Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Failed CON leadership contender, Rory Stewart, to fight for th

1234579

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,264
    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    ydoethur said:

    GIN1138 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Anyway, something positive if completely off-topic:

    I am going away for a few days at the end of the month, but, as it's to the EU and my passport expires early next year, I had to get it renewed.

    I applied online on the Monday at 10.40. I posted my old one back Monday at 1.30. I got my new passport today.

    That's quite impressive.

    And that was just the ordinary system, not the fast track.

    Well done to the Royal Mail and Passport Office.

    Was it Blue? :D
    No.

    But I do have, and have done for many years, a rather fetching blue cover for it. Not only does it look much nicer, but that allows me to keep my EHIC card with it.

    I'm just wondering whether it would perhaps be tactless to use it for travel to the EU right now.
    When you change sterling into Euros you'll probably get some sense how fucked over we have been by this Brexit bullshit...that unless you are a speculator, in which case you'll be flying first class with a bottle of Bollinger
    If your company makes its earnings in USD and EUR you're laughing all the way.

    Anyone with a smartphone can be a "speculator". They don't all match the stereotype loved by socialists with a chip on their shoulder.

    Get an account set up yourself and have a flutter. You might be surprised.
    I don't need any more money or assets...I've accumulated more than I'll ever know what to do with...and that was without trying that hard...

    I wish most other human beings were not quite as greedy...

    The problem with capitalism is that encourages people to be complete tossers...
    People are quite capable of being complete tossers even if they're officially Socialists. Look at Ian Lavery.
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,085
    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    ydoethur said:

    GIN1138 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Anyway, something positive if completely off-topic:

    I am going away for a few days at the end of the month, but, as it's to the EU and my passport expires early next year, I had to get it renewed.

    I applied online on the Monday at 10.40. I posted my old one back Monday at 1.30. I got my new passport today.

    That's quite impressive.

    And that was just the ordinary system, not the fast track.

    Well done to the Royal Mail and Passport Office.

    Was it Blue? :D
    No.

    But I do have, and have done for many years, a rather fetching blue cover for it. Not only does it look much nicer, but that allows me to keep my EHIC card with it.

    I'm just wondering whether it would perhaps be tactless to use it for travel to the EU right now.
    When you change sterling into Euros you'll probably get some sense how fucked over we have been by this Brexit bullshit...that unless you are a speculator, in which case you'll be flying first class with a bottle of Bollinger
    If your company makes its earnings in USD and EUR you're laughing all the way.

    Anyone with a smartphone can be a "speculator". They don't all match the stereotype loved by socialists with a chip on their shoulder.

    Get an account set up yourself and have a flutter. You might be surprised.
    I don't need any more money or assets...I've accumulated more than I'll ever know what to do with...and that was without trying that hard...

    I wish most other human beings were not quite as greedy...

    The problem with capitalism is that encourages people to be complete tossers...
    People don't need capitalism to make them tossers.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 33,967

    As an uber Remainer I can't think of anything more hilarious than Viktor Orban vetoing an A50 extension. What better satire of this entire debacle than the UK being forced into a chaotic No Deal exit against the will of its parliament by a far away country of which we know nothing ? I can't think of a better example of the pooled vs individual soveriegnty debate in the 21 st Century. than that.

    Let us hope it happens for the entertainment value.

    Johnson can then blame the Hungarians for the lack of food and meds.

    Quite brilliant really.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,475
    By the way, Australia doesn't have an Australian style points system.

    Or rather, they do, but it only accounts for a small proportion of immigrants each year. There are people who come to Australia through the Trans Tasman Agreement. There are people who come on work sponsored visas. There are those on temporary secondments. There are working holiday visas. There are family visas. There are student visas. There are point system visas. There are industry specific quota visas. There are intercorporate transfer visas.

    The real world, you see, is complex.

    Even if we had a points system it would still only account for a tiny proportion of people coming or going.

    I'm in the US on an E2 visa. That's a non-immigrant visa. There is no path to a Green Card or citizenship. And that's fine. I may change to an EB-5 at some point in the future that allows a path. And I might not. We'll see.

    The point is that when we leave the EU, we will end up creating a complex set of visas, so that someone who works for Siemens in Munich can work in the UK for a year as part of a project. And so that Polish computer scientists with specialist skills can get jobs here. And that people from outside the UK can apply to university here, and work during their holidays. And these will constitute the vast majority of people coming, whether we have a point system or not.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979

    GIN1138 said:

    nico67 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    nico67 said:

    Leavers don’t mind meddling from foreign countries . However seeking to get another country to veto an extension will end up with a contempt charge for Bozo .

    Notwithstanding the fact that it’s now so blatant that you’d think if you were going to do it you’d have the sense to not broadcast it .



    Personally I think this is a red-herring.

    They've got something up their sleeve to get round Benn but I don't think it's this (this is more likely designed to play mind games with the EU)
    Bizarely the DT article has EU sources for the story. This whole Brexit lark is becoming very cloak and dagger !
    I suspect the EU have been demanding to know what exactly Hugary's foreign secretary was doing attending the UK government's Cabinet yesterday. ;)
    I can see Parliament wishing to see the minutes from that Cabinet meeting and any other documentation associated with preparation by civil servants/advisors provided by the tax payer or legal opinion for that matter...
    And there's literally nothing they can do about it.
    They could be in contempt of Parliament if they refuse or try and cover anything up...
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,886
    Cyclefree said:

    nichomar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

    I've said this before and I'll say it again: we should not go after civilians. There has to be some brigh line beyond which the usual commentariat go "d'y'know what: just leave it". And none of this "oh she put herself in the firing line" gubbins. She did her job. No need to hound her.

    Again, did anyone actually bother to find out what she actually said ?
    From the little I’ve seen, it seems wholly unexceptionable.
    As a father with three daughters let’s hear it for the girly swots
    I am a proud girly swot.
    You've transgendered?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,784
    I learnt today that Ms Arcuri's business partner was Tom Hayes.

    Who he? The former Citigroup and UBS trader who was the first person jailed for manipulating LIBOR. In prison for 11 years on 8 counts of conspiracy to defraud.

    Dearie dearie me.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,040

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

    You and Guido are terribly sensitive souls, aren't you?

    It's a pretty mild quip to say "let's hear it for girly swots" at a conference of the Association of State Girls Schools.
    You seem to have overlooked the slide she chose to pose in front of, so here it is again.



    "Spider woman takes down Hulk: Viewers transfixed by judge's brooch as ruling crushes PM". It might as well have been "Look what I've done, taken down the UK's attempts to throw off the shackles of the EU*, crushed the PM, aren't I clever."

    She's absolutely revelling in the invited attention that she wouldn't have got if she had upheld the High Court ruling, and I find that unacceptable.

    [*Which was the comparison Johnson made to cite the Incredible Hulk]
    In Lady Hale's defence, she says the slide was put up without her knowledge. How you sneak a nine-foot photo of the smartest person in the room past the smartest person in the room I don't know, but there it is.

    But it's actually the girly swot quote that's the more obvious cause for concern. That's a quote from a piece of evidence in a hearing she's just sat on, and the words themselves were redacted from it and later leaked. It's really not on for a judge to make policy statements, however commendable the policy, using material leaked from redacted court documents as a jokey intro.

    If I were the PM and anything else came up before the SC, I'd get the recusal application in. Quite apart from the apparent bias test being made out, such an application might buy a day as a tactic.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,479
    Why do the media never ask the DUP an obvious question .

    Why did you back Brexit knowing the huge problems it would cause for NI. Now of course the real truth is they thought they could break some of the links with Ireland .

    It looks like their pathetic gamble has done nothing but increase the chance of a United Ireland , and is more likely to see less links with the UK .

    And the anger they’ve caused also means they’re going to end up with abortion becoming legal as Stormont isn’t going to reassemble anytime soon .

    The DUP must be tired of winning !
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,264
    Cyclefree said:

    I learnt today that Ms Arcuri's business partner was Tom Hayes.

    Who he? The former Citigroup and UBS trader who was the first person jailed for manipulating LIBOR. In prison for 11 years on 8 counts of conspiracy to defraud.

    Dearie dearie me.
    Why does a phrase about birds and feathers come to mind?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,475
    DougSeal said:

    Omnium said:



    Hale and others do have skin in the game. It's daftness to suggest otherwise.

