecemerges/status/1022074294455742464

    Polling for Harold Wilson in 1963 during the final stages of MacMillan's government.

    Some serious swing back to the government come polling day.
    1 Yr, 1 mth after the 59 election (Nov '60) is surely a better comparison ?

    Nov 3-29 Gallup
    CON 46.0
    LAB 40.5
    L 13.5

    Looks like Macmillan was outperforming May at the same point in the cycle.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited July 2018

    There is an interesting decision of the Supreme Court today on notional election expenses and the reporting thereof. This could well have significant implications.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0091-judgment.pdf

    Please note the reporting restrictions around this case.

    Never mind all that - far, far more important is the decision that KitKat cannot trademark 4 trapizoidal fingers encased in a rectangular chocolate block.

    A lucky escape there for the superior Norwegian product

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44939819
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    edited July 2018

    Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:

    DC calling out DC

    https://dominiccummings.com/2018/07/22/on-the-referendum-24k-observer-fake-news-and-a-suggestion-me-and-the-mps-discuss-this-with-all-of-us-under-oath/

    "Also note that the whistleblowers have provably lied — so much that the Observer has been forced to delete many of their original allegations from their website and forced Carole to delete many of her tweets and the Observer has coughed up substantial legal fees (not mine, I have not hired any lawyers or threatened any hacks with lawyers).

    The normal pattern is for people to say ‘Cummings is bluffing’. When people say this it always turns out I wasn’t. Remember last year when I said the EC had written to VL saying we could make donations? Carole and @Jolyon said I was lying/bluffing for a year. What happened? The documents were produced in the High Court as part of the judicial review: I wasn’t lying and I wasn’t bluffing, though much of the media has not realised this fact and still reports fake news. I don’t bluff when my bluff will obviously be called.

    If the EC confirms they have not referred me to the police — which logically they cannot have done given they have never investigated me (unless they are lying which surely is extremely improbable?) — and MPs get in touch to fix a date I will be more than happy to answer every question any of them have.

    I will blog further about this weird affair this week."

    There's something going on with this story that isn't quite right, but I still can't see exactly what it is.

    In related news, Darren Grimes from BeLeave is crowdfunding to take the Electoral Commission to a judicial review at the Court of Appeal over his maximum 20k fine for a minor technical offence related to the referendum.
    https://order-order.com/2018/07/25/help-darren-grimes-fight-biased-electoral-commission/
    One has to hope that he's a bit more careful this time about where the money comes from.
    Isn’t it illegal to crowd-fund for a penalty. Or something like that?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    Foxy said:

    SeanT said:



    That's how I see it, too. Starmer's tests are just a temporary lick of paint, to disguise the huge cracks in Labour's EU position: the leadership is pro-Hard Brexit, the MPs, activists, members and Labour voters are largely pro-Remain, some of them passionately so.

    The party is as split as the Tory party on this issue, indeed they are exact mirror images: Tories have a Remainery leadership, but a Brexity party base, and Brexity voters.

    The chaos is going to be so delightful.
    Nah, Brexit will end with a whimper rather than a bang. A transition to vassal state will be fudged, and in a couple of years people will just wonder what the point was as they stand in the queue while going on holiday.
    I think I’ve stood in a queue at both ends going on holiday to Europe for as long as I can remember.

    The only difference was at the Canadian border they asked you a 2-3 questions (basically, why are you visiting and for how long) whilst stamping the passport, rather than the Europeans who look at it/scan it but don’t talk to you.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234


    Isn’t it illehgal to crowd-fund for a penalty. Or something like that?

    Doesn't seem Brexiteers have a huge grasp on this whole "rule of law" thing.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    dr_spyn said:

    https://twitter.com/alecemerges/status/1022074294455742464

    Polling for Harold Wilson in 1963 during the final stages of MacMillan's government.

    Some serious swing back to the government come polling day.
    1 Yr, 1 mth after the 59 election (Nov '60) is surely a better comparison ?

    Nov 3-29 Gallup
    CON 46.0
    LAB 40.5
    L 13.5

    Looks like Macmillan was outperforming May at the same point in the cycle.
    I wasn't seeking to draw a comparison between the two, just observing how much things had changed by 1964; though, of course, Wilson did make it.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    Foxy said:

    SeanT said:



    That's how I see it, too. Starmer's tests are just a temporary lick of paint, to disguise the huge cracks in Labour's EU position: the leadership is pro-Hard Brexit, the MPs, activists, members and Labour voters are largely pro-Remain, some of them passionately so.

