The collapse in support for Melanchon is interesting (16%, -6). His sulpherous reaction to the polkice search has done him real harm.
BTW, this is a good article on Trump's rallies, which fits well with my experience of the US outside the metropolitan circles - personally very cordial and genuinely nice, but also quite roughly ill-informed about the detail of pollitics and tending to go by gut instinct:
FWIW I do get the rough humo(u)r - I think that on the left we need to avoid getting too worked up over every jovial remark. There is enough genuinely worrying substance to work on.
The collapse in support for Melanchon is interesting (16%, -6). His sulpherous reaction to the polkice search has done him real harm.
BTW, this is a good article on Trump's rallies, which fits well with my experience of the US outside the metropolitan circles - personally very cordial and genuinely nice, but also quite roughly ill-informed about the detail of pollitics and tending to go by gut instinct:
FWIW I do get the rough humo(u)r - I think that on the left we need to avoid getting too worked up over every jovial remark. There is enough genuinely worrying substance to work on.
Equally remarkable that American rallies turns on rallies (cf Obama, for example, as well as Trump) in a way that has died out in the Uk. Unless Corbyn strikes again, I guess.
I think you have to give TMay and Barnier credit where it's due here, they seem to be heading for something that gives British *voters* most of what they wanted. The voters wanted an end to FoM and not too much change on everything else, it sounds like that's what they're going to get.
The people who aren't going to get what they wanted are a faction of Tory MPs who wanted to realign trade and get more control over regulations for the British government, but that's not something many of the voters particularly care about.
The voters are dumb to want these things, but it's the said Tory faction that insisted on asking them.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
You really have lost perspective.
EU’s 65%: UK follows all EU rules without say in formation of those rules. UK’’s 35%: no no deal.
I am not sure if we would notice a difference to be frank. She is pretty much completely detached from the party already. She is not a great advert for the open primary idea. I can't see the major parties being tempted down that road again.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
She is not a great advert for the open primary idea.
She is the best advert for open primaries
Not from the party's perspective. She is more like an American Congressman. She thinks she has her own mandate and is not beholden to the party that elected her. She thinks the majority that voted for her actually want her to use her independent judgment rather than support the government she was elected to support. Maybe some do but how would you form a government of people like this? It would be like herding cats.
Meanwhile it does appear that the BoE's wonderfully patronising explanation sheet with pictures for the hard of thinking has had the desired effect: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46053283
It appears the EU want to have access to a financial services industry after all. Who'd have thought?
She is not a great advert for the open primary idea.
She is the best advert for open primaries
Not from the party's perspective. She is more like an American Congressman. She thinks she has her own mandate and is not beholden to the party that elected her. She thinks the majority that voted for her actually want her to use her independent judgment rather than support the government she was elected to support. Maybe some do but how would you form a government of people like this? It would be like herding cats.
Am I wrong in thinking that a lot of the Brexit rebels (the pro-Brexit ones) voted or threatened to vote against a government budget?
She is not a great advert for the open primary idea.
She is the best advert for open primaries
Not from the party's perspective. She is more like an American Congressman. She thinks she has her own mandate and is not beholden to the party that elected her. She thinks the majority that voted for her actually want her to use her independent judgment rather than support the government she was elected to support. Maybe some do but how would you form a government of people like this? It would be like herding cats.
I can understand say Crouch resigning from the Govt over this, but not supporting the budget is another thing entirely.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
Nonsense. It’s set by the parameters of what the UK want and what the EU can accommodate within that, in amongst that there’s a negotiation with strong political priorities on both sides.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
She is not a great advert for the open primary idea.
She is the best advert for open primaries
Not from the party's perspective. She is more like an American Congressman. She thinks she has her own mandate and is not beholden to the party that elected her. She thinks the majority that voted for her actually want her to use her independent judgment rather than support the government she was elected to support. Maybe some do but how would you form a government of people like this? It would be like herding cats.
Am I wrong in thinking that a lot of the Brexit rebels (the pro-Brexit ones) voted or threatened to vote against a government budget?
I think so. There was some prat who is no doubt a legend in his own living room but who's name I forget who made some threat if May did something in the negotiations which he did not approve of he would vote against the budget and the DUP were on maneuvers as usual looking for a pay off which they got but I don't think it was widespread.
As you may have gathered I have very little tolerance of MPs getting in the road of effective government from whatever direction they are coming from. That is their primary purpose and they should not forget it.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
You really have lost perspective.