    Just because proroging was wrong doesn't mean any old rule should over-turn it.

    If Hale is now profiting or speechifying based on the SC court decision then I think that its clear the SC has become political. (To my mind the Law Lords was a better mechanism)

    There’s a total contradiction there. You suggest the SC is too political but appear to yearn for a return to the days when the highest court in the land was a committee of the upper house of the legislature, thus inherently political? The SC is just a rebadged Law Lords but moved out of the legislature. The 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (the Law Lords) were the first justices of the Supreme Court, then disqualified from sitting or voting in the House of Lords. Previously they could. When all SC justices retire from the Supreme Court they can head over to the House of Lords as full Members. In the meantime they’ve been moved over Parliament Square and given a new name.

    As for “speechifying” and “profiting” - that’s bananas. It was a six word off the cuff quip made at a speech to the Association of State Girls schools. Judges are not politically neutral in their spare time, no one is, its impossible, they have the vote. As I say, the Law Lords sat in the House of Lords FFS - a legislative, political, chamber of Parliament
    +1
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 33,967
    rcs1000 said:

    By the way, Australia doesn't have an Australian style points system.

    Or rather, they do, but it only accounts for a small proportion of immigrants each year. There are people who come to Australia through the Trans Tasman Agreement. There are people who come on work sponsored visas. There are those on temporary secondments. There are working holiday visas. There are family visas. There are student visas. There are point system visas. There are industry specific quota visas. There are intercorporate transfer visas.

    The real world, you see, is complex.

    Even if we had a points system it would still only account for a tiny proportion of people coming or going.

    I'm in the US on an E2 visa. That's a non-immigrant visa. There is no path to a Green Card or citizenship. And that's fine. I may change to an EB-5 at some point in the future that allows a path. And I might not. We'll see.

    The point is that when we leave the EU, we will end up creating a complex set of visas, so that someone who works for Siemens in Munich can work in the UK for a year as part of a project. And so that Polish computer scientists with specialist skills can get jobs here. And that people from outside the UK can apply to university here, and work during their holidays. And these will constitute the vast majority of people coming, whether we have a point system or not.

    The AU points canard got the loudest cheer of the whole conference of the party formerly known as Conservative when Patel trotted it out.

    A mob of stupidity.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,784
    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    nichomar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

    I've said this before and I'll say it again: we should not go after civilians. There has to be some brigh line beyond which the usual commentariat go "d'y'know what: just leave it". And none of this "oh she put herself in the firing line" gubbins. She did her job. No need to hound her.

    Again, did anyone actually bother to find out what she actually said ?
    From the little I’ve seen, it seems wholly unexceptionable.
    As a father with three daughters let’s hear it for the girly swots
    I am a proud girly swot.
    You've transgendered?
    No. I've always been a girl.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 17,597

    GIN1138 said:

    nico67 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    nico67 said:

    Leavers don’t mind meddling from foreign countries . However seeking to get another country to veto an extension will end up with a contempt charge for Bozo .

    Notwithstanding the fact that it’s now so blatant that you’d think if you were going to do it you’d have the sense to not broadcast it .



    Personally I think this is a red-herring.

    They've got something up their sleeve to get round Benn but I don't think it's this (this is more likely designed to play mind games with the EU)
    Bizarely the DT article has EU sources for the story. This whole Brexit lark is becoming very cloak and dagger !
    I suspect the EU have been demanding to know what exactly Hugary's foreign secretary was doing attending the UK government's Cabinet yesterday. ;)
    I can see Parliament wishing to see the minutes from that Cabinet meeting and any other documentation associated with preparation by civil servants/advisors provided by the tax payer or legal opinion for that matter...
    They'll have to be quick.

    Parliament is prorogued again on Tuesday ;)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 33,967
    NYT:

    Elizabeth Warren Nets $24.6 Million in Third-Quarter Fund-Raising, Narrowly Trailing Bernie Sanders
  • The Japanese guy is (literally) running away with it in the 20km walk race.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,886
    Cyclefree said:

    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    nichomar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

    I've said this before and I'll say it again: we should not go after civilians. There has to be some brigh line beyond which the usual commentariat go "d'y'know what: just leave it". And none of this "oh she put herself in the firing line" gubbins. She did her job. No need to hound her.

    Again, did anyone actually bother to find out what she actually said ?
    From the little I’ve seen, it seems wholly unexceptionable.
    As a father with three daughters let’s hear it for the girly swots
    I am a proud girly swot.
    You've transgendered?
    No. I've always been a girl.
    Only boys can be girly swots.
  • Wouldn't surprise me to see bitter remoaners horrified that we've actually left following the vote.

    Love the idea that Hungary could veto an extension. To be modest I did suggest that with 0.7% of GDP to play with for international aid, maybe Hungary has some aid it requires. ;)
  • tysontyson Posts: 5,976
    ydoethur said:

    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    ydoethur said:

    GIN1138 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Anyway, something positive if completely off-topic:

    I am going away for a few days at the end of the month, but, as it's to the EU and my passport expires early next year, I had to get it renewed.

    I applied online on the Monday at 10.40. I posted my old one back Monday at 1.30. I got my new passport today.

    That's quite impressive.

    And that was just the ordinary system, not the fast track.

    Well done to the Royal Mail and Passport Office.

    Was it Blue? :D
    No.

    But I do have, and have done for many years, a rather fetching blue cover for it. Not only does it look much nicer, but that allows me to keep my EHIC card with it.

    I'm just wondering whether it would perhaps be tactless to use it for travel to the EU right now.
    When you change sterling into Euros you'll probably get some sense how fucked over we have been by this Brexit bullshit...that unless you are a speculator, in which case you'll be flying first class with a bottle of Bollinger
    If your company makes its earnings in USD and EUR you're laughing all the way.

    Anyone with a smartphone can be a "speculator". They don't all match the stereotype loved by socialists with a chip on their shoulder.

    Get an account set up yourself and have a flutter. You might be surprised.
    I don't need any more money or assets...I've accumulated more than I'll ever know what to do with...and that was without trying that hard...

    I wish most other human beings were not quite as greedy...

    The problem with capitalism is that encourages people to be complete tossers...
    People are quite capable of being complete tossers even if they're officially Socialists. Look at Ian Lavery.
    There in no such thing as socialism now...even in the Corbynspehere....

    Those with assets need to ensure that the planet and wildlife is bequeathed to the next generation in a better state than they found it....not waste their money on mindless consumption.....Poor people are much too consumed with meeting their basic needs to think of such things...


  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,329

    I see it is "Enemies of the People" night on PB.

    Predictable I suppose....

    Seriously, why do you post on here?

    You make some of the least intelligent and most petulant comments on this site.

    I was embarrassed by your posts when you were a tubthumbing BOO’er on here five years ago, and I’m embarrassed by your posts attempting to be insightfully witty (but painfully showing your limitations) now.

    Rather than channelling your strongest inner emotions (unfiltered) stick to what you’re good at: insight in areas you know about, and reasoned perspective.

    Seriously. It’ll be better for all of us.
    ^^^ This - from someone who posted the other day that Boris made better speeches than Churchill

    :D:D:D

  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,329
    Zephyr said:

    tyson said:

    I see it is "Enemies of the People" night on PB.

    Predictable I suppose....

    Seriously, why do you post on here?

    You make some of the least intelligent and most petulant comments on this site.

    I was embarrassed by your posts when you were a tubthumbing BOO’er on here five years ago, and I’m embarrassed by your posts attempting to be insightfully witty (but painfully showing your limitations) now.

    Rather than channelling your strongest inner emotions (unfiltered) stick to what you’re good at: insight in areas you know about, and reasoned perspective.

    Seriously. It’ll be better for all of us.

    Seriously Comrade Casino...you are behaving like a bellend of the highest calibre..calm down darling
    Ignore him B, he’s obviously had a bad day, or too much to drink already. Not a good advert that for casino politics. I always read your posts, very interested in what you have to say.
    Zephyr said:

    Anyway this evening is good one for fans of HY baiting. We currently have him trapped in the pit of his immigration policy he fell into running away from his housing policy, everybody’s now poking him with a pointy stick and i’m off to fetch a pendulum

    Poor HY... do not be too hard on him.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,198

    CV Question (I can't rely on Coffey forever) -

    I was advised about ten years ago that after my contact details I should start with a Personal Statement. I always thought this was a bit namby pampy but that's what I was advised. Is this still de riguer/the way to go???

