Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB/Polling Matters podcast: Queen’s Speech, Brexit negotia

13»

Comments

  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read, on the future for Labour:

    http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2017/06/13/reassessing-corbynism-success-contradictions-and-a-difficult-path-ahead/

    "Once widely-held truisms – Corbynism is a ‘movement’ more clicktivist than canvasser, Corbyn himself is electorally toxic, Labour face a 1931-style demolition and the collapse of its Parliamentary presence – have been shown to be categorically wrong. Corbyn ran an energetic, positive, smart campaign, founded on an unashamedly tax-and-spend manifesto."

    "None of these [benefits, immigration..] policies could be classed as radical or left wing, and all would be fiercely criticised from the left if proposed or supported by any other Labour leader. Yet Corbyn gets away with it time after time, on reputation alone...But Brexit is the one issue where triangulation is impossible"

    "..until the Corbynite left recognise the danger of building their programme on such ambiguous rhetorical ground, in such an intensely volatile political conjuncture, it is a risk that lies coiled within the movement, regardless of how triumphant it may feel today"

    That is an exceptionally good article, Ian. Thank you for that.

    I have bookmarked the source. Are the articles usually that good or was that a one-off?
    Yes. A very interesting article. If May hadn't come out with 'Brexit means Brexit' the Tories wouldn't have taken sole responsibility for it and Corbyn wouldn't have been able to hide and May would have won the election.

    I'm losing count of how many Tory leaders have lost their job thanks to the EU. Thatcher Major Hague Cameron and May have been destroyed by it but there were probably others.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Re hard and soft Brexit, a lot of confusion cones in because of the pejorative nature of the terms. Soft implies better without actually defining itself. You could make the same arguments using strong or weak Brexit and public support would shift dramatically overnight.

    Or stong brexit or stable brexit
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    nichomar said:

    Re hard and soft Brexit, a lot of confusion cones in because of the pejorative nature of the terms. Soft implies better without actually defining itself. You could make the same arguments using strong or weak Brexit and public support would shift dramatically overnight.

    Or stong brexit or stable brexit
    Slave Brexit or freedom Brexit
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Mr. 64, *sighs*

    Don't have Coral account yet. I was tempted to get one but decided against (sign-up page had a security question mark at the time).

    Anyway, I may well be on the radar anyway for betting on Merhi not to be classified when he, er, wasn't racing.

    Sound advice from you, and I shouldn't've got carried away. Lesson learned, I suppose. [Still, betting's about taking advantage of good odds... bit unfair if someone's then 'on the radar' for doing that].

    If you want to annoy the bookies some more, try placing a large each way bet on the drivers' champion, for the currently second placed man, with a couple of races left ;)
  • Tony_MTony_M Posts: 70

    The silliest thing I've seen so far today is this:

    https://www.change.org/p/queen-elizabeth-force-teresa-may-to-resign-and-allow-jeremy-corby-to-be-prime-minister

    It's good to have idiots self-identify for our own convenience, I suppose.

    Most odd, Mr Meeks, as she appears to have voted for Mrs May in the picture accompanying the petition?

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Sandpit, I don't want to annoy bookies at all, I'm just trying to, er, take money off them. They're doing the same to me :p
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461

    Mr. 64, *sighs*

    Don't have Coral account yet. I was tempted to get one but decided against (sign-up page had a security question mark at the time).

    Anyway, I may well be on the radar anyway for betting on Merhi not to be classified when he, er, wasn't racing.

    Sound advice from you, and I shouldn't've got carried away. Lesson learned, I suppose. [Still, betting's about taking advantage of good odds... bit unfair if someone's then 'on the radar' for doing that].

    love that merhi bet! I got into a long argument with Paddys when I backed someone for a tennis event after their semifinal opponent had already withdrawn injured. they wouldnt back down. I should have taken a screenshot of Oddschecker to show that many other bookies still had a similar price available so they couldnt rely on their claim that their price was way out from the market price. even though they didnt budge i found i could cashout the bet for a v small loss so I just did that.

    the trouble with palping is that it's not always easy to argue with the price that they retrospectively say was the correct one. that's why I think they ought to allow you to void your bet.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    Sandpit said:

    Mr. 64, *sighs*

    Don't have Coral account yet. I was tempted to get one but decided against (sign-up page had a security question mark at the time).

    Anyway, I may well be on the radar anyway for betting on Merhi not to be classified when he, er, wasn't racing.

    Sound advice from you, and I shouldn't've got carried away. Lesson learned, I suppose. [Still, betting's about taking advantage of good odds... bit unfair if someone's then 'on the radar' for doing that].

    If you want to annoy the bookies some more, try placing a large each way bet on the drivers' champion, for the currently second placed man, with a couple of races left ;)
    ha I love that too. which bookie was that with?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    edited June 2017

    Richard_H said:

    I can't see any deal with the DUP, as they probably want things the Tories can't agree. E.g soft border between Northern Ireland and UK mainland, £2 billon extra funding and austerity measures ended.

    The Tories will get their Queens speach through, but then before the party conference in the Autumn, i expect there to be significant challenges to Theresa May, which might lead to a leaders contest before the end of the year. A Tory minority Government will then look to hold a general election in Spring 2018, saying that Brexit will not happen properly, unless tne Tories win a majority.

    if the Tories try to stand on a Brexit only campaign they will get hammered and deservedly so.

    Bar a few die hards people have moved on from Brexit, they now want to know how the govt is going to put more money in their pockets
    Brexit hasn't moved on from them. Perhaps if Theresa May hadn't triggered Article 50 and then an election, we could have forgotten about the whole thing? So no. Brexit dominates everything.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    edited June 2017
    Roger said:

    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read, on the future for Labour:

    http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2017/06/13/reassessing-corbynism-success-contradictions-and-a-difficult-path-ahead/

    "Once widely-held truisms – Corbynism is a ‘movement’ more clicktivist than canvasser, Corbyn himself is electorally toxic, Labour face a 1931-style demolition and the collapse of its Parliamentary presence – have been shown to be categorically wrong. Corbyn ran an energetic, positive, smart campaign, founded on an unashamedly tax-and-spend manifesto."

    "None of these [benefits, immigration..] policies could be classed as radical or left wing, and all would be fiercely criticised from the left if proposed or supported by any other Labour leader. Yet Corbyn gets away with it time after time, on reputation alone...But Brexit is the one issue where triangulation is impossible"

    "..until the Corbynite left recognise the danger of building their programme on such ambiguous rhetorical ground, in such an intensely volatile political conjuncture, it is a risk that lies coiled within the movement, regardless of how triumphant it may feel today"

    That is an exceptionally good article, Ian. Thank you for that.

    I have bookmarked the source. Are the articles usually that good or was that a one-off?
    Yes. A very interesting article. If May hadn't come out with 'Brexit means Brexit' the Tories wouldn't have taken sole responsibility for it and Corbyn wouldn't have been able to hide and May would have won the election.

    I'm losing count of how many Tory leaders have lost their job thanks to the EU. Thatcher Major Hague Cameron and May have been destroyed by it but there were probably others.
    Only a week or so we were contemplating the death of the Labour Party as an electoral force....now it is almost inconceivable to see how the Tory party will survive through this omnishambles entirely of their own creation...

    I cannot remember a Govt so singularly unfit to be in power...this makes the John Major drift appear to be a time of revolutionary zeal and power. I was surprised to see the Traffic Cone helpline didn't make it back onto the agenda.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    nichomar said:

    Re hard and soft Brexit, a lot of confusion cones in because of the pejorative nature of the terms. Soft implies better without actually defining itself. You could make the same arguments using strong or weak Brexit and public support would shift dramatically overnight.

    Or stong brexit or stable brexit
    Slave Brexit or freedom Brexit
    Competent BREXIT would be a start ....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. 64, just have to wait and see, though the wait is not comfortable. If they shift to the new odds but offer me the chance to cancel, that's reasonable. If they let the bets stand, that's super. If they insist on the bets standing at the much shorter odds, I'll not be happy (changing odds after a bet has been made is not on, in my book. If there's been a clear error, as at Wokingham, voiding can be legitimate but insisting on a bet standing when the odds have been unilaterally changed by the bookie after a bet has been made is not).
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    nichomar said:

    Retrofiting sprinkler systems to existing buildings is going to be a challenge. Its not justa few pipes attached to the mains, it requires either a resevoir on the top of the building which probably cant support it or large ground/underground tanks with heavy duty pumps to get the water to the top. Couple that with the potential of removing similar cladding on other buildings etc is going to cost a fortune. I hope the government have a good contingency fund i dont think they will get way with ignoring things.

    I think the government is required by law to have a 2% contingency in their budgets - it would be around £15 billion this year, but I don't know how much has been spent to date
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    £12k fine, having spent £400k on the campaign - how's he possibly going to afford it?
    True, it should have been higher.
    I'm torn between: a) dislike for the idea that the very rich can buy massive influence, and b) a feeling that they may well be just wasting their money.

    I guess there's no way to know how much effect the these people with big funds and strong views have. Feels like they only lined up on the Leave side last year, and they only needed to influence 2% to have swung the result, but I may be wrong.
    Are rich people with strong views intrinsically worse than union barons with large political funds?

    I would treat all donors the same
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461

    Mr. 64, just have to wait and see, though the wait is not comfortable. If they shift to the new odds but offer me the chance to cancel, that's reasonable. If they let the bets stand, that's super. If they insist on the bets standing at the much shorter odds, I'll not be happy (changing odds after a bet has been made is not on, in my book. If there's been a clear error, as at Wokingham, voiding can be legitimate but insisting on a bet standing when the odds have been unilaterally changed by the bookie after a bet has been made is not).

    wokingham? the race at ascot or the constituency?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545

    nichomar said:

    Retrofiting sprinkler systems to existing buildings is going to be a challenge. Its not justa few pipes attached to the mains, it requires either a resevoir on the top of the building which probably cant support it or large ground/underground tanks with heavy duty pumps to get the water to the top. Couple that with the potential of removing similar cladding on other buildings etc is going to cost a fortune. I hope the government have a good contingency fund i dont think they will get way with ignoring things.