EU’s 65%: UK follows all EU rules without say in formation of those rules. UK’’s 35%: no no deal.
She is not a great advert for the open primary idea.
She is the best advert for open primaries
Not from the party's perspective. She is more like an American Congressman. She thinks she has her own mandate and is not beholden to the party that elected her. She thinks the majority that voted for her actually want her to use her independent judgment rather than support the government she was elected to support. Maybe some do but how would you form a government of people like this? It would be like herding cats.
I can understand say Crouch resigning from the Govt over this, but not supporting the budget is another thing entirely.
I have great respect for what Crouch has done and think it is shameful that the government, having shown the balls to face down this evil, is now wimping out in this way. But Crouch is not threatening the effective operation of government.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
Nonsense. It’s set by the parameters of what the UK want and what the EU can accommodate within that, in amongst that there’s a negotiation with strong political priorities on both sides.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
She is not a great advert for the open primary idea.
She is the best advert for open primaries
Not from the party's perspective. She is more like an American Congressman. She thinks she has her own mandate and is not beholden to the party that elected her. She thinks the majority that voted for her actually want her to use her independent judgment rather than support the government she was elected to support. Maybe some do but how would you form a government of people like this? It would be like herding cats.
I can understand say Crouch resigning from the Govt over this, but not supporting the budget is another thing entirely.
I have great respect for what Crouch has done and think it is shameful that the government, having shown the balls to face down this evil, is now wimping out in this way. But Crouch is not threatening the effective operation of government.
Hmm yes, even dickhead Bridgen will be voting the budget through.
She is not a great advert for the open primary idea.
She is the best advert for open primaries
Not from the party's perspective. She is more like an American Congressman. She thinks she has her own mandate and is not beholden to the party that elected her. She thinks the majority that voted for her actually want her to use her independent judgment rather than support the government she was elected to support. Maybe some do but how would you form a government of people like this? It would be like herding cats.
Am I wrong in thinking that a lot of the Brexit rebels (the pro-Brexit ones) voted or threatened to vote against a government budget?
I think so. There was some prat who is no doubt a legend in his own living room but who's name I forget who made some threat if May did something in the negotiations which he did not approve of he would vote against the budget and the DUP were on maneuvers as usual looking for a pay off which they got but I don't think it was widespread.
As you may have gathered I have very little tolerance of MPs getting in the road of effective government from whatever direction they are coming from. That is their primary purpose and they should not forget it.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
Nonsense. It’s set by the parameters of what the UK want and what the EU can accommodate within that, in amongst that there’s a negotiation with strong political priorities on both sides.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
Nonsense. It’s set by the parameters of what the UK want and what the EU can accommodate within that, in amongst that there’s a negotiation with strong political priorities on both sides.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
Nope - the EU has defined the parameters for different levels of access to the Single Market. We get to decide the level we are prepared to accept.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
Nonsense. It’s set by the parameters of what the UK want and what the EU can accommodate within that, in amongst that there’s a negotiation with strong political priorities on both sides.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
Nonsense. It’s set by the parameters of what the UK want and what the EU can accommodate within that, in amongst that there’s a negotiation with strong political priorities on both sides.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
Nope - the EU has defined the parameters for different levels of access to the Single Market. We get to decide the level we are prepared to accept.
Yes, very much as per Barnier's succinct Powerpoint slide.
Personally, I have no problem with being a vassal state. Taking rules from the EU is nearly as good as helping write them, but by and large they are sensible and well written.
how would you form a government of people like this? It would be like herding cats.
Meanwhile we have a "Government" that includes Ken Clarke and Peter Bone.
Herding cats would be simpler.
May has a tricky job, that I would not dispute. She doesn't need self important prats like Wollaston making it even harder.
We pine for the days of strong and intelligent politicians who are willing to think independently and then want them all to blindly follow their whips?
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
Nonsense. It’s set by the parameters of what the UK want and what the EU can accommodate within that, in amongst that there’s a negotiation with strong political priorities on both sides.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
Nope - the EU has defined the parameters for different levels of access to the Single Market. We get to decide the level we are prepared to accept.
It’s like trying to haggle at the Apple store. You want the product, you pay the price. If the EU is good at anything, it’s setting the terms of the club.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
Nonsense. It’s set by the parameters of what the UK want and what the EU can accommodate within that, in amongst that there’s a negotiation with strong political priorities on both sides.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
Nonsense. It’s set by the parameters of what the UK want and what the EU can accommodate within that, in amongst that there’s a negotiation with strong political priorities on both sides.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
Nonsense. It’s set by the parameters of what the UK want and what the EU can accommodate within that, in amongst that there’s a negotiation with strong political priorities on both sides.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
May has a tricky job, that I would not dispute. She doesn't need self important prats like Wollaston making it even harder.
