Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In all of this 2019 remains betting favourite for “year of nex

124»

Comments

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Amazing that everyone but May already accepts MV3 is not going to succeed.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Right there’s four English teams and four non English teams in the Champions League QFs.

    Can someone work out and tell me the probability of

    a) 0 all English ties

    b) 1 all English tie

    c) 2 all English ties

    d) 3 all English ties

    e) 4 all English ties

    It's not going to be your D or E options, there's only four English teams and a tie involves two of them.

    From Gracenote statistician on BBC website:

    What are the chances of an all-English quarter-final?

    Simon Gleave, head of sports analysis, Gracenote

    There are 105 possible scenarios for the Champions League draw - at 11:00 GMT on Friday - which will also determine the semi-final line-ups.

    Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.

    Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.

    Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.

    https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47562984
    I was discussing the different combinations with my 12 year old son this morning on my walk to the station.
    What did you reckon were the permutations?

    @Endillion is right that there's 128 different ways of arranging eight teams, so there must be a rule somewhere that certain matches are not allowed to bring it down to 105 - but I can't see any rules anywhere about it - last year's commentary suggested a completely free draw.
    I didnt think at this stage clubs could be drawn against clubs they were in the same group with?
  • Danny565 said:

    So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?

    I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...

    It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840

    we don't do that with guns do we?
    Don't think so. And remarkably that isn't the stupidest part of his cunning plan.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    I think there are 105 scenarios:

    Team drawn has 7 options
    Team drawn has 5 options
    Team drawn has 3 options
    Team drawn has 1 option

    1 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 105
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    Forgive my London-driven ignorance on rural matters, but... why on earth should there be an "obvious exemption for fishing"?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Danny565 said:

    So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?

    I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...

    It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
    They have been very clear they want more to change, not just the risk of no brexit or no deal, to back it.

    And the belief that the Lab MPs are waiting for that seems to fly in the face of the evidence. Even a few more could reasonably have been expected to change their minds if any were even thinking of it, but it has always just been talk.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    Nigelb said:

    Sky News: Beto running or Pres

    Running, I think.
    Pres unlikely...
    Male, White - two insuperable handicaps for the current Democrat mindset. He's probably fit as well.
    Doesn't seem to be stopping Bernie. I don't think he'll win - what has he done so far? - but his profile from the senate race gives him a good start in a crowded field. I'd watch him as a VP pick though.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    nico67 said:

    Labour need to ditch a second EU vote and get behind the Norway option .

    If Norway is sold properly it could get a majority of the public behind it.

    I’m a Remainer but would feel more comfortable with this as it leaves the political institutions of the EU.

    It’s a version of Brexit that has quite a lot for Leavers but still leaves a few crumbs for Remainers .

    Norway would struggle to get a majority of Leavers behind it, which is ultimately why it’s untenable. It’s only a neat solution on paper.
    You don't need a majority of leavers; you need a majority of the population, ideally. In truth, you just need a majority of MPs.
    You can't push something this consequential through if the majority of people in whose name it's being done think that it is worse than the status quo.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    A footnote is that Oliver used to be the thinking man's Brexiteer, to the point that we agreed to write a book together called "Double Vision on Europe", in which we'd agree what the facts were and put our alternative pro- and anti-EU views on what conclusion should be drawn (we spiked it when he was promoted to the Shadow Cabinet and no longer could express independent views). He's now in predominantly Remainer company, presumably because he shares their horror at No Deal.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,768

    Danny565 said:

    So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?

    I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...

    It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
    Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.

  • kle4 said:

    Amazing that everyone but May already accepts MV3 is not going to succeed.
    Not everyone. 80% of the conservative party voted for it
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Anorak said:

    Sandpit said:

    Right there’s four English teams and four non English teams in the Champions League QFs.

    Can someone work out and tell me the probability of

    a) 0 all English ties

    b) 1 all English tie

    c) 2 all English ties

    d) 3 all English ties

    e) 4 all English ties

    It's not going to be your D or E options, there's only four English teams and a tie involves two of them.

    From Gracenote statistician on BBC website:

    What are the chances of an all-English quarter-final?

    Simon Gleave, head of sports analysis, Gracenote

    There are 105 possible scenarios for the Champions League draw - at 11:00 GMT on Friday - which will also determine the semi-final line-ups.

    Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.

    Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.

    Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.

    https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47562984
    Calling bullshit on that maths.
    For the "two all-english games" scenario you have:
    AvB CvD
    AvC BvD
    AvD BvC

    I.e. "A" can only play one of three other teams, and the other game is fixed as there are only two english teams left.

    And that's it! Even if you double up by switching the orders you're going to end up with an even number, i.e. not 9.
    105 scenarios includes all other clubs and who they're drawn against. Ie EvH and F v G etc
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    Pulpstar said:

    Every outstanding IRA (And other republican and loyalist paramilitary) killing needs to be properly investigated, prosecuted and all amnesties removed if prosecutions take place here.
    But Bloody Sunday pre-dated many of these, no?
    GFA amnesties don't apply to pre 1973 activities.

    If the 1 PARA psychos who went full My Lai in Bogside had been dealt with at the time instead the standard cover up we wouldn't be in this situation.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Right there’s four English teams and four non English teams in the Champions League QFs.

    Can someone work out and tell me the probability of

    a) 0 all English ties

    b) 1 all English tie

    c) 2 all English ties

    d) 3 all English ties

    e) 4 all English ties

    It's not going to be your D or E options, there's only four English teams and a tie involves two of them.

    From Gracenote statistician on BBC website:

    What are the chances of an all-English quarter-final?

    Simon Gleave, head of sports analysis, Gracenote

    There are 105 possible scenarios for the Champions League draw - at 11:00 GMT on Friday - which will also determine the semi-final line-ups.

    Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.

    Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.

    Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.

    https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47562984
    I was discussing the different combinations with my 12 year old son this morning on my walk to the station.
    What did you reckon were the permutations?

    @Endillion is right that there's 128 different ways of arranging eight teams, so there must be a rule somewhere that certain matches are not allowed to bring it down to 105 - but I can't see any rules anywhere about it - last year's commentary suggested a completely free draw.
    Para 18.02, top of page 24 here:
    https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/55/82/79/2558279_DOWNLOAD.pdf

    makes no reference to any restrictions. I think Simon Gleave's wrong.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:
    Maybe Adonis will storm Parliament like Wolfie Smith.
    Otis Ferry.

    Amongst others.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    tlg86 said:

    I think there are 105 scenarios:

    Team drawn has 7 options
    Team drawn has 5 options
    Team drawn has 3 options
    Team drawn has 1 option

    1 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 105

    So obvious when you put it that way.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    Absolute (GPS tracked) weapon.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    Amazing that everyone but May already accepts MV3 is not going to succeed.
    Not everyone. 80% of the conservative party voted for it
    Those two statements are not connected. MV3 is not succeeding despite a large chunk of Tory MPs backing it. Labour will not rescue it. Some Tory MPs seem less keen than they were for MV2. Yes, the DUP switching would make things closer, but the reasoning for them doing so is awfully silly given their reasons for saying no.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?

    I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...

    It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
    Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.

    So would enough of the ERG (I think)
  • kle4 said:

    Danny565 said:

    So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?

    I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...

    It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
    They have been very clear they want more to change, not just the risk of no brexit or no deal, to back it.

    And the belief that the Lab MPs are waiting for that seems to fly in the face of the evidence. Even a few more could reasonably have been expected to change their minds if any were even thinking of it, but it has always just been talk.
    Arlene Foster this morning was quite conciliatory and confirms they are in further discussions with Cox and TM
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    The DUP won't just flip because we're running out of time though.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    tlg86 said:

    I think there are 105 scenarios:

    Team drawn has 7 options
    Team drawn has 5 options
    Team drawn has 3 options
    Team drawn has 1 option

    1 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 105

    Ahhhh, yes, that's it. Because the teams are drawn out in pairs, BBC guy's maths is right.

    (goes off to read statistics book that's eyeing me up from across the room)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Anorak said:

    Sandpit said:

    Right there’s four English teams and four non English teams in the Champions League QFs.

    Can someone work out and tell me the probability of

    a) 0 all English ties

    b) 1 all English tie

    c) 2 all English ties

    d) 3 all English ties

    e) 4 all English ties

    It's not going to be your D or E options, there's only four English teams and a tie involves two of them.

    From Gracenote statistician on BBC website:

    What are the chances of an all-English quarter-final?

    Simon Gleave, head of sports analysis, Gracenote

    There are 105 possible scenarios for the Champions League draw - at 11:00 GMT on Friday - which will also determine the semi-final line-ups.

    Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.

    Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.

    Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.

    https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47562984
    Calling bullshit on that maths.
    For the "two all-english games" scenario you have:
    AvB CvD
    AvC BvD
    AvD BvC

    I.e. "A" can only play one of three other teams, and the other game is fixed as there are only two english teams left.

    And that's it! Even if you double up by switching the orders you're going to end up with an even number, i.e. not 9.
    OK smarty pants now let us know the number of permutations of groups of eight MPs tabling amendments to the various debates going on in the house today.

    :smile:
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited March 2019

    Anorak said:

    Sandpit said:

    Right there’s four English teams and four non English teams in the Champions League QFs.

    Can someone work out and tell me the probability of

    a) 0 all English ties

    b) 1 all English tie

    c) 2 all English ties

    d) 3 all English ties

    e) 4 all English ties

    It's not going to be your D or E options, there's only four English teams and a tie involves two of them.

    From Gracenote statistician on BBC website:

    What are the chances of an all-English quarter-final?

    Simon Gleave, head of sports analysis, Gracenote

    There are 105 possible scenarios for the Champions League draw - at 11:00 GMT on Friday - which will also determine the semi-final line-ups.

    Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.

    Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.

    Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.

    https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47562984
    Calling bullshit on that maths.
    For the "two all-english games" scenario you have:
    AvB CvD
    AvC BvD
    AvD BvC

    I.e. "A" can only play one of three other teams, and the other game is fixed as there are only two english teams left.

    And that's it! Even if you double up by switching the orders you're going to end up with an even number, i.e. not 9.
    it's the other games in the draw isn't it?
    Nah.

    You arrange EFGH in three ways as above, and you have:

    AvB CvD (combination 1)
    AvC BvD (combination 2)
    AvD BvC (combination 3)

    And combinations 4,5,6 for the other set. Mixing them up you have
    1,4 / 2,5 / 3,6
    1,4 / 2,6 / 3,5
    1,5 / 2,4 / 3,6
    1,5 / 2,6 / 3,4
    1,6 / 2,4 / 3,5
    1,6 / 2,5 / 3,4

    I.e. 6 arrangements. Can get away from the even numbers...
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861
    Nigelb said:

    Sky News: Beto running or Pres

    Running, I think.
    Pres unlikely...
    I'm surpriesed that I have not seen anyone mention something which is a huge advantage for O'Rourke in the presidential race, and that is Texas.

    The Republicans will have to throw a hunge amount of resources at Texas because they simply cannot risk losing it. If they do lose texas, they loose the presidency.

    O'Rourke has already shown that he can get 48% in Texas and that was running against a popular Texan. Add in the home state bonus when running against a non-Texan and it makes this race very close.

    The Republicans will have to divert their attention away from other states which could be enough to win back Wisconsin, Penn, Michigan or Ohio.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?

    I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...

    It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
    Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.

    Why do you think so? She's as much a Faragist as she is the DUP member for Vauxhall.

    In any case, the DUP have no incentive to switch.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    Endillion said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Right there’s four English teams and four non English teams in the Champions League QFs.

    Can someone work out and tell me the probability of

    a) 0 all English ties

    b) 1 all English tie

    c) 2 all English ties

    d) 3 all English ties

    e) 4 all English ties

    It's not going to be your D or E options, there's only four English teams and a tie involves two of them.

    From Gracenote statistician on BBC website:

    What are the chances of an all-English quarter-final?

    Simon Gleave, head of sports analysis, Gracenote

    There are 105 possible scenarios for the Champions League draw - at 11:00 GMT on Friday - which will also determine the semi-final line-ups.

    Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.

    Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.

    Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.

    https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47562984
    I was discussing the different combinations with my 12 year old son this morning on my walk to the station.
    What did you reckon were the permutations?

    @Endillion is right that there's 128 different ways of arranging eight teams, so there must be a rule somewhere that certain matches are not allowed to bring it down to 105 - but I can't see any rules anywhere about it - last year's commentary suggested a completely free draw.
    Para 18.02, top of page 24 here:
    https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/55/82/79/2558279_DOWNLOAD.pdf

    makes no reference to any restrictions. I think Simon Gleave's wrong.
    There are 105:

    Plonk any team at random in one of the boxes. OK, how many teams can they be drawn against? 7
    Plonk another, at random in a different tie. Possible opponents, 5.
    And again, 3.
    The last tie is fixed, so your number of pair permutations are 7x5x3=105.
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Amazing that everyone but May already accepts MV3 is not going to succeed.
    Not everyone. 80% of the conservative party voted for it
    Those two statements are not connected. MV3 is not succeeding despite a large chunk of Tory MPs backing it. Labour will not rescue it. Some Tory MPs seem less keen than they were for MV2. Yes, the DUP switching would make things closer, but the reasoning for them doing so is awfully silly given their reasons for saying no.
    I do respect your views but your certainty is brave in this very uncertain climate.