    It is really difficult - my dad did a few such jobs in the industrial sector, and in one case the building had to be replaced as the cost of retrofitting it was more than that of replacing the entire structure (water is a very heavy dead load, as are pipework and other fittings).

    If the building was built to the codes in existence when they were built (or at the time of any renovations), then the burden of cost of any such retrofitting should not be borne by the owners, but by the state. After all, the state is changing the rules.

    This should perhaps lead to a discussion about the validity of grandfather rights, but that's difficult. Restrict grandfather rights and work becomes too expensive to do; have too many and you can run into other difficulties.
    I think the issues of Grenfell Tower will come down to risk assessment. Did the landlords and management company take reasonable steps to mitigate risk, given the age and condition of the building? A lot of this will be policy and process.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Charles said:

    nichomar said:

    Retrofiting sprinkler systems to existing buildings is going to be a challenge. Its not justa few pipes attached to the mains, it requires either a resevoir on the top of the building which probably cant support it or large ground/underground tanks with heavy duty pumps to get the water to the top. Couple that with the potential of removing similar cladding on other buildings etc is going to cost a fortune. I hope the government have a good contingency fund i dont think they will get way with ignoring things.

    I think the government is required by law to have a 2% contingency in their budgets - it would be around £15 billion this year, but I don't know how much has been spent to date
    Well, Kensington and Chelsea council has £274m in reserves, which I expect they'd love to contribute.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Morning all. I pledge today not to enter into arguments about the existence of God that I can't quite remember the construction of and instead talk utter pants about the political situation.
    Talking of which, the DUP deal. Depending on who you read this morning it's either dead in the water or May has completely capitulated which seems to be based on whether you listen to Jeffrey Donaldson or Dodd and 'a cabinet minister'.
    Seems likely Hammond will be telling May he can't fund 35 billion in Barnet payments and she will have to offer something else. Legalised arse kicking for anyone with the surname Adams, or some such.

    A pledge isn't worth anything. Perhaps you should swear an oath on the Bible...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    TOPPING said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Roger said:


    Corbyn has always been anti-EU - he sees it as a capitalist construct designed to entrench corporate interests and to prevent one-state socialism through prohibitions on state aid and the like. He hid away during the referendum campaign and deliberately sought to sabotage the Labour Remain effort. He also refused to share a platform with David Cameron. It is very likely that if he had campaigned for Remain as he campaigned in May and June, we would not now be leaving the EU.

    Corbyn's problem, though, is that he leads a party which is very largely pro-EU and profoundly against a hard Brexit. If it comes to it - which it may well not - his choice is to walk through the lobbies with the rest of the PLP, abstain or to walk through the lobbies with the Tories. My guess is that he will not do the latter.

    What do you consider a hard Brexit? If we get tariff free trade is that a hard Brexit or a soft one? If we agree that all EU citizens who were here in June have indefinite leave to remain is that then a soft Brexit?

    I can't help but think that these terms, let alone terms like diamond Brexit have become vacuous. What the government says it is looking for is not in my view a hard Brexit. Do you agree?
    Guido said it right the other day:
    https://order-order.com/2017/06/20/soft-and-hard-brexit-terms-obsolete/
    Remainers and their media allies need to be honest about what they mean when they talk about “soft Brexit”. If “soft Brexit” means staying inside the single market (not taking back control of borders), staying inside the customs union (not taking back control of trade), and staying inside the ECJ (not taking back control of laws), then that is not Brexit. Hammond and other Remainers in the Cabinet have accepted this. Only hardcore Remainers don’t.

    This language is used exclusively by Remain supporters, Brexiters reject it entirely.
    Because Guido wishes it were so and is trying to create an associated narrative does not make it so. Brexit will be whatever the hell the government says it will be.

    We are leaving the EU. The rest is literally details.
    You make a good point. The octogenarians of Hartlepool hadn't the faintest idea what the EU were about other than they were filtching £350,000,000 a week and they had a penchant for Turks so when a deal is done however disadvantageous they're unlikely to be disappointed.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Charles said:

    Morning all. I pledge today not to enter into arguments about the existence of God that I can't quite remember the construction of and instead talk utter pants about the political situation.
    Talking of which, the DUP deal. Depending on who you read this morning it's either dead in the water or May has completely capitulated which seems to be based on whether you listen to Jeffrey Donaldson or Dodd and 'a cabinet minister'.
    Seems likely Hammond will be telling May he can't fund 35 billion in Barnet payments and she will have to offer something else. Legalised arse kicking for anyone with the surname Adams, or some such.

    A pledge isn't worth anything. Perhaps you should swear an oath on the Bible...
    Always happy to do so as breaking it means that much less to me as a filthy unbeliever
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Charles said:

    £12k fine, having spent £400k on the campaign - how's he possibly going to afford it?
    True, it should have been higher.
    I'm torn between: a) dislike for the idea that the very rich can buy massive influence, and b) a feeling that they may well be just wasting their money.

    I guess there's no way to know how much effect the these people with big funds and strong views have. Feels like they only lined up on the Leave side last year, and they only needed to influence 2% to have swung the result, but I may be wrong.
    Are rich people with strong views intrinsically worse than union barons with large political funds?

    I would treat all donors the same
    Yes, agreed.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. 64, constituency. Conservatives were 60/1 to win it. The other three parties were each 33/1. I backed the blues at 60/1 and the bet was, shockingly, voided (Betfair Sportsbook).

    I think that's fair enough, because it was mathematically daft, and obviously so. However, with the to be classified bets, every driver is participating in the race *and* the corresponding value bets existed in the opposite (not to be classified) market. They might be voided but is isn't as clear cut for those reasons.

    We'll see. I still shouldn't've got carried away, but there we are.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    JackW said:

    nichomar said:

    Re hard and soft Brexit, a lot of confusion cones in because of the pejorative nature of the terms. Soft implies better without actually defining itself. You could make the same arguments using strong or weak Brexit and public support would shift dramatically overnight.

    Or stong brexit or stable brexit
    Slave Brexit or freedom Brexit
    Competent BREXIT would be a start ....
    Well, quite. Naming it is silly, getting it right seems the way to go.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,023
    Roger said:

    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read, on the future for Labour:

    http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2017/06/13/reassessing-corbynism-success-contradictions-and-a-difficult-path-ahead/

    "Once widely-held truisms – Corbynism is a ‘movement’ more clicktivist than canvasser, Corbyn himself is electorally toxic, Labour face a 1931-style demolition and the collapse of its Parliamentary presence – have been shown to be categorically wrong. Corbyn ran an energetic, positive, smart campaign, founded on an unashamedly tax-and-spend manifesto."

    "None of these [benefits, immigration..] policies could be classed as radical or left wing, and all would be fiercely criticised from the left if proposed or supported by any other Labour leader. Yet Corbyn gets away with it time after time, on reputation alone...But Brexit is the one issue where triangulation is impossible"

    "..until the Corbynite left recognise the danger of building their programme on such ambiguous rhetorical ground, in such an intensely volatile political conjuncture, it is a risk that lies coiled within the movement, regardless of how triumphant it may feel today"

    That is an exceptionally good article, Ian. Thank you for that.

    I have bookmarked the source. Are the articles usually that good or was that a one-off?
    Yes. A very interesting article. If May hadn't come out with 'Brexit means Brexit' the Tories wouldn't have taken sole responsibility for it and Corbyn wouldn't have been able to hide and May would have won the election.

    I'm losing count of how many Tory leaders have lost their job thanks to the EU. Thatcher Major Hague Cameron and May have been destroyed by it but there were probably others.
    Aside from at the fringes, the EU wasn't a major issue in the Tory party until about 1988 when it became abundantly clear the ultimate European goal was full political and economic union. Until then, it had been seen - amongst the bulk of the Tory party, with just some exceptions like Biffen and Powell - as just a bigger, liberalised marketplace.

    Whilst there will always be ultra-sovereignists and federalists at the fringes, I'd have thought leaving the EU and replacing it with a new comprehensive trade deal will lance the boil for good because political and economic independence will be assured in the long-term, and there will be no risk of future scope creep.

    We'll probably return to trade policy being a dividing line in British politics - i.e. free trade v. protectionism - which has an even longer history.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    FF43 said:


    Richard_H said:

    I can't see any deal with the DUP, as they probably want things the Tories can't agree. E.g soft border between Northern Ireland and UK mainland, £2 billon extra funding and austerity measures ended.

    The Tories will get their Queens speach through, but then before the party conference in the Autumn, i expect there to be significant challenges to Theresa May, which might lead to a leaders contest before the end of the year. A Tory minority Government will then look to hold a general election in Spring 2018, saying that Brexit will not happen properly, unless tne Tories win a majority.

    if the Tories try to stand on a Brexit only campaign they will get hammered and deservedly so.

    Bar a few die hards people have moved on from Brexit, they now want to know how the govt is going to put more money in their pockets
    Brexit hasn't moved on from them. Perhaps if Theresa May hadn't triggered Article 50 and then an election, we could have forgotten about the whole thing? So no. Brexit dominates everything.
    If one of the bills fails; the govt collapses....the weakest govt in memory; a leader fatally wounded....the road to Brexit looks almost impossible from today's binoculars....

    What if the Brexit vote never took place? Cameron and Osbo would be in power, all powerful, brokering an orderly transition for PM...we would be back into rising interest rates to manage a buoyant economy heading well out of the banking crisis and austerity...and all eyes would be on an 2022 election with the possibility of sweeties against a bitterly divided Labour opposition. Strong and stable Tory Govt until at least 2027.

    You Tories well and truly fucked that one up you Muppets with a capital M. History is going to judge this period very unkindly.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    tyson said:

    Roger said:

    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read, on the future for Labour:

    http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2017/06/13/reassessing-corbynism-success-contradictions-and-a-difficult-path-ahead/

    "Once widely-held truisms – Corbynism is a ‘movement’ more clicktivist than canvasser, Corbyn himself is electorally toxic, Labour face a 1931-style demolition and the collapse of its Parliamentary presence – have been shown to be categorically wrong. Corbyn ran an energetic, positive, smart campaign, founded on an unashamedly tax-and-spend manifesto."