But JRM is fine?
Yes, seeing as though he is actually a Conservative. The thing is, Wollaston isn't even doing it because she doesn't like Brexit, but because she actually disagrees with a Conservative chancellor implementing the manifesto on which she stood as a candidate last year.
The thing is, Wollaston isn't even doing it because she doesn't like Brexit, but because she actually disagrees with a Conservative chancellor implementing the manifesto on which she stood as a candidate last year.
JRM stood on a manifesto of staying in the single market.
The thing is, Wollaston isn't even doing it because she doesn't like Brexit, but because she actually disagrees with a Conservative chancellor implementing the manifesto on which she stood as a candidate last year.
JRM stood on a manifesto of staying in the single market.
He's not a Conservative. He's a headbanger.
JRM is 4th in today's ConHome next Tory leader poll
The thing is, Wollaston isn't even doing it because she doesn't like Brexit, but because she actually disagrees with a Conservative chancellor implementing the manifesto on which she stood as a candidate last year.
JRM stood on a manifesto of staying in the single market.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
Nonsense. It’s set by the parameters of what the UK want and what the EU can accommodate within that, in amongst that there’s a negotiation with strong political priorities on both sides.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
It will be equivalence. We take all the rules with little if any influence. We thereby avoid no deal.
Sovereignty!! You must both be very proud of yourselves.
The Corporation was very positive on equivalence. They saw it as an opportunity
Someone was asking @Casino_Royale about what concessions the EU have made in the negotiations. From a financial and tax point of view continued access to the SM for our Financial Services was always the biggest game in town and we have achieved it.
The Conservative Party manifesto for the 2015 general election did say “We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market.”
The Conservative Party manifesto for the 2015 general election did say “We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market.”
And, guess what? They did stay in the Single Market for the duration of the parliament that followed the 2015 election.
Quite a coup for the podcast. It's an interesting interview and I like the shorter length. I think Kieran needs to keep his questions a bit more concise though.
Concept of the book is interesting - how did Trump get all those blue collar voters to vote for him? Personally I think it was far too easy for him to run as 'change' against Hilary Clinton.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
Nonsense. It’s set by the parameters of what the UK want and what the EU can accommodate within that, in amongst that there’s a negotiation with strong political priorities on both sides.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
It will be equivalence. We take all the rules with little if any influence. We thereby avoid no deal.
Sovereignty!! You must both be very proud of yourselves.
The Corporation was very positive on equivalence. They saw it as an opportunity
Someone was asking @Casino_Royale about what concessions the EU have made in the negotiations. From a financial and tax point of view continued access to the SM for our Financial Services was always the biggest game in town and we have achieved it.
Let's not pop the corks until it's official and we know what the terms are. If it's soft equivalence then it would be a very good deal indeed.
She is not a great advert for the open primary idea.
She is the best advert for open primaries
Not from the party's perspective. She is more like an American Congressman. She thinks she has her own mandate and is not beholden to the party that elected her. She thinks the majority that voted for her actually want her to use her independent judgment rather than support the government she was elected to support. Maybe some do but how would you form a government of people like this? It would be like herding cats.
That's an interesting discussion, and perhaps best considered separately from the merits of particular cases. David is right that the primary has given Wollaston a sense of having a separate base. Having lots of strong-minded independents is indeed a nightmare for policy-makers - at a local level, there was a wave of North Notts independent councillors a while back who took control of lots of councils but couldn't agree on much. On the other hand, an army of bots who will vote for anything is generally agreed to be undesirable. So what one wants is people who are mostly loyal but will draw the line somewhere.
However, when anyone like that does draw a line, they tend to get a lot of flak from loyalists - self-serving prat, famous in their own living rooms, hungry for headlines, etc. There should be scope for disagreeing without insult. I'd apply that to non-Corbynite Labour MPs (and indeed Corbyn under Blair), Brexiteers, Remainers, whoever. We can all recognise a publicity addict when we see one, but someone who doesn't rebel for the fun of it is usually worth a hearing.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
Nonsense. It’s set by the parameters of what the UK want and what the EU can accommodate within that, in amongst that there’s a negotiation with strong political priorities on both sides.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
Nope - the EU has defined the parameters for different levels of access to the Single Market. We get to decide the level we are prepared to accept.