    The party is as split as the Tory party on this issue, indeed they are exact mirror images: Tories have a Remainery leadership, but a Brexity party base, and Brexity voters.

    The chaos is going to be so delightful.
    Nah, Brexit will end with a whimper rather than a bang. A transition to vassal state will be fudged, and in a couple of years people will just wonder what the point was as they stand in the queue while going on holiday.
    I think I’ve stood in a queue at both ends going on holiday to Europe for as long as I can remember.

    The only difference was at the Canadian border they asked you a 2-3 questions (basically, why are you visiting and for how long) whilst stamping the passport, rather than the Europeans who look at it/scan it but don’t talk to you.
    Queeing with a load of Americans to enter Oz I was Iasked one question “Why is your bloody cricket team so crap?”
    The Americans were asked a lot more!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    Foxy said:

    SeanT said:



    That's how I see it, too. Starmer's tests are just a temporary lick of paint, to disguise the huge cracks in Labour's EU position: the leadership is pro-Hard Brexit, the MPs, activists, members and Labour voters are largely pro-Remain, some of them passionately so.

    The party is as split as the Tory party on this issue, indeed they are exact mirror images: Tories have a Remainery leadership, but a Brexity party base, and Brexity voters.

    The chaos is going to be so delightful.
    Nah, Brexit will end with a whimper rather than a bang. A transition to vassal state will be fudged, and in a couple of years people will just wonder what the point was as they stand in the queue while going on holiday.
    I think I’ve stood in a queue at both ends going on holiday to Europe for as long as I can remember.

    The only difference was at the Canadian border they asked you a 2-3 questions (basically, why are you visiting and for how long) whilst stamping the passport, rather than the Europeans who look at it/scan it but don’t talk to you.
    Queeing with a load of Americans to enter Oz I was Iasked one question “Why is your bloody cricket team so crap?”
    The Americans were asked a lot more!
    That’s superb, and very hard to answer.

    The Canadian border guard shared my surname (and was born in the UK, which helped) and gave us a couple of recommendations.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340

    matt said:

    Perhaps Mr Varadkar should be worrying about planes nearer to home....

    https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1022079453244022784

    Whenever the boss of Ryanair makes another pronouncement about Brexit, look behind the curtain to see what he is trying to distract you from seeing.....
    It’s an amazing airline. Both the staff and passengers seem to hate it but keep coming back to it too.
    It's an outstanding airline which has revolutionised passenger air travel in Europe. There are a (relatively) small number of whinging passengers who don't understand the product and seem to think that air travel makes one special.
    It’s certainly shaken up the industry but I wouldn’t call it outstanding.

    I think the quality of experience of flying has deteriorated over the last 20 years and I avoid flying wherever possible, Ryanair being near the bottom of my list.
    And the point of Ryanair is that for most people the decrease in fares outweighs the reduced quality
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    I have not seen this reported in our press but yesterday the EU and UK at the WTO submitted the paperwork to split away from each other. Ours is our proposal membership including all the tariff schedules and our share of the spilt of TRQ's. Other members have three months to object or if none do then it is considered as passed.
    What the UK Government showing some competence and working hand in hand with the EU to get this issue sorted.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Maybe we can save some time and skip straight to step 13? :D:D
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256


    Please, be our guest.

    Run to the nearst fucking exit.

    We'll manfully cope without you.

    Really? So far, the Leavers in charge seem to have managed nothing except to complain. They certainly have not "managed" Brexit and just sit there waiting for us all to fall of the cliff.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    I have not seen this reported in our press but yesterday the EU and UK at the WTO submitted the paperwork to split away from each other. Ours is our proposal membership including all the tariff schedules and our share of the spilt of TRQ's. Other members have three months to object or if none do then it is considered as passed.
    What the UK Government showing some competence and working hand in hand with the EU to get this issue sorted.