    "None of these [benefits, immigration..] policies could be classed as radical or left wing, and all would be fiercely criticised from the left if proposed or supported by any other Labour leader. Yet Corbyn gets away with it time after time, on reputation alone...But Brexit is the one issue where triangulation is impossible"

    "..until the Corbynite left recognise the danger of building their programme on such ambiguous rhetorical ground, in such an intensely volatile political conjuncture, it is a risk that lies coiled within the movement, regardless of how triumphant it may feel today"

    That is an exceptionally good article, Ian. Thank you for that.

    I have bookmarked the source. Are the articles usually that good or was that a one-off?
    Yes. A very interesting article. If May hadn't come out with 'Brexit means Brexit' the Tories wouldn't have taken sole responsibility for it and Corbyn wouldn't have been able to hide and May would have won the election.

    I'm losing count of how many Tory leaders have lost their job thanks to the EU. Thatcher Major Hague Cameron and May have been destroyed by it but there were probably others.
    Only a week or so we were contemplating the death of the Labour Party as an electoral force....now it is almost inconceivable to see how the Tory party will survive through this omnishambles entirely of their own creation...

    I cannot remember a Govt so singularly unfit to be in power...this makes the John Major drift appear to be a time of revolutionary zeal and power. I was surprised to see the Traffic Cone helpline didn't make it back onto the agenda.
    Yes isn't it great. Who's have thought we might outlive the party of Thatcher Major Howard IDS Gove Johnson Leadsom....sorry I'm feeling nauseous
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Re hard and soft Brexit, a lot of confusion cones in because of the pejorative nature of the terms. Soft implies better without actually defining itself. You could make the same arguments using strong or weak Brexit and public support would shift dramatically overnight.

    This is touched on in the podcast. Pundits are adding together approval or disapproval for different types of Brexit without regard to whether they are compatible, and without considering if respondents even understand what is meant by each choice, which is highly doubtful. And as you say, that one sounds safer than the other.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669
    Sandpit said:

    nichomar said:

    Retrofiting sprinkler systems to existing buildings is going to be a challenge. Its not justa few pipes attached to the mains, it requires either a resevoir on the top of the building which probably cant support it or large ground/underground tanks with heavy duty pumps to get the water to the top. Couple that with the potential of removing similar cladding on other buildings etc is going to cost a fortune. I hope the government have a good contingency fund i dont think they will get way with ignoring things.

    Trying to pretty up old tower blocks which have no locally monitored central fire alarms, sprinklers, dry risers, staircase extraction or even two staircases is a really bad idea. The old idea of containment doesn't work on externally clad buildings, where fire can take hold and spread on the outside.

    The choice is either to keep them ugly and energy-inefficient, or knock them down and rebuild to modern standards.

    Does anyone know how many old tower blocks in the UK have been externally re-clad?
    Wasn't there also the possibility of using cladding which doesn't catch fire. I was horrified to learn that flammable cladding was even legal let alone in wide use.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461

    Mr. 64, constituency. Conservatives were 60/1 to win it. The other three parties were each 33/1. I backed the blues at 60/1 and the bet was, shockingly, voided (Betfair Sportsbook).

    I think that's fair enough, because it was mathematically daft, and obviously so. However, with the to be classified bets, every driver is participating in the race *and* the corresponding value bets existed in the opposite (not to be classified) market. They might be voided but is isn't as clear cut for those reasons.

    We'll see. I still shouldn't've got carried away, but there we are.

    oops yes, just a little out there.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    nichomar said:

    Retrofiting sprinkler systems to existing buildings is going to be a challenge. Its not justa few pipes attached to the mains, it requires either a resevoir on the top of the building which probably cant support it or large ground/underground tanks with heavy duty pumps to get the water to the top. Couple that with the potential of removing similar cladding on other buildings etc is going to cost a fortune. I hope the government have a good contingency fund i dont think they will get way with ignoring things.

    I think the government is required by law to have a 2% contingency in their budgets - it would be around £15 billion this year, but I don't know how much has been spent to date
    Well, Kensington and Chelsea council has £274m in reserves, which I expect they'd love to contribute.
    And I am sure that local councils will lead on any refurbishment, with support from central funds where necessary.

    It was interesting that it was the Corporation of London that bought the flats yesterday though. Admittedly they have a very different structure to local councils - they can pretty much do what they like when they like. It may be that there were restrictions on RBKC spending £10m on housing.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,919
    sarissa said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Toxic gases released during Grenfell Tower fire may have caused some deaths

    Experts say insulation boards on the outside of Grenfell Tower may have filled flats with hydrogen cyanide when they caught fire."

    http://news.sky.com/story/toxic-gases-released-during-grenfell-tower-fire-may-have-caused-some-deaths-10922685

    So does toxic gases release from either type of cladding (banned and legal) Just goes from bad to worse
    I am really surprised that this confusion between the cladding (aluminium/insulation/aluminium panel 4-6mm thick overall) and the separately installed insulation (150mm thick) has been allowed to persist. it is the latter which presumably caught fire first and transmitted the fire from floor to floor. It is the integrity and detailing of this which is presumable the crucial factor. All the whipped up outrage about choosing a posh looking panel to meet planning guidelines is obscuring this point.
    It’s clear from footage of the fire that the external cladding was burning: you can see the burning panels dropping off the building. The insulation will burn if you get it hot enough & generates hydrogen cyanide it its smoke which can’t have helped either.

    The cladding is *not* insulating - it’s just very thin (0.5mm) layers of Aluminium with 5mm of polythylene in between for stiffness. Cheap, lightweight, you can print whatever colour you like on the Al layers, you can shape them however you like: no wonder architects like it.

    I imagine any inquest will do some burns with test installations & we’ll know what happened after that.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    @Casino...if you think Brexit is going to lance the Tory boil on Europe you are bonkers.

    You Brexiters are so deluded. I guess like ISIS, your rampant, destructive, obsessional, ideology kind of impairs your judgement ever so slightly.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    tyson said:

    FF43 said:


    Richard_H said:

    I can't see any deal with the DUP, as they probably want things the Tories can't agree. E.g soft border between Northern Ireland and UK mainland, £2 billon extra funding and austerity measures ended.

    The Tories will get their Queens speach through, but then before the party conference in the Autumn, i expect there to be significant challenges to Theresa May, which might lead to a leaders contest before the end of the year. A Tory minority Government will then look to hold a general election in Spring 2018, saying that Brexit will not happen properly, unless tne Tories win a majority.

    if the Tories try to stand on a Brexit only campaign they will get hammered and deservedly so.

    Bar a few die hards people have moved on from Brexit, they now want to know how the govt is going to put more money in their pockets
    Brexit hasn't moved on from them. Perhaps if Theresa May hadn't triggered Article 50 and then an election, we could have forgotten about the whole thing? So no. Brexit dominates everything.
    If one of the bills fails; the govt collapses....the weakest govt in memory; a leader fatally wounded....the road to Brexit looks almost impossible from today's binoculars....

    What if the Brexit vote never took place? Cameron and Osbo would be in power, all powerful, brokering an orderly transition for PM...we would be back into rising interest rates to manage a buoyant economy heading well out of the banking crisis and austerity...and all eyes would be on an 2022 election with the possibility of sweeties against a bitterly divided Labour opposition. Strong and stable Tory Govt until at least 2027.

    You Tories well and truly fucked that one up you Muppets with a capital M. History is going to judge this period very unkindly.
    I think most of them know this already - no need to rub it in :-)
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113

    Re hard and soft Brexit, a lot of confusion cones in because of the pejorative nature of the terms. Soft implies better without actually defining itself. You could make the same arguments using strong or weak Brexit and public support would shift dramatically overnight.

    This is touched on in the podcast. Pundits are adding together approval or disapproval for different types of Brexit without regard to whether they are compatible, and without considering if respondents even understand what is meant by each choice, which is highly doubtful. And as you say, that one sounds safer than the other.
    And crucially whether any of them will be acceptable to the EU. It's almost as though we're negotiating with ourselves. It's a quite extraordinary level of mass myopia.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    tyson said:

    FF43 said:


    Richard_H said:

    I can't see any deal with the DUP, as they probably want things the Tories can't agree. E.g soft border between Northern Ireland and UK mainland, £2 billon extra funding and austerity measures ended.

    The Tories will get their Queens speach through, but then before the party conference in the Autumn, i expect there to be significant challenges to Theresa May, which might lead to a leaders contest before the end of the year. A Tory minority Government will then look to hold a general election in Spring 2018, saying that Brexit will not happen properly, unless tne Tories win a majority.

    if the Tories try to stand on a Brexit only campaign they will get hammered and deservedly so.

    Bar a few die hards people have moved on from Brexit, they now want to know how the govt is going to put more money in their pockets
    Brexit hasn't moved on from them. Perhaps if Theresa May hadn't triggered Article 50 and then an election, we could have forgotten about the whole thing? So no. Brexit dominates everything.
    If one of the bills fails; the govt collapses....the weakest govt in memory; a leader fatally wounded....the road to Brexit looks almost impossible from today's binoculars....

    What if the Brexit vote never took place? Cameron and Osbo would be in power, all powerful, brokering an orderly transition for PM...we would be back into rising interest rates to manage a buoyant economy heading well out of the banking crisis and austerity...and all eyes would be on an 2022 election with the possibility of sweeties against a bitterly divided Labour opposition. Strong and stable Tory Govt until at least 2027.

    You Tories well and truly fucked that one up you Muppets with a capital M. History is going to judge this period very unkindly.
    Another bloke living abroad who doesn't have a clue what's going on here. Aside from the odd weirdo on here all people talk about is the weather. I threw "soft brexit" into a group of 18 golfers yesterday, they all looked at me with a glazed expression.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited June 2017

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. 64, *sighs*

    Don't have Coral account yet. I was tempted to get one but decided against (sign-up page had a security question mark at the time).

    Anyway, I may well be on the radar anyway for betting on Merhi not to be classified when he, er, wasn't racing.