    Anything can still happen
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,768

    nico67 said:

    Labour need to ditch a second EU vote and get behind the Norway option .

    If Norway is sold properly it could get a majority of the public behind it.

    I’m a Remainer but would feel more comfortable with this as it leaves the political institutions of the EU.

    It’s a version of Brexit that has quite a lot for Leavers but still leaves a few crumbs for Remainers .

    Norway would struggle to get a majority of Leavers behind it, which is ultimately why it’s untenable. It’s only a neat solution on paper.
    You don't need a majority of leavers; you need a majority of the population, ideally. In truth, you just need a majority of MPs.
    You can't push something this consequential through if the majority of people in whose name it's being done think that it is worse than the status quo.
    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/flkou3sc4v/Internal_190313_Brexit_w.pdf

    Norway and May's Deal are the two options that substantial numbers find good/acceptable across the divide.

    No Deal, and No Brexit are the two that appeal most to partisans.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    An unexpected contribution.

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1106128676163342337

    To put it as delicately as I can, Soldier F needs to face public questioning and to be confronted by his actions.
  • Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?

    I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...

    It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
    Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.

    Why do you think so? She's as much a Faragist as she is the DUP member for Vauxhall.

    In any case, the DUP have no incentive to switch.
    You hope
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Sean_F said:

    nico67 said:

    Labour need to ditch a second EU vote and get behind the Norway option .

    If Norway is sold properly it could get a majority of the public behind it.

    I’m a Remainer but would feel more comfortable with this as it leaves the political institutions of the EU.

    It’s a version of Brexit that has quite a lot for Leavers but still leaves a few crumbs for Remainers .

    Norway would struggle to get a majority of Leavers behind it, which is ultimately why it’s untenable. It’s only a neat solution on paper.
    You don't need a majority of leavers; you need a majority of the population, ideally. In truth, you just need a majority of MPs.
    You can't push something this consequential through if the majority of people in whose name it's being done think that it is worse than the status quo.
    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/flkou3sc4v/Internal_190313_Brexit_w.pdf

    Norway and May's Deal are the two options that substantial numbers find good/acceptable across the divide.

    No Deal, and No Brexit are the two that appeal most to partisans.
    It's all very well finding common ground in the middle, but unless you carry the people without whom we wouldn't be doing Brexit at all, it will get stuck. That why May's deal has failed in parliament.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    Endillion said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Right there’s four English teams and four non English teams in the Champions League QFs.

    Can someone work out and tell me the probability of

    a) 0 all English ties

    b) 1 all English tie

    c) 2 all English ties

    d) 3 all English ties

    e) 4 all English ties

    It's not going to be your D or E options, there's only four English teams and a tie involves two of them.

    From Gracenote statistician on BBC website:

    What are the chances of an all-English quarter-final?

    Simon Gleave, head of sports analysis, Gracenote

    There are 105 possible scenarios for the Champions League draw - at 11:00 GMT on Friday - which will also determine the semi-final line-ups.

    Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.

    Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.

    Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.

    https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47562984
    I was discussing the different combinations with my 12 year old son this morning on my walk to the station.
    What did you reckon were the permutations?

    @Endillion is right that there's 128 different ways of arranging eight teams, so there must be a rule somewhere that certain matches are not allowed to bring it down to 105 - but I can't see any rules anywhere about it - last year's commentary suggested a completely free draw.
    Para 18.02, top of page 24 here:
    https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/55/82/79/2558279_DOWNLOAD.pdf

    makes no reference to any restrictions. I think Simon Gleave's wrong.
    This did not age well.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?

    I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...

    It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
    Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.

    So would enough of the ERG (I think)
    The ERG + Kate Hoey + Graham Stringer (probably fair to lump those two in with them) ain't quite enough on their own to flip their vote, I don't think. I make it 313 votes for the deal with them onside, with 320 againast.

    You'd have to also get some of the Tory "People's Vote" rebels (I make it 6 - Bebb, Greening, Grieve, Gyimah, Lee, Jo Johnson), OR the DUP, OR some of the Labour soft Brexiteers on board.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,768

    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?