    Though quite a few countries have lodged objections to how we and the EU want to split quotas:

    https://twitter.com/CoppetainPU/status/1020346330458271744?s=19
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    Foxy said:

    I have not seen this reported in our press but yesterday the EU and UK at the WTO submitted the paperwork to split away from each other. Ours is our proposal membership including all the tariff schedules and our share of the spilt of TRQ's. Other members have three months to object or if none do then it is considered as passed.
    What the UK Government showing some competence and working hand in hand with the EU to get this issue sorted.

    Though quite a few countries have lodged objections to how we and the EU want to split quotas:

    https://twitter.com/CoppetainPU/status/1020346330458271744?s=19
    Technically they have not lodged objections. During the discussions prior to our submission they have raised issues, basically over the fact they can not now utilise the current quota, 100%in the UK or EU27.
    We will see in the next three months if this has been solved prior to the submission.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited July 2018
    The WTO has basically completed deadlocked and not functioning properly since 2008. Great that we're entrusting our future economic well-being to an NGO that's been stuck in a bureaucratic time loop for a decade.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    matt said:

    Perhaps Mr Varadkar should be worrying about planes nearer to home....

    https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1022079453244022784

    Whenever the boss of Ryanair makes another pronouncement about Brexit, look behind the curtain to see what he is trying to distract you from seeing.....
    It’s an amazing airline. Both the staff and passengers seem to hate it but keep coming back to it too.
    It's an outstanding airline which has revolutionised passenger air travel in Europe. There are a (relatively) small number of whinging passengers who don't understand the product and seem to think that air travel makes one special.
    It’s certainly shaken up the industry but I wouldn’t call it outstanding.

    I think the quality of experience of flying has deteriorated over the last 20 years and I avoid flying wherever possible, Ryanair being near the bottom of my list.
    And the point of Ryanair is that for most people the decrease in fares outweighs the reduced quality
    Flying is expensive. Most people are willing to begrudgingly accept a couple of hours of discomfort to get to where they need to go.

    It doesn’t mean the airline is loved.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    There is an interesting decision of the Supreme Court today on notional election expenses and the reporting thereof. This could well have significant implications.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0091-judgment.pdf

    Please note the reporting restrictions around this case.

    Never mind all that - far, far more important is the decision that KitKat cannot trademark 4 trapizoidal fingers encased in a rectangular chocolate block.

    A lucky escape there for the superior Norwegian product

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44939819
    But Toblerone was able to trademark its triangular packaging!
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171

    The WTO has basically completed deadlocked and not functioning properly since 2008. Great that we're entrusting our future economic well-being to an NGO that's been stuck in a bureaucratic time loop for a decade.

    How do you cope with being so positive?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    On treason: this didn't exist as most people think of it for a long time. You could go to war against the king and it might not count as treason (I think, I remember being surprised how loosely it was defined).

    I think Edward III updated it, not surprising given his experience of Roger Mortimer. However, Edward III was a reasonable man. The law was also changed by Richard II, who essentially criminalised disagreeing with the king.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,429

    There is an interesting decision of the Supreme Court today on notional election expenses and the reporting thereof. This could well have significant implications.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0091-judgment.pdf

    Please note the reporting restrictions around this case.

    Never mind all that - far, far more important is the decision that KitKat cannot trademark 4 trapizoidal fingers encased in a rectangular chocolate block.

    A lucky escape there for the superior Norwegian product

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44939819

    There is an interesting decision of the Supreme Court today on notional election expenses and the reporting thereof. This could well have significant implications.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0091-judgment.pdf

    Please note the reporting restrictions around this case.

    Never mind all that - far, far more important is the decision that KitKat cannot trademark 4 trapizoidal fingers encased in a rectangular chocolate block.

    A lucky escape there for the superior Norwegian product

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44939819
    In terms of Government finance the Prudential case is also important. Whilst the government lost on most points (incompatibility of 1990s tax law with the EU) they won on only paying simple interest rather than compound on unjust enrichment cases.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0102-press-summary.pdf

    This apparently will save the Government around £5 billion.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    On treason: this didn't exist as most people think of it for a long time. You could go to war against the king and it might not count as treason (I think, I remember being surprised how loosely it was defined).

    I think Edward III updated it, not surprising given his experience of Roger Mortimer. However, Edward III was a reasonable man. The law was also changed by Richard II, who essentially criminalised disagreeing with the king.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ESOrF_u1hg
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    Scott_P said:
    When did the Government say it was stockpiling food?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    F1: blimey. Marchionne, who was Ferrari's big boss until a few days ago, has died:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44949996
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited July 2018
    currystar said:

    Scott_P said:
    When did the Government say it was stockpiling food?
    “We will look at this issue in the round and make sure that there’s adequate food supplies. It would be wrong to describe it as the government doing the stockpiling … of course the idea that we only get food imports into this country from one continent is not appropriate.”