    That's how I start:

    'Sanderson Rentool is a card-carrying eco-socialist who would like to see humankind become extinct. He holds one of those wanky PPE degrees and spends a lot of time on PB.'

    Gets me an interview every time.
    I guess I could go JBriskinindyref2 is a PB tory with no wanky PPE degree.

    Any serious answers ?
    Sorry, I was being serious in saying that I start with a personal statement highlighting my key experience and expertise. While I have not applied for a job for several years, myself and others have found that approach effective in getting interviews.

    My company also uses this format on our corporate CVs that go in proposals to clients.

    Hope that is useful.
    Thank you - fingers crossed for me
    I hire people regularly. A good covering letter or a personal statement allows you to set the frame of how people will think about your CV and accomplishments m
  • tysontyson Posts: 5,976
    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    nichomar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

    I've said this before and I'll say it again: we should not go after civilians. There has to be some brigh line beyond which the usual commentariat go "d'y'know what: just leave it". And none of this "oh she put herself in the firing line" gubbins. She did her job. No need to hound her.

    Again, did anyone actually bother to find out what she actually said ?
    From the little I’ve seen, it seems wholly unexceptionable.
    As a father with three daughters let’s hear it for the girly swots
    I am a proud girly swot.
    You've transgendered?
    No. I've always been a girl.
    Only boys can be girly swots.
    There are two truths- one Cycle is a girl, and two- you are right- only boys (probably with acne, glasses, and greasy hair) can be girly swots....
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,329
    tyson said:

    I see it is "Enemies of the People" night on PB.

    Predictable I suppose....

    Seriously, why do you post on here?

    You make some of the least intelligent and most petulant comments on this site.

    I was embarrassed by your posts when you were a tubthumbing BOO’er on here five years ago, and I’m embarrassed by your posts attempting to be insightfully witty (but painfully showing your limitations) now.

    Rather than channelling your strongest inner emotions (unfiltered) stick to what you’re good at: insight in areas you know about, and reasoned perspective.

    Seriously. It’ll be better for all of us.

    Seriously Comrade Casino...you are behaving like a bellend of the highest calibre..calm down darling
    :open_mouth:
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    edited October 2019
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    nico67 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    nico67 said:

    Leavers don’t mind meddling from foreign countries . However seeking to get another country to veto an extension will end up with a contempt charge for Bozo .

    Notwithstanding the fact that it’s now so blatant that you’d think if you were going to do it you’d have the sense to not broadcast it .



    Personally I think this is a red-herring.

    They've got something up their sleeve to get round Benn but I don't think it's this (this is more likely designed to play mind games with the EU)
    Bizarely the DT article has EU sources for the story. This whole Brexit lark is becoming very cloak and dagger !
    I suspect the EU have been demanding to know what exactly Hugary's foreign secretary was doing attending the UK government's Cabinet yesterday. ;)
    I can see Parliament wishing to see the minutes from that Cabinet meeting and any other documentation associated with preparation by civil servants/advisors provided by the tax payer or legal opinion for that matter...
    They'll have to be quick.

    Parliament is prorogued again on Tuesday ;)
    Should MPs want that information they know how to get it. Brexiteers think they hold all the cards but they keep making mistakes. Brexit in reality is no nearer IMO. I fully expect an extension or even a Revoke if Leaver's keep playing silly Buggers... :wink:
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,198

    rpjs said:

    So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.

    But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.

    Then we have a GE.

    I suspect the electorate will brutally punish anyone who chooses to inflict 2 more years of this uncertainty on the country.
    We wouldn't actually faff about for another 2 years. Tories win the GE, out we go with No Deal. Labour form a Government and it is second referendum time, where Remain wins, Revoke again and forget about it.
    If we go out with no deal, we would have to rejoin (which means € + Schengen). Revoke is no longer an option.
    I meant one or the other, rather than a sequence of events.

    As an aside, if we do Remain I would rather have full-fat EU with the benefits of the Euro and Schengen than our current semi-detachedness.
    We have a very different economic system to continental Europe

    A common monetary policy would only be viable with either fiscal transfers or using unemployment (or real wages) to balance the asymmetric impacts
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 11,702

    As an uber Remainer I can't think of anything more hilarious than Viktor Orban vetoing an A50 extension. What better satire of this entire debacle than the UK being forced into a chaotic No Deal exit against the will of its parliament by a far away country of which we know nothing ? I can't think of a better example of the pooled vs individual soveriegnty debate in the 21 st Century. than that.

    Let us hope it happens for the entertainment value.

    The only positive to be derived from this potential situation is if the Hungarians state, early, loudly and repeatedly that they intend to veto the extension. It might redress some of the damage done to our negotiating position by our own MPs. Just doing so with no prior warning would do nobody much good, although it would make remainers look pretty stupid.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,329
    Cyclefree said:

    nichomar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

    I've said this before and I'll say it again: we should not go after civilians. There has to be some brigh line beyond which the usual commentariat go "d'y'know what: just leave it". And none of this "oh she put herself in the firing line" gubbins. She did her job. No need to hound her.

    Again, did anyone actually bother to find out what she actually said ?
    From the little I’ve seen, it seems wholly unexceptionable.
    As a father with three daughters let’s hear it for the girly swots
    I am a proud girly swot.
    :+1:
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,886
    Isn't the Court of Session being asked to rule that not only the letter of the law but also the spirit of the law must be kept to?
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 4,961
    Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,784
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I learnt today that Ms Arcuri's business partner was Tom Hayes.

    Who he? The former Citigroup and UBS trader who was the first person jailed for manipulating LIBOR. In prison for 11 years on 8 counts of conspiracy to defraud.

    Dearie dearie me.
    Why does a phrase about birds and feathers come to mind?
    I do wonder whether he ever disclosed that outside business interest, as he would be required to do under normal bank policies and, if he did, what exactly he said about it. Also whether he ever got any remuneration for his role and where that money came from.

    You can see where this might lead.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,222

    Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    I don't see why not, if they are minded to.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,479
    edited October 2019
    New poll out on Trump impeachment .

    Should the house try and impeach Trump .

    Yes 50%

    No 39%

    If the House impeaches should the Senate vote to remove Trump from office .

    Yes 51%

    No 38%

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,886

    Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    Smoke and mirrors.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,784
    tyson said:

    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    nichomar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

    I've said this before and I'll say it again: we should not go after civilians. There has to be some brigh line beyond which the usual commentariat go "d'y'know what: just leave it". And none of this "oh she put herself in the firing line" gubbins. She did her job. No need to hound her.

    Again, did anyone actually bother to find out what she actually said ?
    From the little I’ve seen, it seems wholly unexceptionable.
    As a father with three daughters let’s hear it for the girly swots
    I am a proud girly swot.
    You've transgendered?
    No. I've always been a girl.
    Only boys can be girly swots.
    There are two truths- one Cycle is a girl, and two- you are right- only boys (probably with acne, glasses, and greasy hair) can be girly swots....
    Since when?

    Anyway, girly swots is now being worn as a badge of pride for all women who've achieved something in a male world. We've turned Boris's adolescent insult into something wonderfully empowering, thus teaching the sad git that the female is deadlier than the male.
  • Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    I don't see why not, if they are minded to.
    Revoke followed by a general election returns a Johnson landslide.

    The bizarre behaviour around the Kinnock amendment starts to make sense now though, doesn't it?
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    edited October 2019

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

    You and Guido are terribly sensitive souls, aren't you?

    It's a pretty mild quip to say "let's hear it for girly swots" at a conference of the Association of State Girls Schools.
    You seem to have overlooked the slide she chose to pose in front of, so here it is again.



    "Spider woman takes down Hulk: Viewers transfixed by judge's brooch as ruling crushes PM". It might as well have been "Look what I've done, taken down the UK's attempts to throw off the shackles of the EU*, crushed the PM, aren't I clever."

    She's absolutely revelling in the invited attention that she wouldn't have got if she had upheld the High Court ruling, and I find that unacceptable.

    [*Which was the comparison Johnson made to cite the Incredible Hulk]
    Her behaviour is hideous. Either she’s a Supreme Court judge or she isn’t. This isn’t fucking bake off. Jesus.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,886
    Cyclefree said:

    tyson said:

    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    nichomar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

    I've said this before and I'll say it again: we should not go after civilians. There has to be some brigh line beyond which the usual commentariat go "d'y'know what: just leave it". And none of this "oh she put herself in the firing line" gubbins. She did her job. No need to hound her.