    I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...

    It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
    Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.

    Why do you think so? She's as much a Faragist as she is the DUP member for Vauxhall.

    In any case, the DUP have no incentive to switch.
    You hope
    @Yokel seemed to think the decision was quite finely balanced. The incentive to switch would be the desire not to harm the interests of Unionists. I'm not saying that would be enough.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?

    I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...

    It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
    Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.

    So would enough of the ERG (I think)
    The ERG + Kate Hoey + Graham Stringer (probably fair to lump those two in with them) ain't quite enough on their own to flip their vote, I don't think. I make it 313 votes for the deal with them onside, with 320 againast.

    You'd have to also get some of the Tory "People's Vote" rebels (I make it 6 - Bebb, Greening, Grieve, Gyimah, Lee, Jo Johnson), OR the DUP, OR some of the Labour soft Brexiteers on board.
    If you got that close with the 3rd vote I'm sure there would be a 4th vote allowed and it would pass. The danger is if the 3rd vote doesn't get over 300 ayes and then it's dead.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Scott_P said:
    I hope this passes, but I don't really see how it can
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,768
    Scott_P said:
    Something which I realised four months ago.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited March 2019
    Brom said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?

    I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...

    It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
    Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.

    So would enough of the ERG (I think)
    The ERG + Kate Hoey + Graham Stringer (probably fair to lump those two in with them) ain't quite enough on their own to flip their vote, I don't think. I make it 313 votes for the deal with them onside, with 320 againast.

    You'd have to also get some of the Tory "People's Vote" rebels (I make it 6 - Bebb, Greening, Grieve, Gyimah, Lee, Jo Johnson), OR the DUP, OR some of the Labour soft Brexiteers on board.
    If you got that close with the 3rd vote I'm sure there would be a 4th vote allowed and it would pass. The danger is if the 3rd vote doesn't get over 300 ayes and then it's dead.
    How to get the full ERG across? I can't see Francois changing his [tiny] mind, for one.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:
    Something which I realised four months ago.
    It's a shame May is so abysmal at messaging that she couldn't stick to this instead of constantly juggling back and forth between "my deal or no deal" and "my deal or no Brexit"
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760

    Scott_P said:
    I hope this passes, but I don't really see how it can
    Chris Bryant is an idiot who has no solutions. Hopefully this won't pass.
  • Scott_P said:
    I hope this passes, but I don't really see how it can
    Odds on bercow choosing this one...... ...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Scott_P said:
    I quoted the entire relevant section of Erskine May yesterday, and frankly it seems that if the House was desiring to vote on the MV again a way could be found within the rules, but that there is a lot of scope for the Speaker to say it is out of order. But as Bercow himself has decided, you don't always follow precedent anyway.

    Relying on procedural arcana to avoid voting on it against seems unnecessary
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    Scott_P said:
    I hope this passes, but I don't really see how it can
    Odds on bercow choosing this one...... ...
    No idea but from his perspective I imagine he'd much rather be able to point to a decision by parliament on this rather than having to rule on it himself and piss a load of people off.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    An unexpected contribution.

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1106128676163342337

    To put it as delicately as I can, Soldier F needs to face public questioning and to be confronted by his actions.

    Thanks for that, very interesting and disturbing.

    I think they should face prosecution but, if convicted, should serve one night in prison before being released.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    I quoted the entire relevant section of Erskine May yesterday, and frankly it seems that if the House was desiring to vote on the MV again a way could be found within the rules, but that there is a lot of scope for the Speaker to say it is out of order. But as Bercow himself has decided, you don't always follow precedent anyway.

    Relying on procedural arcana to avoid voting on it against seems unnecessary
    That's kinda the point though isn't it? Have the decision backed by a vote instead of just procedural arcana
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,768
    Anorak said:

    Brom said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?

    I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...

    It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
    Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.

    So would enough of the ERG (I think)
    The ERG + Kate Hoey + Graham Stringer (probably fair to lump those two in with them) ain't quite enough on their own to flip their vote, I don't think. I make it 313 votes for the deal with them onside, with 320 againast.