    Raab to select committee this week.

    Twitter has, naturally, taken this to mean the sky is falling, bless their dear little hearts.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    John_M said:

    currystar said:

    Scott_P said:
    When did the Government say it was stockpiling food?
    “We will look at this issue in the round and make sure that there’s adequate food supplies. It would be wrong to describe it as the government doing the stockpiling … of course the idea that we only get food imports into this country from one continent is not appropriate.”

    Raab to select committee this week.
    It would be wrong to describe it as the government doing the stockpiling
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    John_M said:

    currystar said:

    Scott_P said:
    When did the Government say it was stockpiling food?
    “We will look at this issue in the round and make sure that there’s adequate food supplies. It would be wrong to describe it as the government doing the stockpiling … of course the idea that we only get food imports into this country from one continent is not appropriate.”

    Raab to select committee this week.
    It would be wrong to describe it as the government doing the stockpiling
    The Guardian and Independent have a rich history of being wrong. Let's face it, neither Remainers or Leavers give two shits about accurate reporting, it's winning the Online War of 2016- that matters.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    currystar said:

    When did the Government say it was stockpiling food?

    It would be wrong to describe it as the government doing the stockpiling

    Which is what the cartoon shows...
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    Scott_P said:

    currystar said:

    When did the Government say it was stockpiling food?

    It would be wrong to describe it as the government doing the stockpiling

    Which is what the cartoon shows...
    But is the cartoon accurate?
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    Scott_P said:
    Again she did not say that the Government is stockpiling food
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Scott_P said:

    currystar said:

    When did the Government say it was stockpiling food?

    It would be wrong to describe it as the government doing the stockpiling

    Which is what the cartoon shows...
    But is the cartoon accurate?
    Since when has the Evening Standard ever let accuracy get in the way of bashing the Prime Minister?
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited July 2018

    There is an interesting decision of the Supreme Court today on notional election expenses and the reporting thereof. This could well have significant implications.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0091-judgment.pdf

    Please note the reporting restrictions around this case.

    Never mind all that - far, far more important is the decision that KitKat cannot trademark 4 trapizoidal fingers encased in a rectangular chocolate block.

    A lucky escape there for the superior Norwegian product

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44939819
    But Toblerone was able to trademark its triangular packaging!
    If you are addicted to Tobelerone, is it a love triangle?

    Maybe there were no competing triangular products to lodge objections, after all how many companies can source triangular honey from triangular bees or triangular nuts from triangular trees?

    (you might be too young for the advert - youtube search will be your friend) :D
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:

    currystar said:

    When did the Government say it was stockpiling food?

    It would be wrong to describe it as the government doing the stockpiling

    Which is what the cartoon shows...
    But is the cartoon accurate?
    Since when has the Evening Standard ever let accuracy get in the way of bashing the Prime Minister?
    I believe the editor used to be in a relationship with the Prime Minister.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    There is an interesting decision of the Supreme Court today on notional election expenses and the reporting thereof. This could well have significant implications.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0091-judgment.pdf

    Please note the reporting restrictions around this case.

    Never mind all that - far, far more important is the decision that KitKat cannot trademark 4 trapizoidal fingers encased in a rectangular chocolate block.

    A lucky escape there for the superior Norwegian product

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44939819
    But Toblerone was able to trademark its triangular packaging!
    If you are addicted to Tobelerone, is it a love triangle?

    Maybe there were no competing triangular products to lodge objections, after all how many companies can source triangular honey from triangular bees or triangular nuts from triangular trees?

    (you might be too young for the advert - youtube search will be your friend) :D
    I was cheered to see they're reverting to the original shape, Christmas wasn't the same without Toblerone.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    There is an interesting decision of the Supreme Court today on notional election expenses and the reporting thereof. This could well have significant implications.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0091-judgment.pdf

    Please note the reporting restrictions around this case.

    Never mind all that - far, far more important is the decision that KitKat cannot trademark 4 trapizoidal fingers encased in a rectangular chocolate block.

