politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The betting market that reflects the mess Labour finds itse

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The betting market that reflects the mess Labour finds itself in

Sometimes a betting market beautifully captures the political zeitgeist, and this market from William Hill eloquently expresses Labour’s current predicament with Jeremy Corbyn as leader, it’s not so much Labour are up a certain creek without a paddle, Labour are up that creek sans a canoe too.

Read the full story here

Sandpit

1st like the Tories at the next election!

Sandpit

And the election after that!

Sandpit

Three in a row?

surbiton

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

foxinsoxuk

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

foxinsoxuk

I think that Labour will never again form a majority government. This is far worse than the early Eighties, though fortunately May is no Thatcher.

We have no effective opposition to one of the least competent governments of recent times.

SouthamObserver

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

RobD

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

SouthamObserver

foxinsoxuk said:

I think that Labour will never again form a majority government. This is far worse than the early Eighties, though fortunately May is no Thatcher.

We have no effective opposition to one of the least competent governments of recent times.

It is extraordinary, isn't it? The sheer, relentless mediocrity of the cabinet would be a gift to any decent opposition. And with Fox talking about leaving the single market to do deals with Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, it's about more than opportunity. The country is being let down on an epic scale.

edmundintokyo

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Seems unlikely, May has a working majority and Corbyn isn't going anywhere until after the next election so why let Labour off the hook early?

SouthamObserver

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

foxinsoxuk

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

I think May would probably be wise to call an early election before the Brexit wheels fall off. I am not convinced that she is wise though.

SouthamObserver

edmundintokyo said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Seems unlikely, May has a working majority and Corbyn isn't going anywhere until after the next election so why let Labour off the hook early?

She does not have a working majority for Brexit. Or for grammars, for that matter.

edmundintokyo

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

Why would she be in a hurry to get a deal through the Commons?

edmundintokyo

SouthamObserver said:

edmundintokyo said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Seems unlikely, May has a working majority and Corbyn isn't going anywhere until after the next election so why let Labour off the hook early?

She does not have a working majority for Brexit. Or for grammars, for that matter.

She doesn't need to do either. She doesn't even *want* to do Brexit. She can pass budgets, she's fine.

RobD

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe. On Article 50, the courts will decide that point although I suspect the prerogative is legal. For ratifying any deal, would the Commons really vote against a deal, forcing us onto the hardest Brexit, just to make a point? I doubt that.

SouthamObserver

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe. On Article 50, the courts will decide that point although I suspect the prerogative is legal. For ratifying any deal, would the Commons really vote against a deal, forcing us onto the hardest Brexit, just to make a point? I doubt that.

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

RobD

edmundintokyo said:

SouthamObserver said:

edmundintokyo said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Seems unlikely, May has a working majority and Corbyn isn't going anywhere until after the next election so why let Labour off the hook early?

She does not have a working majority for Brexit. Or for grammars, for that matter.

She doesn't need to do either. She doesn't even *want* to do Brexit. She can pass budgets, she's fine.

You don't think we'll be leaving the EU?

RobD

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe. On Article 50, the courts will decide that point although I suspect the prerogative is legal. For ratifying any deal, would the Commons really vote against a deal, forcing us onto the hardest Brexit, just to make a point? I doubt that.

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.

SouthamObserver

edmundintokyo said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

Why would she be in a hurry to get a deal through the Commons?

She might not be. Others are. Hence the potential for major fall-out. She's damned if she does (Osborne, Grieve, Soubry, Soames etc), damned if she doesn't (Fox, Davis, Leadsom, Patel etc).

SouthamObserver

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe. On Article 50, the courts will decide that point although I suspect the prerogative is legal. For ratifying any deal, would the Commons really vote against a deal, forcing us onto the hardest Brexit, just to make a point? I doubt that.

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.

It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.

RobD

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe. On Article 50, the courts will decide that point although I suspect the prerogative is legal. For ratifying any deal, would the Commons really vote against a deal, forcing us onto the hardest Brexit, just to make a point? I doubt that.

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.

It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.

And voting against a deal, which would lead to a hard Brexit, accomplishes this how?

SouthamObserver

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

I think May would probably be wise to call an early election before the Brexit wheels fall off. I am not convinced that she is wise though.

Fair enough - I too am in that seemingly small minority that struggles to see much of anything in her. But I am getting used to being in the minority now on just about everything!

shiney2

"..as Labour are only a heartbeat away from a ‘hard left’ takeover."

Surely Labour are only JC's heartbeat away from a ‘moderate’ takeover?

The lab leadership is not inheritable and finding 35 morons (cf Mr McTernan) to nominate McDonnell could be difficult.

tlg86

shiney2 said:

"..as Labour are only a heartbeat away from a ‘hard left’ takeover."