It’s like trying to haggle at the Apple store. You want the product, you pay the price. If the EU is good at anything, it’s setting the terms of the club.
So when will Juncker put sanctions on France for breathing the budget terms?
The thing is, Wollaston isn't even doing it because she doesn't like Brexit, but because she actually disagrees with a Conservative chancellor implementing the manifesto on which she stood as a candidate last year.
JRM stood on a manifesto of staying in the single market.
He's not a Conservative. He's a headbanger.
JRM is 4th in today's ConHome next Tory leader poll
The thing is, Wollaston isn't even doing it because she doesn't like Brexit, but because she actually disagrees with a Conservative chancellor implementing the manifesto on which she stood as a candidate last year.
JRM stood on a manifesto of staying in the single market.
He's not a Conservative. He's a headbanger.
JRM is 4th in today's ConHome next Tory leader poll
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
Nonsense. It’s set by the parameters of what the UK want and what the EU can accommodate within that, in amongst that there’s a negotiation with strong political priorities on both sides.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
It will be equivalence. We take all the rules with little if any influence. We thereby avoid no deal.
Sovereignty!! You must both be very proud of yourselves.
The Corporation was very positive on equivalence. They saw it as an opportunity
Someone was asking @Casino_Royale about what concessions the EU have made in the negotiations. From a financial and tax point of view continued access to the SM for our Financial Services was always the biggest game in town and we have achieved it.
Yep.
But the funny thing is the negative nellies on her try to spin it as a bad thing or inevitable.
She's generally seen as a good egg - a loyalist but not blind to everything.
I believe I have mentioned my Crouch 4 next Tory leader campaign.... and indeed bet.... at odds longer than someone's Obama bet.... there might be a reason for that though..
The thing is, Wollaston isn't even doing it because she doesn't like Brexit, but because she actually disagrees with a Conservative chancellor implementing the manifesto on which she stood as a candidate last year.
JRM stood on a manifesto of staying in the single market.
He's not a Conservative. He's a headbanger.
Er...
Far be it for me to defend Lord Fauntleroy but didn't the 2017 Tory manifesto say "As we leave the European Union, we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union..."?
She is not a great advert for the open primary idea.
She is the best advert for open primaries
Not from the party's perspective. She is more like an American Congressman. She thinks she has her own mandate and is not beholden to the party that elected her. She thinks the majority that voted for her actually want her to use her independent judgment rather than support the government she was elected to support. Maybe some do but how would you form a government of people like this? It would be like herding cats.
That's an interesting discussion, and perhaps best considered separately from the merits of particular cases. David is right that the primary has given Wollaston a sense of having a separate base. Having lots of strong-minded independents is indeed a nightmare for policy-makers - at a local level, there was a wave of North Notts independent councillors a while back who took control of lots of councils but couldn't agree on much. On the other hand, an army of bots who will vote for anything is generally agreed to be undesirable. So what one wants is people who are mostly loyal but will draw the line somewhere.
However, when anyone like that does draw a line, they tend to get a lot of flak from loyalists - self-serving prat, famous in their own living rooms, hungry for headlines, etc. There should be scope for disagreeing without insult. I'd apply that to non-Corbynite Labour MPs (and indeed Corbyn under Blair), Brexiteers, Remainers, whoever. We can all recognise a publicity addict when we see one, but someone who doesn't rebel for the fun of it is usually worth a hearing.
Generally yes
But Supply is different, which is what she is planning to vote against
There’s a reason why the basic level of partnership between two parties is Confidence & Supply
Steve Baker will be losing the whip then for the tampon tax rebellion in which he secretly conspired with the Labour front bench to threaten to defeat the Government Finance Bill, forcing Osborne to withdraw the measure... seemingly for no other reason than to prove to the Government that he and the ERG could and would defeat the Government on confidence motions. source: All out War, Ch. 11
But the funny thing is the negative nellies on her try to spin it as a bad thing or inevitable.
It's third country equivalence. As articulated clearly this morning by the EU fin services bloke on R4. That great word "access" again. Hides a multitude of sins.
As @MaxPB has said, we will need to see what reciprocity they will accept although I would imagine it would be significant given our standing in the sector. What the EU chooses to do with our suggestions, however, will now be a matter for them and them alone.