    Again, did anyone actually bother to find out what she actually said ?
    From the little I’ve seen, it seems wholly unexceptionable.
    As a father with three daughters let’s hear it for the girly swots
    I am a proud girly swot.
    You've transgendered?
    No. I've always been a girl.
    Only boys can be girly swots.
    There are two truths- one Cycle is a girl, and two- you are right- only boys (probably with acne, glasses, and greasy hair) can be girly swots....
    Since when?

    Anyway, girly swots is now being worn as a badge of pride for all women who've achieved something in a male world. We've turned Boris's adolescent insult into something wonderfully empowering, thus teaching the sad git that the female is deadlier than the male.
    You've got the wrong end of the stick dearie. The archetypal girlie swot and founder-member of the club is David Cameron.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,479
    geoffw said:

    Isn't the Court of Session being asked to rule that not only the letter of the law but also the spirit of the law must be kept to?

    Yes and on the second issue , if Bozo refuses should the court sign the letter on his behalf under the nobile officium .

    Today’s case was just on the first point .
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,389

    Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    They could but Boris would win the next election by a landslide if they did
  • Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    Interesting question. There are similarities with the Benn Act. Parliament could revoke against the executive's will via primary legislation facilitated by a SO24 debate. This time they could specify a different office than the PM to deliver the notification. I'd expect a Leaver version of the Miller case arguing the revocation wasn't done properly for some reason. *If* the Commons majority was there for revoke I think statute law would get its way in the end. The bigger question is whether there is a Commons majority for Revoke over No Deal. That's not clear to me.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584

    Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    I don't see why not, if they are minded to.
    Let’s hope so - a coup from a Government of all the shits would ensure Labour wouldn’t get anywhere near power after an election.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,479

    Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    Interesting question. There are similarities with the Benn Act. Parliament could revoke against the executive's will via primary legislation facilitated by a SO24 debate. This time they could specify a different office than the PM to deliver the notification. I'd expect a Leaver version of the Miller case arguing the revocation wasn't done properly for some reason. *If* the Commons majority was there for revoke I think statute law would get its way in the end. The bigger question is whether there is a Commons majority for Revoke over No Deal. That's not clear to me.
    Bozo could still tell the Queen to refuse Royal Consent so Revoke doesn’t make it into law.
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,085
    nico67 said:

    geoffw said:

    Isn't the Court of Session being asked to rule that not only the letter of the law but also the spirit of the law must be kept to?

    Yes and on the second issue , if Bozo refuses should the court sign the letter on his behalf under the nobile officium .

    Today’s case was just on the first point .
    I sincerely hope they are forced to sign that letter.

    Boris landslide nailed on in that scenario.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,652
    rcs1000 said:


    The point is that when we leave the EU, we will end up creating a complex set of visas, so that someone who works for Siemens in Munich can work in the UK for a year as part of a project. And so that Polish computer scientists with specialist skills can get jobs here. And that people from outside the UK can apply to university here, and work during their holidays. And these will constitute the vast majority of people coming, whether we have a point system or not.


    Except we won't. The Home Office will come up with some sort of half-arsed scheme that will be expensive and insanely complex and stacked against applicants' success. It is the only way they know.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited October 2019
    TGOHF2 said:

    Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    I don't see why not, if they are minded to.
    Let’s hope so - a coup from a Government of all the shits would ensure Labour wouldn’t get anywhere near power after an election.
    LOL at this wishful thinking.

    As Boris has shown (his approval ratings going by 10-15% since he became PM, despite a fuck-up a day), EVERY new government gets a honeymoon. Literally not a single one hasn't been atleast semi-popular at first, since polling began. Why would a replacement government for Boris (led by Ken Clarke or Beckett or whoever) be any different??
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,389
    edited October 2019
    nico67 said:

    New poll out on Trump impeachment .

    Should the house try and impeach Trump .

    Yes 50%

    No 39%

    If the House impeaches should the Senate vote to remove Trump from office .

    Yes 51%

    No 38%



  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    All roads lead to a new GE and a Boris 5 year term. From here. But then?

    That is the unanswerable Q
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,784
    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    tyson said:

    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    nichomar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

    I've said this before and I'll say it again: we should not go after civilians. There has to be some brigh line beyond which the usual commentariat go "d'y'know what: just leave it". And none of this "oh she put herself in the firing line" gubbins. She did her job. No need to hound her.

    Again, did anyone actually bother to find out what she actually said ?
    From the little I’ve seen, it seems wholly unexceptionable.
    As a father with three daughters let’s hear it for the girly swots
    I am a proud girly swot.
    You've transgendered?
    No. I've always been a girl.
    Only boys can be girly swots.
    There are two truths- one Cycle is a girl, and two- you are right- only boys (probably with acne, glasses, and greasy hair) can be girly swots....
    Since when?

    Anyway, girly swots is now being worn as a badge of pride for all women who've achieved something in a male world. We've turned Boris's adolescent insult into something wonderfully empowering, thus teaching the sad git that the female is deadlier than the male.
    You've got the wrong end of the stick dearie. The archetypal girlie swot and founder-member of the club is David Cameron.
    "dearie".

    You're brave.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,886
    Cyclefree said:

    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    tyson said:

    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    nichomar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

    I've said this before and I'll say it again: we should not go after civilians. There has to be some brigh line beyond which the usual commentariat go "d'y'know what: just leave it". And none of this "oh she put herself in the firing line" gubbins. She did her job. No need to hound her.

    Again, did anyone actually bother to find out what she actually said ?
    From the little I’ve seen, it seems wholly unexceptionable.
    As a father with three daughters let’s hear it for the girly swots
    I am a proud girly swot.
    You've transgendered?
    No. I've always been a girl.
    Only boys can be girly swots.
    There are two truths- one Cycle is a girl, and two- you are right- only boys (probably with acne, glasses, and greasy hair) can be girly swots....
    Since when?

    Anyway, girly swots is now being worn as a badge of pride for all women who've achieved something in a male world. We've turned Boris's adolescent insult into something wonderfully empowering, thus teaching the sad git that the female is deadlier than the male.
    You've got the wrong end of the stick dearie. The archetypal girlie swot and founder-member of the club is David Cameron.
    "dearie".

    You're brave.
    :smile:
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited October 2019
    Byronic said:

    All roads lead to a new GE and a Boris 5 year term. From here. But then?

    That is the unanswerable Q

    How can all roads lead to Boris winning an election, when an election only gets called when the anti-Boris majority in Parliament allows one?

    If Boris looks likely at any time to win an election, then that makes it much less likely that an election gets triggered in the first place.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,886
    Byronic said:

    All roads lead to a new GE and a Boris 5 year term. From here. But then?

    That is the unanswerable Q

    That's 5 years in chokey?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,479

    nico67 said:

    geoffw said:

    Isn't the Court of Session being asked to rule that not only the letter of the law but also the spirit of the law must be kept to?

    Yes and on the second issue , if Bozo refuses should the court sign the letter on his behalf under the nobile officium .

    Today’s case was just on the first point .
    I sincerely hope they are forced to sign that letter.

    Boris landslide nailed on in that scenario.
    Problem is he would be in contempt of court before then. The nobile officium would only kick in as a last resort .
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,222
    HYUFD said:

    Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    They could but Boris would win the next election by a landslide if they did
    On the other hand the Tories will be toast in a GE following No Deal.
  • nico67 said:

    Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    Interesting question. There are similarities with the Benn Act. Parliament could revoke against the executive's will via primary legislation facilitated by a SO24 debate. This time they could specify a different office than the PM to deliver the notification. I'd expect a Leaver version of the Miller case arguing the revocation wasn't done properly for some reason. *If* the Commons majority was there for revoke I think statute law would get its way in the end. The bigger question is whether there is a Commons majority for Revoke over No Deal. That's not clear to me.
    Bozo could still tell the Queen to refuse Royal Consent so Revoke doesn’t make it into law.
    Yes. But reading the rationale in the SC ruling on prorogation.... Given there is no precedent for advising a Monarch to refuse consent in the democratic age it would end up in the SC. And the SC appears to have invented a mechanism for vouding PM's sdvise to Monarchs in certain circumstances. Which doesn't mean they'd use it. But the mechanism has now been added to the Constitution. It also applies to the Civil Contingencies Act.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    Danny565 said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    I don't see why not, if they are minded to.
    Let’s hope so - a coup from a Government of all the shits would ensure Labour wouldn’t get anywhere near power after an election.
    LOL at this wishful thinking.