Surely Labour are only JC's heartbeat away from a ‘moderate’ takeover?

The lab leadership is not inheritable and finding 35 morons (cf Mr McTernan) to nominate McDonnell could be difficult.

It depends if the next leadership election is before or after the next election at which the composition of the PLP will change dramatically (both in personnel and numbers).

PeterC

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe. On Article 50, the courts will decide that point although I suspect the prerogative is legal. For ratifying any deal, would the Commons really vote against a deal, forcing us onto the hardest Brexit, just to make a point? I doubt that.

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.

It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.

And voting against a deal, which would lead to a hard Brexit, accomplishes this how?

You make a very good point. There is a dearth of understanding here. A hard Brexit is the default once A50 has been served. Frustrating a deal on the table does not mean we stay in the EU as A50 is an irreversible notice to quit. Instead it means we leave in chaos with no deal at all, reverting to a WTO trade regime. This is why the LibDem 'second referendum' proposal is such nonsense.

edmundintokyo

SouthamObserver said:

edmundintokyo said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

Why would she be in a hurry to get a deal through the Commons?

She might not be. Others are. Hence the potential for major fall-out. She's damned if she does (Osborne, Grieve, Soubry, Soames etc), damned if she doesn't (Fox, Davis, Leadsom, Patel etc).

This is my point, any actual deal leaves a chunk of her support base terminally narked off, so the obvious strategy is to stall for as long as possible. All the signs so far are that this is what she's doing. If parliament wants to help hold things up, all the better.

edmundintokyo

RobD said:

edmundintokyo said:

SouthamObserver said:

edmundintokyo said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Seems unlikely, May has a working majority and Corbyn isn't going anywhere until after the next election so why let Labour off the hook early?

She does not have a working majority for Brexit. Or for grammars, for that matter.

She doesn't need to do either. She doesn't even *want* to do Brexit. She can pass budgets, she's fine.

You don't think we'll be leaving the EU?

I think leaving the EU is more likely than not. I think leaving the EU any time soon is more not than likely.

SouthamObserver

PeterC said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe. On Article 50, the courts will decide that point although I suspect the prerogative is legal. For ratifying any deal, would the Commons really vote against a deal, forcing us onto the hardest Brexit, just to make a point? I doubt that.

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.

It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.

And voting against a deal, which would lead to a hard Brexit, accomplishes this how?

You make a very good point. There is a dearth of understanding here. A hard Brexit is the default once A50 has been served. Frustrating a deal on the table does not mean we stay in the EU as A50 is an irreversible notice to quit. Instead it means we leave in chaos with no deal at all, reverting to a WTO trade regime. This is why the LibDem 'second referendum' proposal is such nonsense.

After A50 is invoked the two year deadline can be extended if both sides agree. And neither side will want chaos.

shiney2

tlg86 said:

shiney2 said:

"..as Labour are only a heartbeat away from a ‘hard left’ takeover."

Surely Labour are only JC's heartbeat away from a ‘moderate’ takeover?

The lab leadership is not inheritable and finding 35 morons (cf Mr McTernan) to nominate McDonnell could be difficult.

It depends if the next leadership election is before or after the next election at which the composition of the PLP will change dramatically (both in personnel and numbers).

If JC pops his clogs ('heartbeat away' etc) then the acting leader is a 'moderate' ( ie the fatman) and the next elex will no doubt be held at a time he is happy with.

PlatoSaid

"'May I help you, sir?”

“I’m looking for a crisis.”

“Certainly, sir. We have a wide range. The existential crisis is the very latest thing. It’s a state-of-the art, all-singing-all-dancing crisis and is proving to be most popular.”

“Yes, but what does an existential crisis actually do?”

“It captures the attention. It’s high-powered and grave, yet easy to handle. It’s usually linked with large issues, like the state of the EU or the Labour Party. We find it has actually overtaken the global threat in terms of popularity. You see many more existential crises in everyday use. We also do a very good existential angst for the discerning alarmist.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/25/the-crisis-industry-has-reached-a-tipping-point/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

SouthamObserver

tlg86 said:

shiney2 said:

"..as Labour are only a heartbeat away from a ‘hard left’ takeover."

Surely Labour are only JC's heartbeat away from a ‘moderate’ takeover?

The lab leadership is not inheritable and finding 35 morons (cf Mr McTernan) to nominate McDonnell could be difficult.

It depends if the next leadership election is before or after the next election at which the composition of the PLP will change dramatically (both in personnel and numbers).

Corbyn does not control the NEC and so cannot force through any rule changes. The likelihood is that the PLP will be a lot smaller after the general election, but that it will still be hard for a far left candidate to make it onto a leadership ballot. Some favoured figures, such as Clive Lewis, may well end up losing their seats.