    Sound advice from you, and I shouldn't've got carried away. Lesson learned, I suppose. [Still, betting's about taking advantage of good odds... bit unfair if someone's then 'on the radar' for doing that].

    If you want to annoy the bookies some more, try placing a large each way bet on the drivers' champion, for the currently second placed man, with a couple of races left ;)
    ha I love that too. which bookie was that with?
    In this case it was a hypothetical example, each-way betting opportunities (and how he bookies react to those who take advantage of what's offered) being a long running subject on here - usually with regard to horses and regular punters here getting accounts closed or severely restricted as a result.

    e.g. a four horse race where the prices are 1/10, 10/1, 100/1 and 100/1, try and get an e/w on the second favourite for 1/3 of the odds for top 2 and watch the reaction!
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    tyson said:

    FF43 said:


    Richard_H said:

    I can't see any deal with the DUP, as they probably want things the Tories can't agree. E.g soft border between Northern Ireland and UK mainland, £2 billon extra funding and austerity measures ended.

    The Tories will get their Queens speach through, but then before the party conference in the Autumn, i expect there to be significant challenges to Theresa May, which might lead to a leaders contest before the end of the year. A Tory minority Government will then look to hold a general election in Spring 2018, saying that Brexit will not happen properly, unless tne Tories win a majority.

    if the Tories try to stand on a Brexit only campaign they will get hammered and deservedly so.

    Bar a few die hards people have moved on from Brexit, they now want to know how the govt is going to put more money in their pockets
    Brexit hasn't moved on from them. Perhaps if Theresa May hadn't triggered Article 50 and then an election, we could have forgotten about the whole thing? So no. Brexit dominates everything.
    If one of the bills fails; the govt collapses.
    Nope. FTPA.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    tyson said:

    @Casino...if you think Brexit is going to lance the Tory boil on Europe you are bonkers.

    You Brexiters are so deluded. I guess like ISIS, your rampant, destructive, obsessional, ideology kind of impairs your judgement ever so slightly.

    Ooooh that's new one, if you're a Tory Leaver you're no better than ISIS.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    @Morris_Dancer Exploiting bookies pricing errors is long term the correct way to make money. I had Wokingham changed from 33-1 to 1-100 for the meagre £1.17 I was allowed on.
    The 1-100 was just fine.
    One thing to be careful of with a price that you consider "very wrong" is to go backing the other side for an arb - that can leave you out of pocket if one side is voided but not the other.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. 64, *sighs*

    Don't have Coral account yet. I was tempted to get one but decided against (sign-up page had a security question mark at the time).

    Anyway, I may well be on the radar anyway for betting on Merhi not to be classified when he, er, wasn't racing.

    Sound advice from you, and I shouldn't've got carried away. Lesson learned, I suppose. [Still, betting's about taking advantage of good odds... bit unfair if someone's then 'on the radar' for doing that].

    If you want to annoy the bookies some more, try placing a large each way bet on the drivers' champion, for the currently second placed man, with a couple of races left ;)
    ha I love that too. which bookie was that with?
    In this case it was a hypothetical example, each-way betting opportunities (and how he bookies react to those who take advantage of what's offered) being a long running subject on here - usually with regard to horses and regular punters here getting accounts closed or severely restricted as a result.

    e.g. a four horse race where the prices are 1/10, 10/1, 100/1 and 100/1, try and get an e/w on the second favourite for 1/3 of the odds for top 2 and watch the reaction!
    ah yes I see, thanks.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760

    tyson said:

    FF43 said:


    Richard_H said:

    I can't see any deal with the DUP, as they probably want things the Tories can't agree. E.g soft border between Northern Ireland and UK mainland, £2 billon extra funding and austerity measures ended.

    The Tories will get their Queens speach through, but then before the party conference in the Autumn, i expect there to be significant challenges to Theresa May, which might lead to a leaders contest before the end of the year. A Tory minority Government will then look to hold a general election in Spring 2018, saying that Brexit will not happen properly, unless tne Tories win a majority.

    if the Tories try to stand on a Brexit only campaign they will get hammered and deservedly so.

    Bar a few die hards people have moved on from Brexit, they now want to know how the govt is going to put more money in their pockets
    Brexit hasn't moved on from them. Perhaps if Theresa May hadn't triggered Article 50 and then an election, we could have forgotten about the whole thing? So no. Brexit dominates everything.
    If one of the bills fails; the govt collapses....the weakest govt in memory; a leader fatally wounded....the road to Brexit looks almost impossible from today's binoculars....

    What if the Brexit vote never took place? Cameron and Osbo would be in power, all powerful, brokering an orderly transition for PM...we would be back into rising interest rates to manage a buoyant economy heading well out of the banking crisis and austerity...and all eyes would be on an 2022 election with the possibility of sweeties against a bitterly divided Labour opposition. Strong and stable Tory Govt until at least 2027.

    You Tories well and truly fucked that one up you Muppets with a capital M. History is going to judge this period very unkindly.
    Another bloke living abroad who doesn't have a clue what's going on here. Aside from the odd weirdo on here all people talk about is the weather. I threw "soft brexit" into a group of 18 golfers yesterday, they all looked at me with a glazed expression.
    This is true, 90% of the country don't care about the type of Brexit. They know its coming and are absorbed in their own lives. This forum is for those hyper aware of every single poll, debate and interview. Outside in the real world people see an underwhelming PM, a radical opposition leader, a Brexit process and a terrorist threat. Little else in the political sphere occupies their thoughts.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,911
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Roger said:


    Corbyn has always been anti-EU - he sees it as a capitalist construct designed to entrench corporate interests and to prevent one-state socialism through prohibitions on state aid and the like. He hid away during the referendum campaign and deliberately sought to sabotage the Labour Remain effort. He also refused to share a platform with David Cameron. It is very likely that if he had campaigned for Remain as he campaigned in May and June, we would not now be leaving the EU.

    Corbyn's problem, though, is that he leads a party which is very largely pro-EU and profoundly against a hard Brexit. If it comes to it - which it may well not - his choice is to walk through the lobbies with the rest of the PLP, abstain or to walk through the lobbies with the Tories. My guess is that he will not do the latter.

    What do you consider a hard Brexit? If we get tariff free trade is that a hard Brexit or a soft one? If we agree that all EU citizens who were here in June have indefinite leave to remain is that then a soft Brexit?

    I can't help but think that these terms, let alone terms like diamond Brexit have become vacuous. What the government says it is looking for is not in my view a hard Brexit. Do you agree?
    Guido said it right the other day:
    https://order-order.com/2017/06/20/soft-and-hard-brexit-terms-obsolete/
    Remainers and their media allies need to be honest about what they mean when they talk about “soft Brexit”. If “soft Brexit” means staying inside the single market (not taking back control of borders), staying inside the customs union (not taking back control of trade), and staying inside the ECJ (not taking back control of laws), then that is not Brexit. Hammond and other Remainers in the Cabinet have accepted this. Only hardcore Remainers don’t.

    This language is used exclusively by Remain supporters, Brexiters reject it entirely.

    Nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.
    – Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP

    Only a madman would actually leave the market.
    – Owen Paterson, Conservative MP

    Increasingly the Norway option looks the best for the UK.
    – Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder

    Referendum campaign quotes courtesy of Lib Dem Voice
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545

    Roger said:

    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read, on the future for Labour:

    http..,.m.. it may feel today"

    That is an exceptionally good article, Ian. Thank you for that.

    I have bookmarked the source. Are the articles usually that good or was that a one-off?
    Yes. A very interesting article. If May hadn't come out with 'Brexit means Brexit' the Tories wouldn't have taken sole responsibility for it and Corbyn wouldn't have been able to hide and May would have won the election.

    I'm losing count of how many Tory leaders have lost their job thanks to the EU. Thatcher Major Hague Cameron and May have been destroyed by it but there were probably others.
    Aside from at the fringes, the EU wasn't a major issue in the Tory party until about 1988 when it became abundantly clear the ultimate European goal was full political and economic union. Until then, it had been seen - amongst the bulk of the Tory party, with just some exceptions like Biffen and Powell - as just a bigger, liberalised marketplace.

    Whilst there will always be ultra-sovereignists and federalists at the fringes, I'd have thought leaving the EU and replacing it with a new comprehensive trade deal will lance the boil for good because political and economic independence will be assured in the long-term, and there will be no risk of future scope creep.

    We'll probably return to trade policy being a dividing line in British politics - i.e. free trade v. protectionism - which has an even longer history.
    The one thing I have been certain of all along is that Brexit won't resolve anything. Unless the EU collapses under its own contradictions. In which case we can feel smug about getting out first. Not very likely though. Otherwise we will have to deal with a dominant EU, at the same trying to undermine it, co-opt it, ignore it. Ironically the EU will be far more dominant in our lives outside than in. It' will disappoint people who voted Leave because they don't like the EU very much and would rather like to have less to do with it.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    Brom said:

    tyson said:

    FF43 said:


    Richard_H said:

    I can't see any deal with the DUP, as they probably want things the Tories can't agree. E.g soft border between Northern Ireland and UK mainland, £2 billon extra funding and austerity measures ended.

    The Tories will get their Queens speach through, but then before the party conference in the Autumn, i expect there to be significant challenges to Theresa May, which might lead to a leaders contest before the end of the year. A Tory minority Government will then look to hold a general election in Spring 2018, saying that Brexit will not happen properly, unless tne Tories win a majority.

    if the Tories try to stand on a Brexit only campaign they will get hammered and deservedly so.

    Bar a few die hards people have moved on from Brexit, they now want to know how the govt is going to put more money in their pockets
    Brexit hasn't moved on from them. Perhaps if Theresa May hadn't triggered Article 50 and then an election, we could have forgotten about the whole thing? So no. Brexit dominates everything.
    If one of the bills fails; the govt collapses....the weakest govt in memory; a leader fatally wounded....the road to Brexit looks almost impossible from today's binoculars....

    What if the Brexit vote never took place? Cameron and Osbo would be in power, all powerful, brokering an orderly transition for PM...we would be back into rising interest rates to manage a buoyant economy heading well out of the banking crisis and austerity...and all eyes would be on an 2022 election with the possibility of sweeties against a bitterly divided Labour opposition. Strong and stable Tory Govt until at least 2027.