    As Boris has shown (his approval ratings going by 10-15% since he became PM, despite a fuck-up a day), EVERY new government gets a honeymoon. Literally not a single one hasn't been atleast semi-popular at first, since polling began. Why would a replacement government for Boris (led by Ken Clarke or Beckett or whoever) be any different??
    Corbyn can’t win an election if he bows out to let Ken be PM.

  • Cyclefree said:

    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    nichomar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

    I've said this before and I'll say it again: we should not go after civilians. There has to be some brigh line beyond which the usual commentariat go "d'y'know what: just leave it". And none of this "oh she put herself in the firing line" gubbins. She did her job. No need to hound her.

    Again, did anyone actually bother to find out what she actually said ?
    From the little I’ve seen, it seems wholly unexceptionable.
    As a father with three daughters let’s hear it for the girly swots
    I am a proud girly swot.
    You've transgendered?
    No. I've always been a girl.
    "Have you ever been abroad?

    "No, I've always been a fella!"
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,198

    Charles said:

    viewcode said:

    Scott_P said:

    GIN1138 said:

    They've got something up their sleeve but I can't think what the hell it is! :D

    History suggests they really don't.

    They are telling Brexiteers they do (and they believe them)

    They are telling the courts they don't (and refuse to actually sign any contrary documents)
    Free advice to ScottP, Leo Varadkar, and every remainer in between these high and lowly examples, all of whom are currently displaying the Twitter equivalent of bladder weakness. Paraphrasing our own Richard Nabavi - the deal is brilliant. Take the deal.

    As we now know, the deal even includes utterly unnecessary Phillip Hammond financial giveaways - so good they're treasonable.

    When no deal happens, you won't be able to say there was no warning, or that there was no alternative. You'll just look like a bunch of greedy schmucks.
    As of this moment, no deal other than the WA exists. I know Boris has written proposals about the deal he would like to have, but neither Parliament nor the European Council nor the European Parliament have agreed to it. It's October 4th. We have twenty-seven days to deadline. We have little time to expend on dreams... :(
    The WA isn't "a deal" according to the definitions of some on here.

    It was "a proposal" by the former PM which has been comprehensively rejected by Parliament.
    It was and still is an agreement between the UK and the EU.
    It's the nearest thing to a deal that we have.
    It isn’t an agreement. It wasn’t ratified. It was a mutually acceptable proposal.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,222
    HYUFD said:

    nico67 said:

    New poll out on Trump impeachment .

    Should the house try and impeach Trump .

    Yes 50%

    No 39%

    If the House impeaches should the Senate vote to remove Trump from office .

    Yes 51%

    No 38%

    Not according to 538...

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,085
    Danny565 said:

    Byronic said:

    All roads lead to a new GE and a Boris 5 year term. From here. But then?

    That is the unanswerable Q

    How can all roads lead to Boris winning an election, when an election only gets called when the anti-Boris majority in Parliament allows one?
    They will “allow” one as soon as 31/10 out of the way.

    If you think LD’s and SNP want to hang around after this date whilst Labour literally decomposes in front of them you’re living on another planet.

    For some reason some remainers are living under the illusion their “alliance” is long term. Clue. It’s not.
  • On topic, it's hard to see what Stewart's pitch is. He doesn't live in London and isn't from London as far as I know. He's not shown any great interest in the city and its problems. He's a nice reasonable chap, but so is Khan. He doesn't seem to have any real advantage in the areas, like crime, where Khan might be vulnerable. He has baggage from his time as Tory MP that can be exploited, and while he has walked away from the Tory Party now, just a few weeks ago he wanted to lead it. It feels a little bit entitled, just pitching up in London and saying he should be Mayor. It feels like it's more about him than about London.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    viewcode said:

    Scott_P said:

    GIN1138 said:

    They've got something up their sleeve but I can't think what the hell it is! :D

    History suggests they really don't.

    They are telling Brexiteers they do (and they believe them)

    They are telling the courts they don't (and refuse to actually sign any contrary documents)
    Free advice to ScottP, Leo Varadkar, and every remainer in between these high and lowly examples, all of whom are currently displaying the Twitter equivalent of bladder weakness. Paraphrasing our own Richard Nabavi - the deal is brilliant. Take the deal.

    As we now know, the deal even includes utterly unnecessary Phillip Hammond financial giveaways - so good they're treasonable.

    When no deal happens, you won't be able to say there was no warning, or that there was no alternative. You'll just look like a bunch of greedy schmucks.
    As of this moment, no deal other than the WA exists. I know Boris has written proposals about the deal he would like to have, but neither Parliament nor the European Council nor the European Parliament have agreed to it. It's October 4th. We have twenty-seven days to deadline. We have little time to expend on dreams... :(
    The WA isn't "a deal" according to the definitions of some on here.

    It was "a proposal" by the former PM which has been comprehensively rejected by Parliament.
    It was and still is an agreement between the UK and the EU.
    It's the nearest thing to a deal that we have.
    It isn’t an agreement. It wasn’t ratified. It was a mutually acceptable proposal.
    It wasn’t acceptable to Parliament - and the Uk architects are no longer at the helm.

    It’s now irrelevant.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584

    HYUFD said:

    Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    They could but Boris would win the next election by a landslide if they did
    On the other hand the Tories will be toast in a GE following No Deal.
    That’s a view.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited October 2019

    Danny565 said:

    Byronic said:

    All roads lead to a new GE and a Boris 5 year term. From here. But then?

    That is the unanswerable Q

    How can all roads lead to Boris winning an election, when an election only gets called when the anti-Boris majority in Parliament allows one?
    They will “allow” one as soon as 31/10 out of the way.

    If you think LD’s and SNP want to hang around after this date whilst Labour literally decomposes in front of them you’re living on another planet.

    For some reason some remainers are living under the illusion their “alliance” is long term. Clue. It’s not.
    Even if the LDs and SNP were to change their minds after 31/10 (and the LDs have said at times they would still prefer a referendum to take priority over a new election), that doesn't get close to a two-thirds majority.

    In fact, even if Corbyn changes his stance and supports an election, a two-thirds majority still isn't guaranteed; his control over the bulk of Labour MPs is...somewhat in doubt, and they alone could come close to vetoing an election motion.

    Of course, there is the option of amending Fixed Term Parliaments Act with "only" a simple majority, but then the Lords will waste no time in tearing that route to pieces.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,389

    HYUFD said:

    Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    They could but Boris would win the next election by a landslide if they did
    On the other hand the Tories will be toast in a GE following No Deal.
    No, the Brexit Party would collapse in the Tories favour as all the polls show with Labour and the LDs dividing the Remain vote leading to a big Tory win.

    The only way the Tories would be toast is if they refuse to commit to deliver Brexit and the Brexit Party overtake them
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,222
    TGOHF2 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    viewcode said:

    Scott_P said:

    GIN1138 said:

    They've got something up their sleeve but I can't think what the hell it is! :D

    History suggests they really don't.

    They are telling Brexiteers they do (and they believe them)

    They are telling the courts they don't (and refuse to actually sign any contrary documents)
    Free advice to ScottP, Leo Varadkar, and every remainer in between these high and lowly examples, all of whom are currently displaying the Twitter equivalent of bladder weakness. Paraphrasing our own Richard Nabavi - the deal is brilliant. Take the deal.

    As we now know, the deal even includes utterly unnecessary Phillip Hammond financial giveaways - so good they're treasonable.

    When no deal happens, you won't be able to say there was no warning, or that there was no alternative. You'll just look like a bunch of greedy schmucks.
    As of this moment, no deal other than the WA exists. I know Boris has written proposals about the deal he would like to have, but neither Parliament nor the European Council nor the European Parliament have agreed to it. It's October 4th. We have twenty-seven days to deadline. We have little time to expend on dreams... :(
    The WA isn't "a deal" according to the definitions of some on here.

    It was "a proposal" by the former PM which has been comprehensively rejected by Parliament.
    It was and still is an agreement between the UK and the EU.
    It's the nearest thing to a deal that we have.
    It isn’t an agreement. It wasn’t ratified. It was a mutually acceptable proposal.
    It wasn’t acceptable to Parliament - and the Uk architects are no longer at the helm.