That people are praising this manifestly inferior proposition vs the status quo ante is, I must admit, quite mind-boggling.
Seems pretty sensible to me. JRM stood on a low tax manifesto and he was making sure that the Chancellor got the message that doing the opposite of what they said they'd do was not acceptable. And Phil agreed.
It seems to me that the likes of JRM seem to be better at arguing their case than the likes of Wollaston. Perhaps that's because JRM is in the right party and she isn't.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
Nonsense. It’s set by the parameters of what the UK want and what the EU can accommodate within that, in amongst that there’s a negotiation with strong political priorities on both sides.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
Nope - the EU has defined the parameters for different levels of access to the Single Market. We get to decide the level we are prepared to accept.
It’s like trying to haggle at the Apple store. You want the product, you pay the price. If the EU is good at anything, it’s setting the terms of the club.
There's always the 'buying secondhand snide from Ebay or Gumtree' option. One has to assume that's how Fox, Boris, Davis et al prefer their Apple products. Mogg has wax tablets of course.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
Nonsense. It’s set by the parameters of what the UK want and what the EU can accommodate within that, in amongst that there’s a negotiation with strong political priorities on both sides.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
Nope - the EU has defined the parameters for different levels of access to the Single Market. We get to decide the level we are prepared to accept.
It’s like trying to haggle at the Apple store. You want the product, you pay the price. If the EU is good at anything, it’s setting the terms of the club.
There's always the 'buying secondhand snide from Ebay or Gumtree' option. One has to assume that's how Fox, Boris, Davis et al prefer their Apple products. Mogg has wax tablets of course.
The collapse in support for Melanchon is interesting (16%, -6). His sulpherous reaction to the polkice search has done him real harm.
The main beneficiary of Melanchon's decline is Francois Ruffin who is an interesting character and perhaps represents a "New Left" populism beyond the traditional Left. I could certainly see Ruffin running against Macron next time from the Left while Laurent Vauquiez and the centre-right seem to be struggling to make any impression at all.
JRM is 4th in today's ConHome next Tory leader poll
And?
Jezza won the Labour leadership contest, twice.
That doesn't make him any good, or the keeper of the Labour flame.
JRM as leader would surrender the Conservative party to the loons as much as Labour have to the trots.
Liberal centrists may not like it but Corbyn appeals to many members of a socialist party and Mogg to many conservative members of a conservative party
But the funny thing is the negative nellies on her try to spin it as a bad thing or inevitable.
It's third country equivalence. As articulated clearly this morning by the EU fin services bloke on R4. That great word "access" again. Hides a multitude of sins.
As @MaxPB has said, we will need to see what reciprocity they will accept although I would imagine it would be significant given our standing in the sector. What the EU chooses to do with our suggestions, however, will now be a matter for them and them alone.
That people are praising this manifestly inferior proposition vs the status quo ante is, I must admit, quite mind-boggling.
The fundamental proposition that you don’t accept is that people traded off perceived political benefits for economic changes
Because you don’t value those political benefits any new arrangement will be, to you, “manifestly inferior”. Others disagree.
The thing is, Wollaston isn't even doing it because she doesn't like Brexit, but because she actually disagrees with a Conservative chancellor implementing the manifesto on which she stood as a candidate last year.
JRM stood on a manifesto of staying in the single market.
He's not a Conservative. He's a headbanger.
JRM is 4th in today's ConHome next Tory leader poll
It is a survey of Conservative Party members and ConHome got the 2005 Tory leadership race spot on and on polls Mogg even topped a recent Yougov of Tory members as preference for next Tory leader
It's sometimes informative to look back over long-running markets. I've been very active in the past on the next Labour leader market on Betfair. It's noteworthy how contenders have risen and fallen.
At the turn of 2016/17 I laid Keir Starmer at 6.6 and 6.8 - he was last traded at 13.5. In February 2017 I laid Clive Lewis at 5.5 - he was last traded at 24. I laid Dan Jarvis in Feb/Mar 2016 at 7.4 - he was last traded at 75. I laid Hilary Benn at 9 in June 2016 - he was last traded at 650. (I'm leaving Owen Smith and Angela Eagle out of this account because of their special circumstances in the 2016 leadership election).
My point is not to boast about some good bets - well, a little perhaps - but to point out that some apparently serious contenders can fall by the wayside with remarkable speed. There's a reason why laying favourites is so often advised.
Liberal centrists may not like it but Corbyn appeals to many members of a socialist party and Mogg to many conservative members of a conservative party
As above. JRM appeals to the IDS contingent, who are not the Conservative party of Government.