    You Tories well and truly fucked that one up you Muppets with a capital M. History is going to judge this period very unkindly.
    Another bloke living abroad who doesn't have a clue what's going on here. Aside from the odd weirdo on here all people talk about is the weather. I threw "soft brexit" into a group of 18 golfers yesterday, they all looked at me with a glazed expression.
    This is true, 90% of the country don't care about the type of Brexit. They know its coming and are absorbed in their own lives. This forum is for those hyper aware of every single poll, debate and interview. Outside in the real world people see an underwhelming PM, a radical opposition leader, a Brexit process and a terrorist threat. Little else in the political sphere occupies their thoughts.
    Spot on, its interesting that the two most vehemently opposed to Brexit and abusive to those who voted for it don't live here.

    It's happening, have another plate of foie gras and accept it, everybody else has.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Phil said:

    sarissa said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Toxic gases released during Grenfell Tower fire may have caused some deaths

    Experts say insulation boards on the outside of Grenfell Tower may have filled flats with hydrogen cyanide when they caught fire."

    http://news.sky.com/story/toxic-gases-released-during-grenfell-tower-fire-may-have-caused-some-deaths-10922685

    So does toxic gases release from either type of cladding (banned and legal) Just goes from bad to worse
    the crucial factor. All the whipped up outrage about choosing a posh looking panel to meet planning guidelines is obscuring this point.
    It’s clear from footage of the fire that the external cladding was burning: you can see the burning panels dropping off the building. The insulation will burn if you get it hot enough & generates hydrogen cyanide it its smoke which can’t have helped either.

    The cladding is *not* insulating - it’s just very thin (0.5mm) layers of Aluminium with 5mm of polythylene in between for stiffness. Cheap, lightweight, you can print whatever colour you like on the Al layers, you can shape them however you like: no wonder architects like it.

    I imagine any inquest will do some burns with test installations & we’ll know what happened after that.
    I think the full impact is yet to start seeping into the general consciousness. Grenfell is the horrible outcome of where we have put ourselves. We are doing everything on the cheap, a thin veneer of prosperity and progress papering over deep and fundamental flaws. And we are told it's to ensure the economy survives and yet the evidence suggests that it merely assists in the transfer of what remains of public wealth into private pockets whilst the rest are left to stagnate on 2008 incomes as prices rise beyond the ability to afford them. At the margins lives are being destroyed, communities impoverished and everything below 'managing' is being hollowed out. The managing are standing above a future sink hole. And when the shit hits the fan, it will be the Fault of everybody that loses out, not those in control of the wealth. It will be the feckless, the restless, the discontent that are to blame for the inconvenience of the elite. We are doing it all wrong, and not facing the reality of a broken and crippled society. Ability to work assessments, closure of local services essential to those that need them most, wage stagnation with normal inflation, cheap, nasty solutions to fundamental problems.
    Corbyn is popular because he has given a view of something else, anything else. If the Tories want to come back they need to find a similar glimpse of a new possibility in tune with their own ideals that addresses the problems on the ground not the slight pastry failings of the pie in the sky.
  • kurtjesterkurtjester Posts: 121
    tyson said:

    @Casino...if you think Brexit is going to lance the Tory boil on Europe you are bonkers.

    You Brexiters are so deluded. I guess like ISIS, your rampant, destructive, obsessional, ideology kind of impairs your judgement ever so slightly.

    Calm down, and think of your tax avoidance.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited June 2017
    Brom said:

    tyson said:

    FF43 said:


    Richard_H said:

    I can't see any deal with the DUP, as they probably want things the Tories can't agree. E.g soft border between Northern Ireland and UK mainland, £2 billon extra funding and austerity measures ended.

    The Tories will get their Queens speach through, but then before the party conference in the Autumn, i expect there to be significant challenges to Theresa May, which might lead to a leaders contest before the end of the year. A Tory minority Government will then look to hold a general election in Spring 2018, saying that Brexit will not happen properly, unless tne Tories win a majority.

    if the Tories try to stand on a Brexit only campaign they will get hammered and deservedly so.

    Bar a few die hards people have moved on from Brexit, they now want to know how the govt is going to put more money in their pockets
    Brexit hasn't moved on from them. Perhaps if Theresa May hadn't triggered Article 50 and then an election, we could have forgotten about the whole thing? So no. Brexit dominates everything.
    If one of the bills fails; the govt collapses....the weakest govt in memory; a leader fatally wounded....the road to Brexit looks almost impossible from today's binoculars....

    What if the Brexit vote never took place? Cameron and Osbo would be in power, all powerful, brokering an orderly transition for PM...we would be back into rising interest rates to manage a buoyant economy heading well out of the banking crisis and austerity...and all eyes would be on an 2022 election with the possibility of sweeties against a bitterly divided Labour opposition. Strong and stable Tory Govt until at least 2027.

    You Tories well and truly fucked that one up you Muppets with a capital M. History is going to judge this period very unkindly.
    Another bloke living abroad who doesn't have a clue what's going on here. Aside from the odd weirdo on here all people talk about is the weather. I threw "soft brexit" into a group of 18 golfers yesterday, they all looked at me with a glazed expression.
    This is true, 90% of the country don't care about the type of Brexit. They know its coming and are absorbed in their own lives. This forum is for those hyper aware of every single poll, debate and interview. Outside in the real world people see an underwhelming PM, a radical opposition leader, a Brexit process and a terrorist threat. Little else in the political sphere occupies their thoughts.
    Thats a Tory wish list. Everyone getting on with their lives. Far too busy to notice the biggest political cock-up of the last 50 years......
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    F1: from the gossip column. Old news but rather interesting.

    Alonso turned down a move to Brawn in 2009.

    ....

    He's a fantastic driver, but is there a worse man for picking teams in the whole sport? He might well have 5-6 titles by now had he made that move.

    Oh, and Todt reckons teams could rise form 10 to 12. That tallies with some other rumours from a few days ago.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049

    tyson said:

    FF43 said:


    Richard_H said:

    I can't see any deal with the DUP, as they probably want things the Tories can't agree. E.g soft border between Northern Ireland and UK mainland, £2 billon extra funding and austerity measures ended.

    The Tories will get their Queens speach through, but then before the party conference in the Autumn, i expect there to be significant challenges to Theresa May, which might lead to a leaders contest before the end of the year. A Tory minority Government will then look to hold a general election in Spring 2018, saying that Brexit will not happen properly, unless tne Tories win a majority.

    if the Tories try to stand on a Brexit only campaign they will get hammered and deservedly so.

    Bar a few die hards people have moved on from Brexit, they now want to know how the govt is going to put more money in their pockets
    Brexit hasn't moved on from them. Perhaps if Theresa May hadn't triggered Article 50 and then an election, we could have forgotten about the whole thing? So no. Brexit dominates everything.
    If one of the bills fails; the govt collapses....the weakest govt in memory; a leader fatally wounded....the road to Brexit looks almost impossible from today's binoculars....

    What if the Brexit vote never took place? Cameron and Osbo would be in power, all powerful, brokering an orderly transition for PM...we would be back into rising interest rates to manage a buoyant economy heading well out of the banking crisis and austerity...and all eyes would be on an 2022 election with the possibility of sweeties against a bitterly divided Labour opposition. Strong and stable Tory Govt until at least 2027.

    You Tories well and truly fucked that one up you Muppets with a capital M. History is going to judge this period very unkindly.
    Another bloke living abroad who doesn't have a clue what's going on here. Aside from the odd weirdo on here all people talk about is the weather. I threw "soft brexit" into a group of 18 golfers yesterday, they all looked at me with a glazed expression.
    Since no-one appears to have the remotest clue what Brexit is or entails...apart from the Brexit headbangers who are little better than Milosevic's ideological nationalists willing to destroy a country for an idea..... I am hardly surprised your golfing pals seemed slightly confused....

    When you have Redwood pleading for an end of austerity so his nihilistic dream of Brexit comes to fruition you know things are really in trouble....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    nichomar said:

    Retrofiting sprinkler systems to existing buildings is going to be a challenge. Its not justa few pipes attached to the mains, it requires either a resevoir on the top of the building which probably cant support it or large ground/underground tanks with heavy duty pumps to get the water to the top. Couple that with the potential of removing similar cladding on other buildings etc is going to cost a fortune. I hope the government have a good contingency fund i dont think they will get way with ignoring things.

    Trying to pretty up old tower blocks which have no locally monitored central fire alarms, sprinklers, dry risers, staircase extraction or even two staircases is a really bad idea. The old idea of containment doesn't work on externally clad buildings, where fire can take hold and spread on the outside.

    The choice is either to keep them ugly and energy-inefficient, or knock them down and rebuild to modern standards.

    Does anyone know how many old tower blocks in the UK have been externally re-clad?
    Wasn't there also the possibility of using cladding which doesn't catch fire. I was horrified to learn that flammable cladding was even legal let alone in wide use.
    It's been a huge problem in my part of the world, a number of serious fires over the past decade or so. Luckily, these were in modern buildings with the other features I mentioned and resulted in successful evacuations. Subsequent investigations revealed flaws in the design standards for the cladding as well as building codes, which have been severely tightened as a result. http://www.thenational.ae/business/property/revealed-how-the-address-downtown-dubai-hotel-fire-test-was-meaningless

    There are newer standards available that are more fire-resistant, but I doubt any of them would provide the level of containment necessary when refurbing an old social-housing tower with one staircase and no central alarm system or sprinklers.

    My hunch is that in the recent fire the cladding actually used on the building wasn't of the standard specified by the architect, and some poor bugger who tried to save a few quid somewhere down the line is going to end up charged with manslaughter.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    DavidL said:

    Roger said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    And given the vast majority of MPs, CLPs, members and unions are pro-EU, Corbyn and McDonnell would have to compromise.





    I think Jezza is supremely unbothered by Brexit, either way.

    I suspect that he will not want to whip any policy, and may even make these free votes. Indeed I think we may see a lot of free votes, thereby making virtue out of neccesity.
    The excellent article Ian referred to is very good on this.