    You'd have to also get some of the Tory "People's Vote" rebels (I make it 6 - Bebb, Greening, Grieve, Gyimah, Lee, Jo Johnson), OR the DUP, OR some of the Labour soft Brexiteers on board.
    If you got that close with the 3rd vote I'm sure there would be a 4th vote allowed and it would pass. The danger is if the 3rd vote doesn't get over 300 ayes and then it's dead.
    How to get the full ERG across? I can't see Francois changing his [tiny] mind, for one.
    Mark Francois responds:-

    "Oi! Adolf! Nineteen sixty six!
    I provide the gas in here, fuck off back to Auschwitz
    Oi! Adolf! Fuck off back to Belsen
    I'm not a yid, I'm on the bog, annex something else, son.
    Oi! Adolf! You talking to me?
    How come all you krauts can speak German fluently?
    Oi! Adolf! Nineteen forty five!
    Don't put that accent on for me, speak English or die. "
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    An unexpected contribution.

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1106128676163342337

    To put it as delicately as I can, Soldier F needs to face public questioning and to be confronted by his actions.

    Douglas Murray wrote a very good book on the Savile hearing into Bloody Sunday.
  • He needs to focus on actually getting Spurs back in to Europe....
    How would you react if Harry Kane backed Mark Francois for Tory leader ?
    The same as if Dele did so for Andrew Bridgen?
    Burn your season ticket and start supporting Arsenal?
    I'm not Sol.
    You wish you were Sol.

    With Andy Robertson suspended for the first leg of the QF we’re going to draw Juve.

    Watch Ronaldo murder Alberto Moreno in the first leg.
    Spurs v ajax
    City v porto
    Liv v man u
    Barca v juve.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:

    htt78

    I qnecessary
    That's kinda the point though isn't it? Have the decision backed by a vote instead of just procedural arcana
    But their vote is predicted on the belief that the procedural arcana backs them up (which it mostly does, but seems like a way could be found). You're right if it passes then the house will have made its will known, but based on something which it does not need to be based on, and makes them essentially saying it is not us doing it, we're just following the rules.
    kle4 said:

    p397
    matters already decided during the same session
    A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session. Since 1994 this rule has been applied so that, in the case of ten minute rule motions under Standing Order No 23, refusal by the House of leave to introduce a bill should be treated as the rejection of that bill at a substantive stage, with the effect that a bill with the same or a very similar long title could not be presented again in the same season. Attempts have been made made to evade this rule by raising again, with verbal alterations, the essential portions of motions which have been negatived. Whether the second motion is substantially the same as the first is finally a matter for the judgement of the Chair. In some cases the second motion has been ruled to be substantially the same as an earlier motion. The same rule has been applied to an amendment reviewing reviewing a motion which had been already negatived. Some motions, however, have been framed with sufficient ingenuity to avoid the rule. On rare occasions where the House has been offered a series of alternative proposals for its consideration, an order was made specifically directing the Chair to put the questions or later motions notwithstanding any decision of the House on earlier motions.

    However, a question which has not been definitely decided may be raised again. Thus, a motion or amendment which has been withdrawn, or on which the Chair has declared the question not decided when it appeared that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in a division, or for some other reason, may be repeated. In such cases a Member may speak again on the second occasion. Where a certain course in relation to the procedure of the House has been rejected on a particular day, it may be revived on a subsequent day.


    Other parts may apply as well, but looks to me like it could be possible for another vote on the WA to be allowed, but that the Chair has wide discretion on it. And it is Bercow.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    I quoted the entire relevant section of Erskine May yesterday, and frankly it seems that if the House was desiring to vote on the MV again a way could be found within the rules, but that there is a lot of scope for the Speaker to say it is out of order. But as Bercow himself has decided, you don't always follow precedent anyway.

    Relying on procedural arcana to avoid voting on it against seems unnecessary
    But saying "what part of no means no do you not understand" seems entirely necessary.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Scott_P said:
    Wouldn't this also scupper Cooper/Letwin? I'm unclear if theirplan is for the Commons to agree the way forward before or during an extension, and if the latter then that's a no no.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    There is a mistake in that Champions League draw probabilities piece:

    Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.

    Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.

    Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.