    It’s now irrelevant.
    You're probably right... but in the hypothetical scenario where:

    - the EU have rejected BoJo's deal, and:
    - Hungary has vetoed an extension

    The HoC would be faced with the choice between No Deal, Revoke or May's Deal.

    Maybe Remain MPs would blink at that point and take May's Deal.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,222
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    They could but Boris would win the next election by a landslide if they did
    On the other hand the Tories will be toast in a GE following No Deal.
    No, the Brexit Party would collapse in the Tories favour as all the polls show with Labour and the LDs dividing the Remain vote leading to a big Tory win.

    The only way the Tories would be toast is if they refuse to commit to deliver Brexit and the Brexit Party overtake them
    That surely depends on the severity of any impact of No Deal?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,389

    HYUFD said:

    nico67 said:

    New poll out on Trump impeachment .

    Should the house try and impeach Trump .

    Yes 50%

    No 39%

    If the House impeaches should the Senate vote to remove Trump from office .

    Yes 51%

    No 38%

    Not according to 538...

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    'If you look only at high-quality polls3 of Trump’s approval rating before and after news of the Ukraine scandal broke,4 there’s actually been little change in Trump’s popularity (if anything, it has ticked slightly up).'

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,222

    On topic, it's hard to see what Stewart's pitch is. He doesn't live in London and isn't from London as far as I know. He's not shown any great interest in the city and its problems. He's a nice reasonable chap, but so is Khan. He doesn't seem to have any real advantage in the areas, like crime, where Khan might be vulnerable. He has baggage from his time as Tory MP that can be exploited, and while he has walked away from the Tory Party now, just a few weeks ago he wanted to lead it. It feels a little bit entitled, just pitching up in London and saying he should be Mayor. It feels like it's more about him than about London.


    The only one who benefits from Stewart's candidacy is Khan. What on earth was he (Stewart) thinking?!
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,040

    Cyclefree said:

    geoffw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    nichomar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

    I've said this before and I'll say it again: we should not go after civilians. There has to be some brigh line beyond which the usual commentariat go "d'y'know what: just leave it". And none of this "oh she put herself in the firing line" gubbins. She did her job. No need to hound her.

    Again, did anyone actually bother to find out what she actually said ?
    From the little I’ve seen, it seems wholly unexceptionable.
    As a father with three daughters let’s hear it for the girly swots
    I am a proud girly swot.
    You've transgendered?
    No. I've always been a girl.
    "Have you ever been abroad?

    "No, I've always been a fella!"
    Here's another Bronx accent joke.

    "Say buddy, have you soiled your trousers?"
    "Soiled them? I only just boight them!"
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico67 said:

    New poll out on Trump impeachment .

    Should the house try and impeach Trump .

    Yes 50%

    No 39%

    If the House impeaches should the Senate vote to remove Trump from office .

    Yes 51%

    No 38%

    Not according to 538...

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    'If you look only at high-quality polls3 of Trump’s approval rating before and after news of the Ukraine scandal broke,4 there’s actually been little change in Trump’s popularity (if anything, it has ticked slightly up).'

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    Isn't the USA a foreign power?
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,085
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Byronic said:

    All roads lead to a new GE and a Boris 5 year term. From here. But then?

    That is the unanswerable Q

    How can all roads lead to Boris winning an election, when an election only gets called when the anti-Boris majority in Parliament allows one?
    They will “allow” one as soon as 31/10 out of the way.

    If you think LD’s and SNP want to hang around after this date whilst Labour literally decomposes in front of them you’re living on another planet.

    For some reason some remainers are living under the illusion their “alliance” is long term. Clue. It’s not.
    Even if the LDs and SNP were to change their minds after 31/10 (and the LDs have said at times they would still prefer a referendum to take priority over a new election), that doesn't get close to a two-thirds majority.

    In fact, even if Corbyn changes his stance and supports an election, a two-thirds majority still isn't guaranteed; his control over the bulk of Labour MPs is...somewhat in doubt, and they alone could come close to vetoing an election motion.

    Of course, there is the option of amending Fixed Term Parliaments Act with "only" a simple majority, but then the Lords will waste no time in tearing that route to pieces.
    The point on an amendment to the FTPA is an interesting one. I’m sure the Lords may try to fiddle. Maybe. But with Brexit either enacted or delayed I doubt they would be too bothered especially with legislation applying solely to the lower House which had been granted a majority. A simple repeal of the FTPA couldn’t realistically be denied by the Lords if the Commons wished it - especially in the name of granting an Election.

    I can’t see how they could justify any rejection.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,389
    Liberals back in front in Canada with Nanos

    Liberals 36%
    Conservatives 34%
    NDP 14%
    Greens 8%

    Preferred PM

    Trudeau 33%
    Scheer 27%

    https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.47/823.910.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-1445-CTV-Globe-ELXN-2019-10-03.pdf
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,171

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico67 said:

    New poll out on Trump impeachment .

    Should the house try and impeach Trump .

    Yes 50%

    No 39%

    If the House impeaches should the Senate vote to remove Trump from office .

    Yes 51%

    No 38%

    Not according to 538...

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    'If you look only at high-quality polls3 of Trump’s approval rating before and after news of the Ukraine scandal broke,4 there’s actually been little change in Trump’s popularity (if anything, it has ticked slightly up).'

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    Isn't the USA a foreign power?
    No. We've given them a short leave of absence from the Empire. Nothing more!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,389

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico67 said:

    New poll out on Trump impeachment .

    Should the house try and impeach Trump .

    Yes 50%

    No 39%

    If the House impeaches should the Senate vote to remove Trump from office .

    Yes 51%

    No 38%

    Not according to 538...

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    'If you look only at high-quality polls3 of Trump’s approval rating before and after news of the Ukraine scandal broke,4 there’s actually been little change in Trump’s popularity (if anything, it has ticked slightly up).'

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    Isn't the USA a foreign power?
    I have never said it isn't
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited October 2019

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Byronic said:

    All roads lead to a new GE and a Boris 5 year term. From here. But then?

    That is the unanswerable Q

    How can all roads lead to Boris winning an election, when an election only gets called when the anti-Boris majority in Parliament allows one?
    They will “allow” one as soon as 31/10 out of the way.

    If you think LD’s and SNP want to hang around after this date whilst Labour literally decomposes in front of them you’re living on another planet.

    For some reason some remainers are living under the illusion their “alliance” is long term. Clue. It’s not.
    Even if the LDs and SNP were to change their minds after 31/10 (and the LDs have said at times they would still prefer a referendum to take priority over a new election), that doesn't get close to a two-thirds majority.

    In fact, even if Corbyn changes his stance and supports an election, a two-thirds majority still isn't guaranteed; his control over the bulk of Labour MPs is...somewhat in doubt, and they alone could come close to vetoing an election motion.

    Of course, there is the option of amending Fixed Term Parliaments Act with "only" a simple majority, but then the Lords will waste no time in tearing that route to pieces.
    The point on an amendment to the FTPA is an interesting one. I’m sure the Lords may try to fiddle. Maybe. But with Brexit either enacted or delayed I doubt they would be too bothered especially with legislation applying solely to the lower House which had been granted a majority. A simple repeal of the FTPA couldn’t realistically be denied by the Lords if the Commons wished it - especially in the name of granting an Election.

    I can’t see how they could justify any rejection.
    I agree it's unlikely that the Lords would outright reject an amendment to the FTPA if it was approved by the Commons, but I think it's quite likely they would bolt on a whole load of extra things: that 16- and 17-year-olds get the vote, EU citizens get the vote, maybe even some boundary changes that make things less favourable for the Tories (constituencies all equal sized in terms of population rather than just electorate?). Would the Tories still want an election with those conditions, even if they have a strong position in the polls?

    And this is all assuming they could get a simple majority in the Commons for that amendment, which, again, is very far from certain.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,222
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico67 said:

    New poll out on Trump impeachment .

    Should the house try and impeach Trump .

    Yes 50%

    No 39%

    If the House impeaches should the Senate vote to remove Trump from office .

    Yes 51%

    No 38%

    Not according to 538...

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    'If you look only at high-quality polls3 of Trump’s approval rating before and after news of the Ukraine scandal broke,4 there’s actually been little change in Trump’s popularity (if anything, it has ticked slightly up).'