    It's reversal.

    He fine.

    The it.
    As someone who finds himslf blowing hot and cold on Corbyn when I heard John Healey being evasive when asked why Corbyn didn't use his persuasive powers in support of Remain I'm now blowing cold. Why didn't he? Was it just political opportunism?.

    If so he's no better than May. He was so far behind last time and commentatrs were so obsessed by terrorist links that no one bothered to ask him but if Brexit goes pear shaped I hope his part in it will be scrutinised.

    Corbyn EU.

    Corbyn's latter.

    What do you consider a hard Brexit? If we get tariff free trade is that a hard Brexit or a soft one? If we agree that all EU citizens who were here in June have indefinite leave to remain is that then a soft Brexit?

    I can't help but think that these terms, let alone terms like diamond Brexit have become vacuous. What the government says it is looking for is not in my view a hard Brexit. Do you agree?

    I don't know what kind of Brexit the government wants, to be honest. I know it has some overriding aims, but the specifics are very vague. Citizens rights is a key issue that has yet to be determined. A hard Brexit would see these significantly curtailed, a soft Brexit will see them substantially maintained. Will my kids have substantially the same rights as their contemporaries in the EU27 to work, live and study in other European countries? If the answer is yes, that's a soft Brexit. If the answer is no, then it's a hard Brexit. And another one: will British companies continue to operate inside the single market in substantially the same way as they do now? If the answer is yes, then it's a soft Brexit. If the answer is no, then it's a hard Brexit.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    Very strong statement by Theresa May in the HOC over the fire tragedy
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    edited June 2017

    tyson said:

    @Casino...if you think Brexit is going to lance the Tory boil on Europe you are bonkers.

    You Brexiters are so deluded. I guess like ISIS, your rampant, destructive, obsessional, ideology kind of impairs your judgement ever so slightly.

    Calm down, and think of your tax avoidance.
    and freetochoose.....

    I live in the UK now...I had to come back after Brexit because my Italian wife never took up citizenship here. I don't know if you can even remotely being to understand the anxieties that Brexit has created for millions of individuals who have contributed to our economy over many years...and for what? Rising inflation, squeezed living standards, political uncertainty,. a threat to the union and the prospect of courting favour with extreme regimes to get grubby trade deals through.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049

    Very strong statement by Theresa May in the HOC over the fire tragedy

    Was it stable too?

  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    Re hard and soft Brexit, a lot of confusion cones in because of the pejorative nature of the terms. Soft implies better without actually defining itself. You could make the same arguments using strong or weak Brexit and public support would shift dramatically overnight.

    Correct. It is a bit like "progressive" the left's favourite and now essentially meaningless word.
  • kurtjesterkurtjester Posts: 121
    edited June 2017
    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    @Casino...if you think Brexit is going to lance the Tory boil on Europe you are bonkers.

    You Brexiters are so deluded. I guess like ISIS, your rampant, destructive, obsessional, ideology kind of impairs your judgement ever so slightly.

    Calm down, and think of your tax avoidance.
    and freetochoose.....

    I live in the UK now...I had to come back after Brexit because my Italian wife never took up citizenship here. I don't know if you can even remotely being to understand the anxieties that Brexit has created for millions of individuals who have contributed to our economy over many years...and for what? Rising inflation, squeezed living standards, political uncertainty,. a threat to the union and the prospect of courting favour with extreme regimes to get grubby trade deals through.
    There was nothing to stop you staying in Italy.

    I find it hard to be sympathetic towards a Rentier landlord who returned for self interested financial reasons.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,919
    Sandpit said:



    My hunch is that in the recent fire the cladding actually used on the building wasn't of the standard specified by the architect, and some poor bugger who tried to save a few quid somewhere down the line is going to end up charged with manslaughter.

    Yup. The Architects who did the initial design work have already stated that they specified the non-combustible version of the cladding (note not the insulation - that was still flammable but had recently been approved for high-rise use so long as the installation followed some fairly stringent requirements regarding fire abatement). Somewhere between architect and installer someone switched it to the (slightly cheaper) combustible version to save £5000.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    tyson said:

    Very strong statement by Theresa May in the HOC over the fire tragedy

    Was it stable too?

    Not really a joking matter Tyson
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Danny Shaw‏ @DannyShawBBC

    There were 65,648,000 people in Britain last June - up 538,000 on 2015, equivalent to a city the size of Bradford.

    I wonder why we have a housing crisis......
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited June 2017

    DavidL said:

    Roger said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    And given the vast majority of MPs, CLPs, members and unions are pro-EU, Corbyn and McDonnell would have to compromise.





    I think Jezza is supremely unbothered by Brexit, either way.

    I suspect that he will not want to whip any policy, and may even make these free votes. Indeed I think we may see a lot of free votes, thereby making virtue out of neccesity.
    The excellent article Ian referred to is very good on this.

    It's reversal.

    He fine.

    The it.
    As someone who finds himslf blowing hot and cold on Corbyn when I heard John Healey being evasive when asked why Corbyn didn't use his persuasive powers in support of Remain I'm now blowing cold. Why didn't he? Was it just political opportunism?.

    If so he's no better than May. He was so far behind last time and commentatrs were so obsessed by terrorist links that no one bothered to ask him but if Brexit goes pear shaped I hope his part in it will be scrutinised.

    Corbyn EU.

    Corbyn's latter.



    I can't help but think that these terms, let alone terms like diamond Brexit have become vacuous. What the government says it is looking for is not in my view a hard Brexit. Do you agree?

    I don't know what kind of Brexit the government wants, to be honest. I know it has some overriding aims, but the specifics are very vague. Citizens rights is a key issue that has yet to be determined. A hard Brexit would see these significantly curtailed, a soft Brexit will see them substantially maintained. Will my kids have substantially the same rights as their contemporaries in the EU27 to work, live and study in other European countries? If the answer is yes, that's a soft Brexit. If the answer is no, then it's a hard Brexit. And another one: will British companies continue to operate inside the single market in substantially the same way as they do now? If the answer is yes, then it's a soft Brexit. If the answer is no, then it's a hard Brexit.

    Didn't you think it was worth finding out whether your kids would be severely disadvantaged compared to their contemporaries in the EU 27 BEFORE you put your 'X' against Leave?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Brom said:

    tyson said:

    FF43 said:


    Richard_H said:

    I can't see any deal with the DUP, as they probably want things the Tories can't agree. E.g soft border between Northern Ireland and UK mainland, £2 billon extra funding and austerity measures ended.

    The majority.

    if the Tories try to stand on a Brexit only campaign they will get hammered and deservedly so.

    Bar a few die hards people have moved on from Brexit, they now want to know how the govt is going to put more money in their pockets
    Brexit dominates everything.
    If one of the bills fails; the govt collapses....the weakest govt in memory; a leader fatally wounded....the road to Brexit looks almost impossible from today's binoculars....

    What if the least 2027.

    You Tories well and truly fucked that one up you Muppets with a capital M. History is going to judge this period very unkindly.
    Another bloke living abroad who doesn't have a clue what's going on here. Aside from the odd weirdo on here all people talk about is the weather. I threw "soft brexit" into a group of 18 golfers yesterday, they all looked at me with a glazed expression.
    This is true, 90% of the country don't care about the type of Brexit. They know its coming and are absorbed in their own lives. This forum is for those hyper aware of every single poll, debate and interview. Outside in the real world people see an underwhelming PM, a radical opposition leader, a Brexit process and a terrorist threat. Little else in the political sphere occupies their thoughts.

    Hmmm - I am not sure that 90% of the country will shrug their shoulders and say "oh well" if we end up with a Brexit that leads to substantial job losses, higher taxes and even more cuts to public services. As the Chancellor said earlier this week - nobody voted to make themselves poorer. I'd agree that 90% (probably more) are not interested in the details of the Brexit negotiations. But that is a very different point.

  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,919


    Corbyn is popular because he has given a view of something else, anything else. If the Tories want to come back they need to find a similar glimpse of a new possibility in tune with their own ideals that addresses the problems on the ground not the slight pastry failings of the pie in the sky.

    Agreed. Where were the sunlit uplands in the conservative campaign? No-where - no vision, just more of the same when the working population are getting very, very tired of more of the same whilst the retired get the equivalent of feather pillows and Egyptian cotton sheets (even if it doesn’t feel like that to them).
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    edited June 2017
    Morning saboteurs of PB

    All this stuff about hard/soft Brexit seems pointless to me now the DUP have confirmed they are in favour of leaving the single market and customs union and will be voting with the government?

    Even accounting for Con rebellions from the likes of Clarke and Soubry the government should still have the numbers for the Brexit they want (especially as you'll have a few people on the Labour side like Field and Hoey also voting with the government)
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049

    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    @Casino...if you think Brexit is going to lance the Tory boil on Europe you are bonkers.

    You Brexiters are so deluded. I guess like ISIS, your rampant, destructive, obsessional, ideology kind of impairs your judgement ever so slightly.

    Calm down, and think of your tax avoidance.
    and freetochoose.....

    I live in the UK now...I had to come back after Brexit because my Italian wife never took up citizenship here. I don't know if you can even remotely being to understand the anxieties that Brexit has created for millions of individuals who have contributed to our economy over many years...and for what? Rising inflation, squeezed living standards, political uncertainty,. a threat to the union and the prospect of courting favour with extreme regimes to get grubby trade deals through.
    There was nothing to stop you staying in Italy.
    Thank you for your opinion. My wife and I paid for legal advice and explored all options based on our circumstances....and in leaving Italy my wife has left elderly Italian parents that were virtually dependent on us...all I needed to do instead was ask your advice instead.....
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Roger said:

    DavidL said:

    Roger said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    And given the vast majority of MPs, CLPs, members and unions are pro-EU, Corbyn and McDonnell would have to compromise.





    I think Jezza is supremely unbothered by Brexit, either way.

    I suspect that he will not want to whip any policy, and may even make these free votes. Indeed I think we may see a lot of free votes, thereby making virtue out of neccesity.
    The excellent article Ian referred to is very good on this.

    It's reversal.

    He fine.