    It should be 68.6% for exactly one all-English tie
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:

    htt78

    I qnecessary
    That's kinda the point though isn't it? Have the decision backed by a vote instead of just procedural arcana
    But their vote is predicted on the belief that the procedural arcana backs them up (which it mostly does, but seems like a way could be found). You're right if it passes then the house will have made its will known, but based on something which it does not need to be based on, and makes them essentially saying it is not us doing it, we're just following the rules.
    I understand what you mean, but I don't think it matters. It's just a way of saying "and hey, look, it's not some crazy idea we came up with, this very thing was thought about by the rule-makers too". Everyone understands that it's ultimately a political decision.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,768
    Scott_P said:
    If Sarah Wollaston's amendment gets voted down (as I expect) then presumably it would have much the same effect as passing the anti-second ref one.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881



    Agreed. Which is why none of them should be. Ireland has enough history to worry about without dragging up the past for sport. Every peace process involves a putting aside of past atrocities on both sides, which is what the early releases were about in NI, among other things. That principle should be kept here too. Certainly, that will upset some victims' families but I'm afraid that sometimes peace demands that.

    The soldiers weren't supposed to be on either side.
    The military should be held to a higher standard than terrorists.
    I think the lack of justice for these families risks rather than protects the peace.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Time for a vote of no confidence in Bercow Baggins
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    I quoted the entire relevant section of Erskine May yesterday, and frankly it seems that if the House was desiring to vote on the MV again a way could be found within the rules, but that there is a lot of scope for the Speaker to say it is out of order. But as Bercow himself has decided, you don't always follow precedent anyway.

    Relying on procedural arcana to avoid voting on it against seems unnecessary
    But saying "what part of no means no do you not understand" seems entirely necessary.
    Doesn't need to justify itself with reference to procedural rules, because as Members have made clear as possibilities to to suspend various rules, they can always find a way if they want. If they want to say 'no means no' it doesn't need to pretend that procedure is the overriding concern.
    Scott_P said:
    Seriously, how does he select amendments and how many? He has very wide discretion, but say it was not about Brexit, in which we know for a fact his personal wishes are becoming prominent as he has admitted to not thinking about longer term consequences, what general principles is he meant to apply to inform his discretion?
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    edited March 2019
    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Sarah Wollaston's amendment gets voted down (as I expect) then presumably it would have much the same effect as passing the anti-second ref one.
    Yep it makes sense to only select one of Wollaston/Snell, it should fire up parliament to vote down Wollaston's. I'd imagine she's as unpopular in parliament as she is on PB. Would have made more sense to allow the Snell one instead.
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 788
    Scott_P said:
    I didn't realise Mark Francois had a mode other than furious.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    Cyclefree said:

    An unexpected contribution.

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1106128676163342337

    To put it as delicately as I can, Soldier F needs to face public questioning and to be confronted by his actions.

    Douglas Murray wrote a very good book on the Savile hearing into Bloody Sunday.
    I'm not the greatest fan of his politics (ie not at all), but he writes clearly & well even when I don't agree with him.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The anti-referendum amendment had sweet FA to do with the substantive motion. Of course it shouldn't be called.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:

    htt78

    I qnecessary
    That's kinda the point though isn't it? Have the decision backed by a vote instead of just procedural arcana
    But their vote is predicted on the belief that the procedural arcana backs them up (which it mostly does, but seems like a way could be found). You're right if it passes then the house will have made its will known, but based on something which it does not need to be based on, and makes them essentially saying it is not us doing it, we're just following the rules.
    I understand what you mean, but I don't think it matters. It's just a way of saying "and hey, look, it's not some crazy idea we came up with, this very thing was thought about by the rule-makers too". Everyone understands that it's ultimately a political decision.
    I guess you're right, but I have to fiddle with procedure a lot, and it still annoys when people selectively rely or reject on it to provide even marginal cover for what they simply want to do, or not do.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Well, maybe to cheer us all up we should have a competition where we vote on what we think will happen on 29 March. The winner gets a tin of lentils and some loo rolls.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sky reporting they are surprised how many are saying to their reporters how much they support TM and affirming that she is the only grown up in this

    Ser Jorah will never forsake his Khaleesi.
    I laughed. I surely did.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    RH1992 said:

    I didn't realise Mark Francois had a mode other than furious.

    Two modes: [Stupid], and [Stupid and Furious].
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?

    I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...

    It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
    Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.

    Why do you think so? She's as much a Faragist as she is the DUP member for Vauxhall.

    In any case, the DUP have no incentive to switch.
    I should have thought that the incentive for the DUP would be avoiding anything that makes a border poll and Irish reunification more likely, which is what be crash-out no-deal Brexit would be.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    The anti-referendum amendment had sweet FA to do with the substantive motion. Of course it shouldn't be called.