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    Exactly. 'Slightly ticked up' is not 'surges to highest level of 2019' quoted in The Hill tweet.

    In any event, there have been two further HarrisX (rated only C+ by 538) polls since the one quoted, showing Trump's approval rating dropping to 47% then 45%.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,389

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    They could but Boris would win the next election by a landslide if they did
    On the other hand the Tories will be toast in a GE following No Deal.
    No, the Brexit Party would collapse in the Tories favour as all the polls show with Labour and the LDs dividing the Remain vote leading to a big Tory win.

    The only way the Tories would be toast is if they refuse to commit to deliver Brexit and the Brexit Party overtake them
    That surely depends on the severity of any impact of No Deal?
    Even if it went badly the main beneficiaries would be the LDs not Corbyn Labour given most Remainers are now voting LD
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    HYUFD said:

    Liberals back in front in Canada with Nanos

    Liberals 36%
    Conservatives 34%
    NDP 14%
    Greens 8%

    Preferred PM

    Trudeau 33%
    Scheer 27%

    https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.47/823.910.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-1445-CTV-Globe-ELXN-2019-10-03.pdf

    Canadian polling tracker:

    Con 34.1%
    Lib 33.7%

    https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,222
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    They could but Boris would win the next election by a landslide if they did
    On the other hand the Tories will be toast in a GE following No Deal.
    No, the Brexit Party would collapse in the Tories favour as all the polls show with Labour and the LDs dividing the Remain vote leading to a big Tory win.

    The only way the Tories would be toast is if they refuse to commit to deliver Brexit and the Brexit Party overtake them
    That surely depends on the severity of any impact of No Deal?
    Even if it went badly the main beneficiaries would be the LDs not Corbyn Labour given most Remainers are now voting LD
    It doesn't really matter who the main beneficiaries are. If people are, for example, queuing for diesel during a GE campaign due to No Deal the Tories will be decimated.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,389

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico67 said:

    New poll out on Trump impeachment .

    Should the house try and impeach Trump .

    Yes 50%

    No 39%

    If the House impeaches should the Senate vote to remove Trump from office .

    Yes 51%

    No 38%

    Not according to 538...

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    'If you look only at high-quality polls3 of Trump’s approval rating before and after news of the Ukraine scandal broke,4 there’s actually been little change in Trump’s popularity (if anything, it has ticked slightly up).'

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    Exactly. 'Slightly ticked up' is not 'surges to highest level of 2019' quoted in The Hill tweet.

    In any event, there have been two further HarrisX (rated only C+ by 538) polls since the one quoted, showing Trump's approval rating dropping to 47% then 45%.
    So matching his 2016 popular voteshare then when he won the EC
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    They could but Boris would win the next election by a landslide if they did
    On the other hand the Tories will be toast in a GE following No Deal.
    No, the Brexit Party would collapse in the Tories favour as all the polls show with Labour and the LDs dividing the Remain vote leading to a big Tory win.

    The only way the Tories would be toast is if they refuse to commit to deliver Brexit and the Brexit Party overtake them
    That surely depends on the severity of any impact of No Deal?
    Even if it went badly the main beneficiaries would be the LDs not Corbyn Labour given most Remainers are now voting LD
    It doesn't really matter who the main beneficiaries are. If people are, for example, queuing for diesel during a GE campaign due to No Deal the Tories will be decimated.
    Conversely if the blip is short - nobody will listen to the LDs for many years.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,389
    AndyJS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberals back in front in Canada with Nanos

    Liberals 36%
    Conservatives 34%
    NDP 14%
    Greens 8%

    Preferred PM

    Trudeau 33%
    Scheer 27%

    https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.47/823.910.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-1445-CTV-Globe-ELXN-2019-10-03.pdf

    Canadian polling tracker:

    Con 34.1%
    Lib 33.7%

    https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
    Seat projection

    Liberals 161
    Conservatives 137
    BQ 19
    NDP 16
    Greens 4
    PPC 1
    https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico67 said:

    New poll out on Trump impeachment .

    Should the house try and impeach Trump .

    Yes 50%

    No 39%

    If the House impeaches should the Senate vote to remove Trump from office .

    Yes 51%

    No 38%

    Not according to 538...

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    'If you look only at high-quality polls3 of Trump’s approval rating before and after news of the Ukraine scandal broke,4 there’s actually been little change in Trump’s popularity (if anything, it has ticked slightly up).'

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    Exactly. 'Slightly ticked up' is not 'surges to highest level of 2019' quoted in The Hill tweet.

    In any event, there have been two further HarrisX (rated only C+ by 538) polls since the one quoted, showing Trump's approval rating dropping to 47% then 45%.
    So matching his 2016 popular voteshare then when he won the EC
    Hillary won the popular vote. More Americans voted for Hillary than for the Racist-in-Chief.
  • On topic, it's hard to see what Stewart's pitch is. He doesn't live in London and isn't from London as far as I know. He's not shown any great interest in the city and its problems. He's a nice reasonable chap, but so is Khan. He doesn't seem to have any real advantage in the areas, like crime, where Khan might be vulnerable. He has baggage from his time as Tory MP that can be exploited, and while he has walked away from the Tory Party now, just a few weeks ago he wanted to lead it. It feels a little bit entitled, just pitching up in London and saying he should be Mayor. It feels like it's more about him than about London.

    He knows a hell of a lot about dealing with crime than Sadiq Khan ever will - Khan has been a massive failure on this. Take a look at Rory's Wiki page (especially the section on Minister for Prisons).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Stewart
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,085
    edited October 2019
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Byronic said:

    All roads lead to a new GE and a Boris 5 year term. From here. But then?

    That is the unanswerable Q

    How can all roads lead to Boris winning an election, when an election only gets called when the anti-Boris majority in Parliament allows one?

    For some reason some remainers are living under the illusion their “alliance” is long term. Clue. It’s not.
    Even if the LDs and SNP were to change their minds after 31/10 (and the LDs have said at times they would still prefer a referendum to take priority over a new

    Of course, there is the option of amending Fixed Term Parliaments Act with "only" a simple majority, but then the Lords will waste no time in tearing that route to pieces.
    The point on an amendment to the FTPA is an interesting one. I’m sure the Lords may try to fiddle. Maybe. But with Brexit either enacted or delayed I doubt they would be too bothered especially with legislation applying solely to the lower House which had been granted a majority. A simple repeal of the FTPA couldn’t realistically be denied by the Lords if the Commons wished it - especially in the name of granting an Election.

    I can’t see how they could justify any rejection.
    I agree it's unlikely that the Lords would outright reject an amendment to the FTPA if it was approved by the Commons, but I think it's quite likely they would bolt on a whole load of extra things: that 16- and 17-year-olds get the vote, EU citizens get the vote, maybe even some boundary changes that make things less favourable for the Tories (constituencies all equal sized in terms of population rather than just electorate?). Would the Tories still want an election with those conditions, even if they have a strong position in the polls?

    And this is all assuming they could get a simple majority in the Commons for that amendment, which, again, is very far from certain.
    Lots of variables. I do think if the LDs continue or accelerate their inroads into picking up soft left Labour voters (as well as tories I admit) then they won’t want to waste time in allowing Labour to regroup.

    The LDs do have a great opportunity to vastly increase their seat count. That window I think is short however. At the moment their numbers no good for super majority as you say. But good enough for straight repeal without supporting any Labour tricks on bolstering its vote count.

    But just a guess. No one knows. 🙂
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberals back in front in Canada with Nanos

    Liberals 36%
    Conservatives 34%
    NDP 14%
    Greens 8%

    Preferred PM

    Trudeau 33%
    Scheer 27%

    https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.47/823.910.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-1445-CTV-Globe-ELXN-2019-10-03.pdf

    Canadian polling tracker:

    Con 34.1%
    Lib 33.7%

    https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
    Seat projection

    Liberals 161
    Conservatives 137
    BQ 19
    NDP 16
    Greens 4
    PPC 1
    https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
    I'm sceptical about their seat projection.
  • HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberals back in front in Canada with Nanos

    Liberals 36%
    Conservatives 34%
    NDP 14%
    Greens 8%

    Preferred PM

    Trudeau 33%
    Scheer 27%

    https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.47/823.910.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-1445-CTV-Globe-ELXN-2019-10-03.pdf

    Canadian polling tracker:

    Con 34.1%
    Lib 33.7%

    https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
    Seat projection

    Liberals 161
    Conservatives 137
    BQ 19
    NDP 16
    Greens 4
    PPC 1
    https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
    Seat projection

    LibDems 161
    Tories 137

    :blush:
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,222
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico67 said:

    New poll out on Trump impeachment .