    The it.
    As someone who finds himslf blowing hot and cold on Corbyn when I heard John Healey being evasive when asked why Corbyn didn't use his persuasive powers in support of Remain I'm now blowing cold. Why didn't he? Was it just political opportunism?.

    If so he's no better than May. He was so far behind last time and commentatrs were so obsessed by terrorist links that no one bothered to ask him but if Brexit goes pear shaped I hope his part in it will be scrutinised.

    Corbyn EU.

    Corbyn's latter.



    I can't help but think that these terms, let alone terms like diamond Brexit have become vacuous. What the government says it is looking for is not in my view a hard Brexit. Do you agree?

    I don't If the answer is no, then it's a hard Brexit.

    Didn't you think it was worth finding out whether your kids would be severely disadvantaged compared to their contempories in the EU 27 BEFORE you put your 'X' against Leave?

    I did. It's one of the reasons why I voted to Remain. For me, any gains that Brexit might bring were (and are) far outweighed by the pains it is likely to deliver.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    (Previous message meant for David)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,023
    tyson said:

    @Casino...if you think Brexit is going to lance the Tory boil on Europe you are bonkers.

    You Brexiters are so deluded. I guess like ISIS, your rampant, destructive, obsessional, ideology kind of impairs your judgement ever so slightly.

    Yeah, well, I think that post of yours speaks for itself.

    Good luck with the tax planning for your property empire.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    I'm still waiting for an answer as to why there is this absolute linkage between a common market and FOM. You can't have the first without the second supposedly, but why? Somebody must have made that decision but why? and who was it?

    if I made a decision that you can't have sexual intercourse without being married, I suspect it would be ignored. If the government made that decision it would be laughed at. They might argue that it's a noble aim but to demand it must be obeyed ...

    I can understand standardisation, but why not leave FOM up to national governments? If they choose to have it, fine. then they can argue that with their own electorate rather than hiding behind EU laws.

    This, I suspect, is the key issue.

    Farmers are already complaining they can't get enough land workers. What they mean is that they can't get enough land workers at the right price.

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704

    Brom said:

    tyson said:

    FF43 said:


    Richard_H said:

    I can't see any deal with the DUP, as they probably want things the Tories can't agree. E.g soft border between Northern Ireland and UK mainland, £2 billon extra funding and austerity measures ended.

    The majority.

    if the Tories try to stand on a Brexit only campaign they will get hammered and deservedly so.

    Bar a few die hards people have moved on from Brexit, they now want to know how the govt is going to put more money in their pockets
    Brexit dominates everything.
    If one of the bills fails; the govt collapses....the weakest govt in memory; a leader fatally wounded....the road to Brexit looks almost impossible from today's binoculars....

    What if the least 2027.

    You Tories well and truly fucked that one up you Muppets with a capital M. History is going to judge this period very unkindly.
    Another bloke living abroad who doesn't have a clue what's going on here. Aside from the odd weirdo on here all people talk about is the weather. I threw "soft brexit" into a group of 18 golfers yesterday, they all looked at me with a glazed expression.
    This is true, 90% of the country don't care about the type of Brexit. They know its coming and are absorbed in their own lives. This forum is for those hyper aware of every single poll, debate and interview. Outside in the real world people see an underwhelming PM, a radical opposition leader, a Brexit process and a terrorist threat. Little else in the political sphere occupies their thoughts.

    Hmmm - I am not sure that 90% of the country will shrug their shoulders and say "oh well" if we end up with a Brexit that leads to substantial job losses, higher taxes and even more cuts to public services. As the Chancellor said earlier this week - nobody voted to make themselves poorer. I'd agree that 90% (probably more) are not interested in the details of the Brexit negotiations. But that is a very different point.

    This is true, but people also don't vote purely on for what is good for the economy as a whole.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760

    Brom said:

    tyson said:

    FF43 said:


    Richard_H said:

    I can't see any deal with the DUP, as they probably want things the Tories can't agree. E.g soft border between Northern Ireland and UK mainland, £2 billon extra funding and austerity measures ended.

    The majority.

    if the Tories try to stand on a Brexit only campaign they will get hammered and deservedly so.

    Bar a few die hards people have moved on from Brexit, they now want to know how the govt is going to put more money in their pockets
    Brexit dominates everything.
    If one of the bills fails; the govt collapses....the weakest govt in memory; a leader fatally wounded....the road to Brexit looks almost impossible from today's binoculars....

    What if the least 2027.

    You Tories well and truly fucked that one up you Muppets with a capital M. History is going to judge this period very unkindly.
    Another bloke living abroad who doesn't have a clue what's going on here. Aside from the odd weirdo on here all people talk about is the weather. I threw "soft brexit" into a group of 18 golfers yesterday, they all looked at me with a glazed expression.
    This is true, 90% of the country don't care about the type of Brexit. They know its coming and are absorbed in their own lives. This forum is for those hyper aware of every single poll, debate and interview. Outside in the real world people see an underwhelming PM, a radical opposition leader, a Brexit process and a terrorist threat. Little else in the political sphere occupies their thoughts.

    Hmmm - I am not sure that 90% of the country will shrug their shoulders and say "oh well" if we end up with a Brexit that leads to substantial job losses, higher taxes and even more cuts to public services. As the Chancellor said earlier this week - nobody voted to make themselves poorer. I'd agree that 90% (probably more) are not interested in the details of the Brexit negotiations. But that is a very different point.

    Maybe, but those stark economic realities you paint are a great uncertainty and are more than capable of happening in a country without Brexit negotiations. If people think the economy hasn't been working for them inside the EU then it's fair that they hope for opportunity outside of it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    CD13 said:

    I'm still waiting for an answer as to why there is this absolute linkage between a common market and FOM. You can't have the first without the second supposedly, but why? Somebody must have made that decision but why? and who was it?

    if I made a decision that you can't have sexual intercourse without being married, I suspect it would be ignored. If the government made that decision it would be laughed at. They might argue that it's a noble aim but to demand it must be obeyed ...

    I can understand standardisation, but why not leave FOM up to national governments? If they choose to have it, fine. then they can argue that with their own electorate rather than hiding behind EU laws.

    This, I suspect, is the key issue.

    Farmers are already complaining they can't get enough land workers. What they mean is that they can't get enough land workers at the right price.

    The EU was founded on the basis of four freedoms: of goods, labour, capital and services. Since Maastrich 'labour' was extended from 'freedom to be employed in any EU state' to 'freedom to live and enjoy all the same rights as locals in any EU state'.

    Switzerland - which is not a member of the EU or the EEA, but is a member of the single market for goods, and which is in an effective customs union with the EU - has broadly gone for the former definition of freedom of labour, in that there are benefits that accrue only to Swiss citizens.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    CD13 said:

    I'm still waiting for an answer as to why there is this absolute linkage between a common market and FOM. You can't have the first without the second supposedly, but why? Somebody must have made that decision but why? and who was it?

    I have some sympathy with the argument that free trade requires free movement of labour if it is to work best, but I suspect that it was driven by the politics of ever closer union. A marginally less efficient free trade bloc would be something most people in the EU would be happy with if immigration was under more control.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,911

    Brom said:



    Spot on, its interesting that the two most vehemently opposed to Brexit and abusive to those who voted for it don't live here.

    It's happening, have another plate of foie gras and accept it, everybody else has.

    You are correct that most people accept it will happen but that does not imply approval of it.

    I don't believe it will work out well but there is not much option at the moment but to sit it out and watch what happens. The arguments about the consequences have become sterile, both sides with an entrenched view, we are close enough now to sit back and see what actually happens.

    It will not be pretty for the Brexit politicians if "Project Fear" does ultimately prove to be close to the truth.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    CD13 said:

    I'm still waiting for an answer as to why there is this absolute linkage between a common market and FOM. You can't have the first without the second supposedly, but why? Somebody must have made that decision but why? and who was it?

    if I made a decision that you can't have sexual intercourse without being married, I suspect it would be ignored. If the government made that decision it would be laughed at. They might argue that it's a noble aim but to demand it must be obeyed ...

    I can understand standardisation, but why not leave FOM up to national governments? If they choose to have it, fine. then they can argue that with their own electorate rather than hiding behind EU laws.

    This, I suspect, is the key issue.

    Farmers are already complaining they can't get enough land workers. What they mean is that they can't get enough land workers at the right price.

    The right price is dictated by the prices consumers are prepared to pay in supermarkets. If we were all prepared to fork out a lot more for our weekly shop farmers would be free to give their employees higher salaries. But we're not.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited June 2017
    Phil said:

    Sandpit said:



    My hunch is that in the recent fire the cladding actually used on the building wasn't of the standard specified by the architect, and some poor bugger who tried to save a few quid somewhere down the line is going to end up charged with manslaughter.

    Yup. The Architects who did the initial design work have already stated that they specified the non-combustible version of the cladding (note not the insulation - that was still flammable but had recently been approved for high-rise use so long as the installation followed some fairly stringent requirements regarding fire abatement). Somewhere between architect and installer someone switched it to the (slightly cheaper) combustible version to save £5000.
    The "£5,000 saving" is almost certainly a red herring, that figure comes from someone looking at 2017 price lists and specs for work that was carried out some years before when different standards were in force. It could well turn out that the cladding used was that which was specified, and the difference is just intervening inflation or discounting.

    The issue is more likely to be the installation design or process, suitability of the material flammability standings for the application, and the suitability at all of using flammable insulation for an old building that relies on fire containment for survival. I would also guess that similar risks exist in dozens of similar towers around the country, its not something specific to Grenfell Tower.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited June 2017
    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    @Casino...if you think Brexit is going to lance the Tory boil on Europe you are bonkers.

    You Brexiters are so deluded. I guess like ISIS, your rampant, destructive, obsessional, ideology kind of impairs your judgement ever so slightly.

    Calm down, and think of your tax avoidance.
    and freetochoose.....