    That may well be sound, but no doubt many examples can be found of allowed amendments which had FA to do with the substantive motion. It could well be another example of right decision for wrong reason.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Time for a vote of no confidence in Bercow Baggins

    He'd survive easily.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:

    htt78

    I qnecessary
    That's kinda the point though isn't it? Have the decision backed by a vote instead of just procedural arcana
    But their vote is predicted on the belief that the procedural arcana backs them up (which it mostly does, but seems like a way could be found). You're right if it passes then the house will have made its will known, but based on something which it does not need to be based on, and makes them essentially saying it is not us doing it, we're just following the rules.
    I understand what you mean, but I don't think it matters. It's just a way of saying "and hey, look, it's not some crazy idea we came up with, this very thing was thought about by the rule-makers too". Everyone understands that it's ultimately a political decision.
    I guess you're right, but I have to fiddle with procedure a lot, and it still annoys when people selectively rely or reject on it to provide even marginal cover for what they simply want to do, or not do.
    Fair enough
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    tlg86 said:

    There is a mistake in that Champions League draw probabilities piece:

    Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.

    Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.

    Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.


    It should be 68.6% for exactly one all-English tie

    If one regards the order of home and away ties as important then there are 1680 possible ties. If not, 105.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    An unexpected contribution.

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1106128676163342337

    To put it as delicately as I can, Soldier F needs to face public questioning and to be confronted by his actions.

    Douglas Murray wrote a very good book on the Savile hearing into Bloody Sunday.
    I'm not the greatest fan of his politics (ie not at all), but he writes clearly & well even when I don't agree with him.
    His views on Savile are not at all what you might assume. He takes the view, rightly, that the state and its functionaries must not break the law and then repeatedly lie about what they have done.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    edited March 2019

    A footnote is that Oliver used to be the thinking man's Brexiteer, to the point that we agreed to write a book together called "Double Vision on Europe", in which we'd agree what the facts were and put our alternative pro- and anti-EU views on what conclusion should be drawn (we spiked it when he was promoted to the Shadow Cabinet and no longer could express independent views). He's now in predominantly Remainer company, presumably because he shares their horror at No Deal.
    You and Mr Poll Tax wanted to write a book?

    And who exactly did you think would be stupid enough to want to read it nevermind wasting their money buying it?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    rpjs said:

    I should have thought that the incentive for the DUP would be avoiding anything that makes a border poll and Irish reunification more likely, which is what be crash-out no-deal Brexit would be.

    I always find that this explains a great deal about the politics of Northern Ireland.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxpYW_w5pgo
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    What just happened? Is Wollaston amendment actually for a referendum, or just providing for the time to be made available to have one possibly.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    kle4 said:

    Time for a vote of no confidence in Bercow Baggins

    He'd survive easily.
    Well he survived the bullying scandals, Stockholm syndrome or some shit with that one
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    Scott_P said:
    Of course the Speaker is biased to remain.... Just another reason why Brexiteers should have bagged the deal on Tuesday and moved on while they could...
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    Pulpstar said:

    The DUP won't just flip because we're running out of time though.

    Exactly and the number of Labour rebels seem to be holding steady. There are probably the numbers to pass a soft Brexit in the CU+SM space. May needs to change the Political Statement and she should get two thirds of her MPS and the bulk of Labour to support it. But it would split her party and so she sticks to Plan A to grim death.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    A footnote is that Oliver used to be the thinking man's Brexiteer, to the point that we agreed to write a book together called "Double Vision on Europe", in which we'd agree what the facts were and put our alternative pro- and anti-EU views on what conclusion should be drawn (we spiked it when he was promoted to the Shadow Cabinet and no longer could express independent views). He's now in predominantly Remainer company, presumably because he shares their horror at No Deal.
    It's a shame that book never got written.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Sarah Wollaston's amendment gets voted down (as I expect) then presumably it would have much the same effect as passing the anti-second ref one.
    It's a pity the Speaker didn't choose amendment (b) ruling out a second referendum. Amendment (h) calls for a second referendum. If (b) was called as well as (h) I think both would fail to get agreement. Many members want to keep their options open on a second referendum but if (h) goes down, Leavers will argue the house is against a 2nd referendum.

    I think the Speaker has done the Leavers a favour here - but they don't yet realise it.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    NEW THREAD
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    An unexpected contribution.

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1106128676163342337

    To put it as delicately as I can, Soldier F needs to face public questioning and to be confronted by his actions.

    Good article - makes the point that people who told the truth at Savile were given immunity from prosecution.
  • NEW THREAD

This discussion has been closed.