I voted Tory all my life. I can't vote for these fuckwits. I do not believe I am alone.
Interesting phrasing: "London had agreed in negotiations with Brussels to give UK financial services firms continued access to the bloc."
It implies that the UK has capitulated to the EU's terms under pressure from business.
You hope.
No, I hope that the UK avoids capitulating and instead remains in the EU.
But, if the latter doesn’t happen, you’ll certainly be arguing for the former.
The UK will get the deal the EU wants to give us or we’ll get no deal. It has nothing to do with capitulation, it’s just reality. This was always going to be the case.
And so the Remainer myth continues that the deal will be 100% shaped by the EU, with the UK purely as supplicants.
It won’t be. This is a negotiation. Evidence so far suggests the balance of negotiations are at about 65/35 in the EU’s favour, not 100/0.
It is true to say it’s not 50/50. But that doesn’t mean it is therefore 100/0, because it isn’t.
It’s a negotiation within parameters entirely set by the EU. As was always going to be the case. We will get the deal they are willing to give us.
Nonsense. It’s set by the parameters of what the UK want and what the EU can accommodate within that, in amongst that there’s a negotiation with strong political priorities on both sides.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
It will be equivalence. We take all the rules with little if any influence. We thereby avoid no deal.
Sovereignty!! You must both be very proud of yourselves.
The Corporation was very positive on equivalence. They saw it as an opportunity
Someone was asking @Casino_Royale about what concessions the EU have made in the negotiations. From a financial and tax point of view continued access to the SM for our Financial Services was always the biggest game in town and we have achieved it.
We seem to have achieved it by agreeing to allow the EU to decide whether our rules and regulations are equivalent to theirs. That clearly makes sense, but it is clearly not taking back control either!
But the funny thing is the negative nellies on her try to spin it as a bad thing or inevitable.
It's third country equivalence. As articulated clearly this morning by the EU fin services bloke on R4. That great word "access" again. Hides a multitude of sins.
As @MaxPB has said, we will need to see what reciprocity they will accept although I would imagine it would be significant given our standing in the sector. What the EU chooses to do with our suggestions, however, will now be a matter for them and them alone.
That people are praising this manifestly inferior proposition vs the status quo ante is, I must admit, quite mind-boggling.
The fundamental proposition that you don’t accept is that people traded off perceived political benefits for economic changes
Because you don’t value those political benefits any new arrangement will be, to you, “manifestly inferior”. Others disagree.
Oh I get it. But it is bonkers, illogical and, of course, wholly imperceptible to the vast majority of British people and will not change their lives any iota for the better and likely quite a lot for the worse.
It is the exact equivalent of the people voting in a Jeremy Corbyn government which would equally be "manifestly inferior" to the current position.
It's sometimes informative to look back over long-running markets. I've been very active in the past on the next Labour leader market on Betfair. It's noteworthy how contenders have risen and fallen.
At the turn of 2016/17 I laid Keir Starmer at 6.6 and 6.8 - he was last traded at 13.5. In February 2017 I laid Clive Lewis at 5.5 - he was last traded at 24. I laid Dan Jarvis in Feb/Mar 2016 at 7.4 - he was last traded at 75. I laid Hilary Benn at 9 in June 2016 - he was last traded at 650. (I'm leaving Owen Smith and Angela Eagle out of this account because of their special circumstances in the 2016 leadership election).
My point is not to boast about some good bets - well, a little perhaps - but to point out that some apparently serious contenders can fall by the wayside with remarkable speed. There's a reason why laying favourites is so often advised.
Yes, I think a similar principle often applies to SPOTY.
But the funny thing is the negative nellies on her try to spin it as a bad thing or inevitable.
It's third country equivalence. As articulated clearly this morning by the EU fin services bloke on R4. That great word "access" again. Hides a multitude of sins.
As @MaxPB has said, we will need to see what reciprocity they will accept although I would imagine it would be significant given our standing in the sector. What the EU chooses to do with our suggestions, however, will now be a matter for them and them alone.
That people are praising this manifestly inferior proposition vs the status quo ante is, I must admit, quite mind-boggling.
The fundamental proposition that you don’t accept is that people traded off perceived political benefits for economic changes
Because you don’t value those political benefits any new arrangement will be, to you, “manifestly inferior”. Others disagree.
The word "perceived" is doing all the work in that sentence. The only benefit Brexit ever offered was emotional, and that's in the past now.