    A lucky escape there for the superior Norwegian product

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44939819
    But Toblerone was able to trademark its triangular packaging!
    If you are addicted to Tobelerone, is it a love triangle?

    Maybe there were no competing triangular products to lodge objections, after all how many companies can source triangular honey from triangular bees or triangular nuts from triangular trees?

    (you might be too young for the advert - youtube search will be your friend) :D
    Apparently Poundland settled out of court :)
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Ms C,

    "Really? So far, the Leavers in charge seem to have managed nothing except to complain."

    The last time I looked the PM was in charge of the government and civil service. And if I remember rightly, the last four PMs have been Remainers. It's probable that since Cameron departed the CS have been allowed to get on with their job which is evaluating the many options and presenting some of them to the PM.

    As a Leave voter, I'd be very happy to consider the options myself and choose one, but I suspect the constitution wouldn't allow it. However if I had been PM before the referendum, you can rest assured the CS would have been allowed to do their job, thus ensuring we were better prepared.

    On that basis, I suggest you ;look elsewhere for your culprit. Incidentally, it takes one to make a cunning plan, but it takes two to make a deal. Usually, that involves give and take, but I'm not aware of any concessions made by the EU. Agreeing to a transition period is to their advantage if they were hoping for a change of mind by the British electorate - which I suspect they are.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    dr_spyn said:

    https://twitter.com/alecemerges/status/1022074294455742464

    Polling for Harold Wilson in 1963 during the final stages of MacMillan's government.

    Some serious swing back to the government come polling day.
    1 Yr, 1 mth after the 59 election (Nov '60) is surely a better comparison ?

    Nov 3-29 Gallup
    CON 46.0
    LAB 40.5
    L 13.5

    Looks like Macmillan was outperforming May at the same point in the cycle.
    I was scrolling down quickly and took that to be a recent poll at first. My reaction was 'that must be the rogue poll in the other direction to the rogue one showing Labour 6 points ahead'.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    CD13 said:

    Ms C,

    "Really? So far, the Leavers in charge seem to have managed nothing except to complain."

    The last time I looked the PM was in charge of the government and civil service.

    And she appointed prominent Leavers to departments to do with Leaving and they did nothing.

    Ask other Eurosceptics and all we get are promises and platitudes. No concrete plans, just cherry picks and fantasies.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    edited July 2018

    Maybe we can save some time and skip straight to step 13? :D:D
    Yup - let's not bother with this democracy thing - so inconvenient and just a bunch of oldies who don't count for nothing.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    F1: Jesus ****ing Christ.

    I know I keep banging on about my bad luck, but I checked the damned weather forecast this morning, then backed no safety car. This tweet is from 15 minutes ago:
    https://twitter.com/GrandPrixDiary/status/1022123069127766017

    Why am I cursed this year?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    Pulpstar said:
    Mars? Has it been trademarked like Toblerone?
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    John_M said:

    There is an interesting decision of the Supreme Court today on notional election expenses and the reporting thereof. This could well have significant implications.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0091-judgment.pdf

    Please note the reporting restrictions around this case.

    Never mind all that - far, far more important is the decision that KitKat cannot trademark 4 trapizoidal fingers encased in a rectangular chocolate block.

    A lucky escape there for the superior Norwegian product

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44939819
    But Toblerone was able to trademark its triangular packaging!
    If you are addicted to Tobelerone, is it a love triangle?

    Maybe there were no competing triangular products to lodge objections, after all how many companies can source triangular honey from triangular bees or triangular nuts from triangular trees?

    (you might be too young for the advert - youtube search will be your friend) :D
    I was cheered to see they're reverting to the original shape, Christmas wasn't the same without Toblerone.
    Every so often I retry it and then remember why I do not like it. Nestle's chocolates seem very oily or fatty and these days I buy very little Cadburys.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited July 2018
    felix said:

    Maybe we can save some time and skip straight to step 13? :D:D
    Yup - let's not bother with this democracy thing - so inconvenient and just a bunch of oldies who don't count for nothing.
    In fairness, many remainers would like us to vote and vote again until the answer comes out right. Can't get more democratic than that, surely?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969

    F1: Jesus ****ing Christ.