    I live in the UK now...I had to come back after Brexit because my Italian wife never took up citizenship here. I don't know if you can even remotely being to understand the anxieties that Brexit has created for millions of individuals who have contributed to our economy over many years...and for what? Rising inflation, squeezed living standards, political uncertainty,. a threat to the union and the prospect of courting favour with extreme regimes to get grubby trade deals through.
    There was nothing to stop you staying in Italy.
    Thank you for your opinion. My wife and I paid for legal advice and explored all options based on our circumstances....and in leaving Italy my wife has left elderly Italian parents that were virtually dependent on us...all I needed to do instead was ask your advice instead.....
    I don't think people in the UK realised we were citizens of Europe that is to say 28 countries before this madness took hold. An Italian friend is having the same problem in reverse. He and his English wife have no idea what their status will be and it's causing them much grief.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969

    NEW THREAD

  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    Oops.

    Ah good old "progressive" politics.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    "I live in the UK now...I had to come back after Brexit because my Italian wife never took up citizenship here. I don't know if you can even remotely being to understand the anxieties that Brexit has created for millions of individuals who have contributed to our economy over many years...and for what? Rising inflation, squeezed living standards, political uncertainty,. a threat to the union and the prospect of courting favour with extreme regimes to get grubby trade deals through."

    You see like everybody else you voted in self interest. You now need to accept that more people voted to leave the EU and for a myriad of reasons. With the greatest respect, very few will have sympathy with your Italian wife, as beautiful as I'm sure she is.

    As pointed out below, people are flooding to the UK, its a privileged place to live despite the hang dog pessimism and infantile sulkers like yourself.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,919
    CD13 said:

    I'm still waiting for an answer as to why there is this absolute linkage between a common market and FOM. You can't have the first without the second supposedly, but why? Somebody must have made that decision but why? and who was it?

    As far as the EU negotiating team are concerned these things are indivisible. Obviously one could in principle have common market membership without FOM, but the EU chooses to tie these things together & refuses to permit one without the other.

    The EU treaties have incorporated freedom of movement of workers right back to the original 1951 Treaty of Paris that established the European Coal and Steel Community which incorporated freedom of movement for workers in those industries.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr 1000,

    Thanks.

    So the Maastricht agreement set the scene for Brexit. If only Major had the sense to call for a referendum? We could have had a grown-up discussion then? Perhaps that's why he didn't. It was the Tory non-bastards after all.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Phil said:


    Corbyn is popular because he has given a view of something else, anything else. If the Tories want to come back they need to find a similar glimpse of a new possibility in tune with their own ideals that addresses the problems on the ground not the slight pastry failings of the pie in the sky.

    Agreed. Where were the sunlit uplands in the conservative campaign? No-where - no vision, just more of the same when the working population are getting very, very tired of more of the same whilst the retired get the equivalent of feather pillows and Egyptian cotton sheets (even if it doesn’t feel like that to them).

    Any retired person living solely on the state pension is not living in any kind of luxury.

    Most people realised a long time ago not to rely on the state but to save for their own retirement, however tough it was to save from modest income. Any state pension is a bonus.
  • kurtjesterkurtjester Posts: 121
    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    @Casino...if you think Brexit is going to lance the Tory boil on Europe you are bonkers.

    You Brexiters are so deluded. I guess like ISIS, your rampant, destructive, obsessional, ideology kind of impairs your judgement ever so slightly.

    Calm down, and think of your tax avoidance.
    and freetochoose.....

    I live in the UK now...I had to come back after Brexit because my Italian wife never took up citizenship here. I don't know if you can even remotely being to understand the anxieties that Brexit has created for millions of individuals who have contributed to our economy over many years...and for what? Rising inflation, squeezed living standards, political uncertainty,. a threat to the union and the prospect of courting favour with extreme regimes to get grubby trade deals through.
    There was nothing to stop you staying in Italy.
    Thank you for your opinion. My wife and I paid for legal advice and explored all options based on our circumstances....and in leaving Italy my wife has left elderly Italian parents that were virtually dependent on us...all I needed to do instead was ask your advice instead.....
    Money won out over family? Classy.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,013
    GIN1138 said:

    Morning saboteurs of PB

    All this stuff about hard/soft Brexit seems pointless to me now the DUP have confirmed they are in favour of leaving the single market and customs union and will be voting with the government?

    Even accounting for Con rebellions from the likes of Clarke and Soubry the government should still have the numbers for the Brexit they want (especially as you'll have a few people on the Labour side like Field and Hoey also voting with the government)

    I am bemused by how the DUP square leaving the EEA and customs union with their other non-negotiable of an open intra-Irish border and an open intra-GB border. A back door into/out of the customs area is not going to happen which means strict border checks which means a physical border somewhere.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Phil said:

    CD13 said:

    I'm still waiting for an answer as to why there is this absolute linkage between a common market and FOM. You can't have the first without the second supposedly, but why? Somebody must have made that decision but why? and who was it?

    As far as the EU negotiating team are concerned these things are indivisible. Obviously one could in principle have common market membership without FOM, but the EU chooses to tie these things together & refuses to permit one without the other.

    The EU treaties have incorporated freedom of movement of workers right back to the original 1951 Treaty of Paris that established the European Coal and Steel Community which incorporated freedom of movement for workers in those industries.

    Not freedom of movement but freedom of movement for workers.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    @Casino...if you think Brexit is going to lance the Tory boil on Europe you are bonkers.

    You Brexiters are so deluded. I guess like ISIS, your rampant, destructive, obsessional, ideology kind of impairs your judgement ever so slightly.

    Calm down, and think of your tax avoidance.
    and freetochoose.....

    I live in the UK now...I had to come back after Brexit because my Italian wife never took up citizenship here. I don't know if you can even remotely being to understand the anxieties that Brexit has created for millions of individuals who have contributed to our economy over many years...and for what? Rising inflation, squeezed living standards, political uncertainty,. a threat to the union and the prospect of courting favour with extreme regimes to get grubby trade deals through.
    There was nothing to stop you staying in Italy.
    Thank you for your opinion. My wife and I paid for legal advice and explored all options based on our circumstances....and in leaving Italy my wife has left elderly Italian parents that were virtually dependent on us...all I needed to do instead was ask your advice instead.....
    Or pay your taxes?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr Observer,

    You're right about supply and demand, but didn't Labour once claim to be the party that stood for the workers? And didn't Gordon mention something about British workers? The racist bastard.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    CD13 said:

    I'm still waiting for an answer as to why there is this absolute linkage between a common market and FOM. You can't have the first without the second supposedly, but why? Somebody must have made that decision but why? and who was it?

    if I made a decision that you can't have sexual intercourse without being married, I suspect it would be ignored. If the government made that decision it would be laughed at. They might argue that it's a noble aim but to demand it must be obeyed ...

    I can understand standardisation, but why not leave FOM up to national governments? If they choose to have it, fine. then they can argue that with their own electorate rather than hiding behind EU laws.

    This, I suspect, is the key issue.

    Farmers are already complaining they can't get enough land workers. What they mean is that they can't get enough land workers at the right price.

    Like most industries, farming needs to find ways to improve productivity, producing more with less manual effort - the way to increase the wealth of a country.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785

    Brom said:

    tyson said:

    FF43 said:


    Richard_H said:

    I can't see any deal with the DUP, as they probably want things the Tories can't agree. E.g soft border between Northern Ireland and UK mainland, £2 billon extra funding and austerity measures ended.

    The majority.

    if the Tories try to stand on a Brexit only campaign they will get hammered and deservedly so.

    Bar a few die hards people have moved on from Brexit, they now want to know how the govt is going to put more money in their pockets
    Brexit dominates everything.
    If one of the bills fails; the govt collapses....the weakest govt in memory; a leader fatally wounded....the road to Brexit looks almost impossible from today's binoculars....

    What if the least 2027.

    You Tories well and truly fucked that one up you Muppets with a capital M. History is going to judge this period very unkindly.
    Another bloke living abroad who doesn't have a clue what's going on here. Aside from the odd weirdo on here all people talk about is the weather. I threw "soft brexit" into a group of 18 golfers yesterday, they all looked at me with a glazed expression.
    This is true, 90% of the country don't care about the type of Brexit. They know its coming and are absorbed in their own lives. This forum is for those hyper aware of every single poll, debate and interview. Outside in the real world people see an underwhelming PM, a radical opposition leader, a Brexit process and a terrorist threat. Little else in the political sphere occupies their thoughts.

    Hmmm - I am not sure that 90% of the country will shrug their shoulders and say "oh well" if we end up with a Brexit that leads to substantial job losses, higher taxes and even more cuts to public services. As the Chancellor said earlier this week - nobody voted to make themselves poorer. I'd agree that 90% (probably more) are not interested in the details of the Brexit negotiations. But that is a very different point.

    This is true, but people also don't vote purely on for what is good for the economy as a whole.
    For Brexit specifically it is 'the economy, stupid'. The post vote surveys found a very large majority of all voters (getting on for 90% iirc) believed they would be economically better off under the option they chose. Other core issues - immigration for example - were also economic proxies.

    It stands to follow that the only distinction to make is good Brexit vs bad Brexit with the economy as the arbiter. That the Hammond line is not seen as self-evident is an indication of the schizophrenic state of the government and Tory party.
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456

    Phil said:

    CD13 said:

    I'm still waiting for an answer as to why there is this absolute linkage between a common market and FOM. You can't have the first without the second supposedly, but why? Somebody must have made that decision but why? and who was it?

    As far as the EU negotiating team are concerned these things are indivisible. Obviously one could in principle have common market membership without FOM, but the EU chooses to tie these things together & refuses to permit one without the other.

    The EU treaties have incorporated freedom of movement of workers right back to the original 1951 Treaty of Paris that established the European Coal and Steel Community which incorporated freedom of movement for workers in those industries.

    Not freedom of movement but freedom of movement for workers.
    if it was freedom of labour i.e. you have to have a job in place then i think most people would accept that , if it was contributing to the UK economy . if you have no job to come to you should have minimum savings of £100000 to be able to live here and no benefit entitlement for five years . that way immigration would be fair and of net benefit to the UK. freedom of movement -No freedom of labour -Yes
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Look at all the job opportunities popping up!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40354331
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Look at all the job opportunities popping up!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40354331

    Corbyn's land value tax would have an interesting effect on this business.....
This discussion has been closed.