Seems pretty sensible to me. JRM stood on a low tax manifesto and he was making sure that the Chancellor got the message that doing the opposite of what they said they'd do was not acceptable. And Phil agreed.
It seems to me that the likes of JRM seem to be better at arguing their case than the likes of Wollaston. Perhaps that's because JRM is in the right party and she isn't.
Yup. The government should have pushed for mutual recognition. This government is so useless it can’t even play well a reasonably good hand. Battling for Britain, my arse.....
She is not a great advert for the open primary idea.
She is the best advert for open primaries
Not from the party's perspective. She is more like an American Congressman. She thinks she has her own mandate and is not beholden to the party that elected her. She thinks the majority that voted for her actually want her to use her independent judgment rather than support the government she was elected to support. Maybe some do but how would you form a government of people like this? It would be like herding cats.
That rather blows a giant hole in the whole support for FPTP for general elections.
This means you surely want pure PR with the parties choosing their MPs.
Yup. The government should have pushed for mutual recognition. This government is so useless it can’t even play well a reasonably good hand. Battling for Britain, my arse.....
Socialism is a fantastic political system...if only someone would implement it properly...
The current Finnish Government is a coalition of KESK (centrist), KOK (liberal-conservative) and SIN (conservative, having broken away from the True Finns in 2017 as we all know) - no sniggering in the cheap seats.
KESK are down six points but KOK and SIN are both up a couple. The big losers are the True Finns who polled 18% in the last election but have only 8% now (remind you of anyone?).
On the "gainers" side are the Social Democrats who have always been strong in Finland as in the rest of Scandinavia, the Greens and the Left Alliance. The next Finnish GE is on 14th April next year.
Yup. The government should have pushed for mutual recognition. This government is so useless it can’t even play well a reasonably good hand. Battling for Britain, my arse.....
Or perhaps they did push hard and we just don't have a very good hand?
So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.
Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?
I make it a 72.25% chance.
Much appreciated.
I think of the two I'd rate the Dems more likely to take the Senate than the GOP hold the house. But that's based on a surprise in the turnout.
The Dems need to take Arizona and Nevada then 1 more of North Dakota, Tennessee or Texas. I'd actually rate Texas as the most likely to fall (but still not very likely).
Comments
BTW, this is a good article on Trump's rallies, which fits well with my experience of the US outside the metropolitan circles - personally very cordial and genuinely nice, but also quite roughly ill-informed about the detail of pollitics and tending to go by gut instinct:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/01/trump-rallies-america-midterms-white-house
FWIW I do get the rough humo(u)r - I think that on the left we need to avoid getting too worked up over every jovial remark. There is enough genuinely worrying substance to work on.
https://mobile.twitter.com/LBC/status/1057405480438558721
The people who aren't going to get what they wanted are a faction of Tory MPs who wanted to realign trade and get more control over regulations for the British government, but that's not something many of the voters particularly care about.
The voters are dumb to want these things, but it's the said Tory faction that insisted on asking them.
EU’s 65%: UK follows all EU rules without say in formation of those rules.
UK’’s 35%: no no deal.
How many MPs have abstained (By choice) on a budget matter before ?
It appears the EU want to have access to a financial services industry after all. Who'd have thought?
Herding cats would be simpler.
Don’t go for reducto ad absurdism. It undermines you.
As you may have gathered I have very little tolerance of MPs getting in the road of effective government from whatever direction they are coming from. That is their primary purpose and they should not forget it.
I wouldn’t get too comfy. My reading of Wollaston is that regardless of where the tent was she’d place herself outside it, so she could piss into it.
It will be equivalence. We take all the rules with little if any influence. We thereby avoid no deal.
Sovereignty!! You must both be very proud of yourselves.
Long may it continue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFH-F6LUXIY
Davis jumps to 3rd on 13% with Mogg on 8% and Raab on 7%.
Hunt and Gove drop out of the top 5
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/11/conhomes-survey-davis-tears-a-chunk-off-johnson-who-now-leads-javid-by-less-than-a-point.html
One of the few Tories that I would vote for.
Personally, I have no problem with being a vassal state. Taking rules from the EU is nearly as good as helping write them, but by and large they are sensible and well written.
What’s not to like and admire?
As you will know however practitioners know they aren’t going to put a step out of line with the EU.