    I know I keep banging on about my bad luck, but I checked the damned weather forecast this morning, then backed no safety car. This tweet is from 15 minutes ago:
    https://twitter.com/GrandPrixDiary/status/1022123069127766017

    Why am I cursed this year?

    Karma for voting Leave and UKIP in 2014.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    I hope Dublin stockpiled brown trousers - the penny seems to be dropping at last that they are going to be hung out to dry.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16376669.irish-government-says-its-willing-to-extend-brexit-process-to-get-deal/?ref=twtrec
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    I suspect this will see the rates reduced for those of us savvy enough to keep our money in accounts with decent rates of interest.

    Banks could be forced to pay a minimum interest rate to all customers with cash saving accounts, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has suggested.

    The City regulator said it had opened a consultation after it found lenders "take advantage" of customers who may not move their accounts to banks that provide higher rates of interest.


    Christopher Woolard, executive director of strategy and competition at the FCA, said: "Providers can take advantage of high levels of customer inaction to pay lower interest rates to longstanding customers.

    "While many customers have valid reasons for not shopping around, providers must still treat them fairly, while maintaining competitive rates for those who do.

    "Efforts to encourage customers to switch have had limited impact and we remain concerned about the way firms are treating customers.

    "This is why we are considering the introduction of a basic savings rate for older accounts, which would promote competition and help get customers a better rate of interest."


    https://news.sky.com/story/city-watchdog-may-force-banks-to-pay-minimum-interest-rates-11448313
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Pulpstar, marvellous. I wonder if our doom is coming from Martian otters or the Great Filter.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    The WTO has basically completed deadlocked and not functioning properly since 2008. Great that we're entrusting our future economic well-being to an NGO that's been stuck in a bureaucratic time loop for a decade.

    Lol - are you worried that the shock troops of WTO will fly in and close the borders ?

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    O/T there's a really disturbing report in the Times about the amount of abuse that Sarah Champion is getting from apologists for child rape in Rotherham. Apparently, she now needs police protection.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047
    Pulpstar said:
    Life likely, then. Send Liam Fox to negotiate a trade agreement
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    matt said:

    Perhaps Mr Varadkar should be worrying about planes nearer to home....

    https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1022079453244022784

    Whenever the boss of Ryanair makes another pronouncement about Brexit, look behind the curtain to see what he is trying to distract you from seeing.....
    It’s an amazing airline. Both the staff and passengers seem to hate it but keep coming back to it too.
    It's an outstanding airline which has revolutionised passenger air travel in Europe. There are a (relatively) small number of whinging passengers who don't understand the product and seem to think that air travel makes one special.
    It’s certainly shaken up the industry but I wouldn’t call it outstanding.

    I think the quality of experience of flying has deteriorated over the last 20 years and I avoid flying wherever possible, Ryanair being near the bottom of my list.
    And the point of Ryanair is that for most people the decrease in fares outweighs the reduced quality
    Flying is expensive. Most people are willing to begrudgingly accept a couple of hours of discomfort to get to where they need to go.

    It doesn’t mean the airline is loved.
    Flying once with Ryanair was once too often for me.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Eagles, if I didn't know someone online who has a perfect memory (literally, he remembers everything you ever say), I might be disturbed that you remember my voting record.

    Surprised my voting Conservative at the last couple of General Elections didn't earn me good karma, though.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    F1: Jesus ****ing Christ.

    I know I keep banging on about my bad luck, but I checked the damned weather forecast this morning, then backed no safety car. This tweet is from 15 minutes ago:
    ttps://twitter.com/GrandPrixDiary/status/1022123069127766017
    Why am I cursed this year?

    Back Lewis to win. @Nigelb reckoned he’s won all of the last nine races in which rain tyres have featured.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mrs C,


    "Ask other Eurosceptics and all we get are promises and platitudes. No concrete plans, just cherry picks and fantasies."

    What yon call cherry-picks and fantasies may well be the basis for a plan. Subjective views, eh? they're a bugger. The EU plan is basically 'No surrender'. I'd offer my services here too, but the EU view is 'lie low and say nuffin except for non' which requires no planning or time whatsoever.

    As I mentioned down thread, it will all get resolved in time. And the self-selected great and good will triumph once again. This delay and wasted time is part of the scheme, so you can relax in the knowledge that there will be no more referendums. They are clearly too dangerous. The wrong sort of people vote.
This discussion has been closed.