    Should the house try and impeach Trump .

    Yes 50%

    No 39%

    If the House impeaches should the Senate vote to remove Trump from office .

    Yes 51%

    No 38%

    Not according to 538...

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    'If you look only at high-quality polls3 of Trump’s approval rating before and after news of the Ukraine scandal broke,4 there’s actually been little change in Trump’s popularity (if anything, it has ticked slightly up).'

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    Exactly. 'Slightly ticked up' is not 'surges to highest level of 2019' quoted in The Hill tweet.

    In any event, there have been two further HarrisX (rated only C+ by 538) polls since the one quoted, showing Trump's approval rating dropping to 47% then 45%.
    So matching his 2016 popular voteshare then when he won the EC
    I wouldn't be putting money on him to win next year with the economy stalling, scandals swirling around him and his mental health clearly deteriorating.

    Then again, I didn't believe he would win in 2016!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,389
    edited October 2019
    AndyJS said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberals back in front in Canada with Nanos

    Liberals 36%
    Conservatives 34%
    NDP 14%
    Greens 8%

    Preferred PM

    Trudeau 33%
    Scheer 27%

    https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.47/823.910.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-1445-CTV-Globe-ELXN-2019-10-03.pdf

    Canadian polling tracker:

    Con 34.1%
    Lib 33.7%

    https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
    Seat projection

    Liberals 161
    Conservatives 137
    BQ 19
    NDP 16
    Greens 4
    PPC 1
    https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
    I'm sceptical about their seat projection.
    It is based on the fact the Liberals have a narrow popular vote lead in marginal riding rich Ontario but the Conservatives lead narrowly nationally in the popular vote average because of a huge popular vote lead in Alberta where every almost all the seats are Conservative anyway
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,198
    viewcode said:

    Zephyr said:

    viewcode said:



    Up to the 1960s there was a distinct group of Democratic politicians in the former states of the Confederacy who were deeply racist ("Dixiecrats"). As the South was at the time deeply racist and there were long folk memories of Lincoln (the Republican President who freed the slaves and beat the Confederates in the 19th century Civil War), they were electorally very popular. But by the 1960's some things came into play: Vietnam, greater media coverage, and the people of the South started to agitate for civil rights previously denied them. The President at the time was the Democrat Lyndon Johnson who gave greater impetus to this movement in law and legislation was passed. His successor was Richard Nixon, a Republican of remarkable political skill and unremarked racism, who appealed more to the South than the Democrats now did, and the racists in the South transferred their allegiance to him. Before the 1960s the Democrats were seen as the racist party, but after the 1960s the Republicans were so seen.

    (Yes, I know there are perfectly decent and nonracist Republicans and perfectly indecent and racist Democrats, but that's not the point: I'm answering the question that was asked)

    And the bit about the centre of gravity now between the parties making on right on left, was that not always the case? Or was it two broad centre right parties with much right and left in them?
    Oh Lord, now there's a question. Thinks for a minute.

    Ok. Take two crowds. One is made up of Republican congressmen. Another is made up of Democrat congressmen (yes, I know there are women. Husht I'm improvising). Put them all in the same room. Each person stands close to the people they have things in common with and far from those they don't.

    Now view it from above.

    In the 50s and 60s, they overlapped quite a bit. But as the decades wore on, they began to separate and now they are quite wide apart. They don't talk to each other and vote against each other always. So you are correct: your centre of gravity used to be populated, now it isn't.

    As to why this happened: I don't know. I have my theory, which is greater information, wider media, and now the ability to select news according to taste forced people to choose, whereas previously friendships could flourish in private. Margaret Thatcher and (I think) Reg Prentice(?) were friends, as were the Republican John McCain and Democrat Joe Lieberman. But cross-aisle friendships, exchange of ideas, and bi-partisan voting is discouraged by media and internet attention and we are now in a mess.

    Of course, I might be wrong... :(
    I believe it was the rise of contested primaries
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico67 said:

    New poll out on Trump impeachment .

    Should the house try and impeach Trump .

    Yes 50%

    No 39%

    If the House impeaches should the Senate vote to remove Trump from office .

    Yes 51%

    No 38%

    Not according to 538...

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    'If you look only at high-quality polls3 of Trump’s approval rating before and after news of the Ukraine scandal broke,4 there’s actually been little change in Trump’s popularity (if anything, it has ticked slightly up).'

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    Exactly. 'Slightly ticked up' is not 'surges to highest level of 2019' quoted in The Hill tweet.

    In any event, there have been two further HarrisX (rated only C+ by 538) polls since the one quoted, showing Trump's approval rating dropping to 47% then 45%.
    So matching his 2016 popular voteshare then when he won the EC
    I wouldn't be putting money on him to win next year with the economy stalling, scandals swirling around him and his mental health clearly deteriorating.

    Then again, I didn't believe he would win in 2016!
    Hillary won the popular vote :)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,389

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Re: the rumours surrounding Hungary and the extension veto - if true, could Parliament throw out Johnson and agree on a replacement in time to hit the panic revoke button?

    I really don't know. Does anyone?!?!

    They could but Boris would win the next election by a landslide if they did
    On the other hand the Tories will be toast in a GE following No Deal.
    No, the Brexit Party would collapse in the Tories favour as all the polls show with Labour and the LDs dividing the Remain vote leading to a big Tory win.

    The only way the Tories would be toast is if they refuse to commit to deliver Brexit and the Brexit Party overtake them
    That surely depends on the severity of any impact of No Deal?
    Even if it went badly the main beneficiaries would be the LDs not Corbyn Labour given most Remainers are now voting LD
    It doesn't really matter who the main beneficiaries are. If people are, for example, queuing for diesel during a GE campaign due to No Deal the Tories will be decimated.
    No it would be Labour decimated, diehard Leavers would still vote Tory as they are ideologically committed to Brexit and those seeking to reverse Brexit would go LD leaving Labour squeezed in the middle
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,938
    Same old same old (Well, under Corbyn anyway)

    http://hurryupharry.org/2019/09/30/labours-conference-shame/
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico67 said:

    New poll out on Trump impeachment .

    Should the house try and impeach Trump .

    Yes 50%

    No 39%

    If the House impeaches should the Senate vote to remove Trump from office .

    Yes 51%

    No 38%

    Not according to 538...

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    'If you look only at high-quality polls3 of Trump’s approval rating before and after news of the Ukraine scandal broke,4 there’s actually been little change in Trump’s popularity (if anything, it has ticked slightly up).'

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    Isn't the USA a foreign power?
    I have never said it isn't
    At least the Irish drive on the left!
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico67 said:

    New poll out on Trump impeachment .

    Should the house try and impeach Trump .

    Yes 50%

    No 39%

    If the House impeaches should the Senate vote to remove Trump from office .

    Yes 51%

    No 38%

    Not according to 538...

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    'If you look only at high-quality polls3 of Trump’s approval rating before and after news of the Ukraine scandal broke,4 there’s actually been little change in Trump’s popularity (if anything, it has ticked slightly up).'

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-has-the-ukraine-scandal-affected-trumps-approval-rating/
    Isn't the USA a foreign power?
    I have never said it isn't
    At least the Irish drive on the left!
    Those funny foreigners...
  • Saying you have a workaround to the Benn Act that means you can deliver Brexit on 31st October and then not having a workaround is not going to be a great look.
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,085

    Saying you have a workaround to the Benn Act that means you can deliver Brexit on 31st October and then not having a workaround is not going to be a great look.

    No it isn’t. But saying you have a workaround to the Benn Act that means you can deliver Brexit on 31st October and then actually having a workaround is a bloody great look.

    We shall have to wait and see....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,389

    Saying you have a workaround to the Benn Act that means you can deliver Brexit on 31st October and then not having a workaround is not going to be a great look.

    They do have, Hungary will veto extension if the EU does not accept the Boris proposed Deal, hence the Hungarian Foreign Minister was in No 10 yesterday
This discussion has been closed.