He's not a Conservative. He's a headbanger.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/11/conhomes-survey-davis-tears-a-chunk-off-johnson-who-now-leads-javid-by-less-than-a-point.html
Jezza won the Labour leadership contest, twice.
That doesn't make him any good, or the keeper of the Labour flame.
JRM as leader would surrender the Conservative party to the loons as much as Labour have to the trots.
Taxi for Scott...
Concept of the book is interesting - how did Trump get all those blue collar voters to vote for him? Personally I think it was far too easy for him to run as 'change' against Hilary Clinton.
However, when anyone like that does draw a line, they tend to get a lot of flak from loyalists - self-serving prat, famous in their own living rooms, hungry for headlines, etc. There should be scope for disagreeing without insult. I'd apply that to non-Corbynite Labour MPs (and indeed Corbyn under Blair), Brexiteers, Remainers, whoever. We can all recognise a publicity addict when we see one, but someone who doesn't rebel for the fun of it is usually worth a hearing.
But JRM is prepared to vote against the Government against a manifesto he stood on.
It looks like a reasonably good deal if that's the case and it is a treaty obligation on both sides
But the funny thing is the negative nellies on her try to spin it as a bad thing or inevitable.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5883155/Rees-Mogg-Chancellors-Budget-voted-rebel-Tories-NHS-tax-rises.html
But he seems to have subsequently changed his mind:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/budget-jacob-rees-mogg-warns-tory-mps-chancellor-philip-hammond-finance-bill-opposition-a8014791.html
Far be it for me to defend Lord Fauntleroy but didn't the 2017 Tory manifesto say "As we leave the European Union, we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union..."?
But Supply is different, which is what she is planning to vote against
There’s a reason why the basic level of partnership between two parties is Confidence & Supply
As @MaxPB has said, we will need to see what reciprocity they will accept although I would imagine it would be significant given our standing in the sector. What the EU chooses to do with our suggestions, however, will now be a matter for them and them alone.
That people are praising this manifestly inferior proposition vs the status quo ante is, I must admit, quite mind-boggling.
It seems to me that the likes of JRM seem to be better at arguing their case than the likes of Wollaston. Perhaps that's because JRM is in the right party and she isn't.
Mogg has wax tablets of course.
Oh. TAXI!!!
JRM is in the party of IDS, that didn't.
Because you don’t value those political benefits any new arrangement will be, to you, “manifestly inferior”. Others disagree.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/07/09/leave-voting-conservative-party-members-are-starti/
At the turn of 2016/17 I laid Keir Starmer at 6.6 and 6.8 - he was last traded at 13.5. In February 2017 I laid Clive Lewis at 5.5 - he was last traded at 24. I laid Dan Jarvis in Feb/Mar 2016 at 7.4 - he was last traded at 75. I laid Hilary Benn at 9 in June 2016 - he was last traded at 650. (I'm leaving Owen Smith and Angela Eagle out of this account because of their special circumstances in the 2016 leadership election).
My point is not to boast about some good bets - well, a little perhaps - but to point out that some apparently serious contenders can fall by the wayside with remarkable speed. There's a reason why laying favourites is so often advised.
I voted Tory all my life. I can't vote for these fuckwits. I do not believe I am alone.
So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.
Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?
EDIT: Ken Clarke is in the party of Thatcher.
It is the exact equivalent of the people voting in a Jeremy Corbyn government which would equally be "manifestly inferior" to the current position.
But that's the electorate for you!
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1057928647280074753
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1057928777630707712
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1057928925064687616
This means you surely want pure PR with the parties choosing their MPs.
Fascinating poll this morning from Finland:
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1057701577765650433
The current Finnish Government is a coalition of KESK (centrist), KOK (liberal-conservative) and SIN (conservative, having broken away from the True Finns in 2017 as we all know) - no sniggering in the cheap seats.
KESK are down six points but KOK and SIN are both up a couple. The big losers are the True Finns who polled 18% in the last election but have only 8% now (remind you of anyone?).
On the "gainers" side are the Social Democrats who have always been strong in Finland as in the rest of Scandinavia, the Greens and the Left Alliance. The next Finnish GE is on 14th April next year.
I think of the two I'd rate the Dems more likely to take the Senate than the GOP hold the house. But that's based on a surprise in the turnout.
The Dems need to take Arizona and Nevada then 1 more of North Dakota, Tennessee or Texas. I'd actually rate Texas as the most likely to fall (but still not very likely).
Last sentence notes foreign customers switching to non-UK suppliers for their manufactured goods for completely mysterious reasons...