PeterC

SouthamObserver said:

PeterC said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe. On Article 50, the courts will decide that point although I suspect the prerogative is legal. For ratifying any deal, would the Commons really vote against a deal, forcing us onto the hardest Brexit, just to make a point? I doubt that.

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.

It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.

And voting against a deal, which would lead to a hard Brexit, accomplishes this how?

You make a very good point. There is a dearth of understanding here. A hard Brexit is the default once A50 has been served. Frustrating a deal on the table does not mean we stay in the EU as A50 is an irreversible notice to quit. Instead it means we leave in chaos with no deal at all, reverting to a WTO trade regime. This is why the LibDem 'second referendum' proposal is such nonsense.

After A50 is invoked the two year deadline can be extended if both sides agree. And neither side will want chaos.

I would not bet on it. The chaos would be on us rather than them and they are sick of it all anyway. A Hotel California situation would be beyond absurd on account of the business uncertainty it would create. If there is a deal on the table that Mrs May wants to sign I expect it will go through.

Sandpit

SouthamObserver said:

PeterC said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe. On Article 50, the courts will decide that point although I suspect the prerogative is legal. For ratifying any deal, would the Commons really vote against a deal, forcing us onto the hardest Brexit, just to make a point? I doubt that.

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.

It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.

And voting against a deal, which would lead to a hard Brexit, accomplishes this how?

You make a very good point. There is a dearth of understanding here. A hard Brexit is the default once A50 has been served. Frustrating a deal on the table does not mean we stay in the EU as A50 is an irreversible notice to quit. Instead it means we leave in chaos with no deal at all, reverting to a WTO trade regime. This is why the LibDem 'second referendum' proposal is such nonsense.

After A50 is invoked the two year deadline can be extended if both sides agree. And neither side will want chaos.

Isn't it all 28 sides, rather than only two, that have to agree an extension?

shiney2

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

PeterC said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe. On Article 50, the courts will decide that point although I suspect the prerogative is legal. For ratifying any deal, would the Commons really vote against a deal, forcing us onto the hardest Brexit, just to make a point? I doubt that.

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.

It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.

And voting against a deal, which would lead to a hard Brexit, accomplishes this how?

You make a very good point. There is a dearth of understanding here. A hard Brexit is the default once A50 has been served. Frustrating a deal on the table does not mean we stay in the EU as A50 is an irreversible notice to quit. Instead it means we leave in chaos with no deal at all, reverting to a WTO trade regime. This is why the LibDem 'second referendum' proposal is such nonsense.

After A50 is invoked the two year deadline can be extended if both sides agree. And neither side will want chaos.

Isn't it all 28 sides, rather than only two, that have to agree an extension?

Yep. That's the beauty of A50.

MrsMay emails it to Druncker and by hook or by crook (with upto 2y delay) we are OUT for def.

Sandpit

shiney2 said:

tlg86 said:

shiney2 said:

"..as Labour are only a heartbeat away from a ‘hard left’ takeover."

Surely Labour are only JC's heartbeat away from a ‘moderate’ takeover?

The lab leadership is not inheritable and finding 35 morons (cf Mr McTernan) to nominate McDonnell could be difficult.

It depends if the next leadership election is before or after the next election at which the composition of the PLP will change dramatically (both in personnel and numbers).

If JC pops his clogs ('heartbeat away' etc) then the acting leader is a 'moderate' ( ie the fatman) and the next elex will no doubt be held at a time he is happy with.

Given that JC isn't going anywhere until he's got the rules changed to keep the hard left in power once he's gone, your scenario is sadly the easiest way the PLP can take back control of the party.

Sandpit

shiney2 said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

PeterC said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe. On Article 50, the courts will decide that point although I suspect the prerogative is legal. For ratifying any deal, would the Commons really vote against a deal, forcing us onto the hardest Brexit, just to make a point? I doubt that.

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.

It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.

And voting against a deal, which would lead to a hard Brexit, accomplishes this how?

You make a very good point. There is a dearth of understanding here. A hard Brexit is the default once A50 has been served. Frustrating a deal on the table does not mean we stay in the EU as A50 is an irreversible notice to quit. Instead it means we leave in chaos with no deal at all, reverting to a WTO trade regime. This is why the LibDem 'second referendum' proposal is such nonsense.

After A50 is invoked the two year deadline can be extended if both sides agree. And neither side will want chaos.

Isn't it all 28 sides, rather than only two, that have to agree an extension?

Yep. That's the beauty of A50.

MrsMay emails it to Druncker and by hook or by crook (with upto 2y delay) we are OUT for def.

A point which is completely lost on those who think a referendum on the 'deal' can somehow lead to the status quo ante.

shiney2

Sandpit said:

shiney2 said:

tlg86 said:

shiney2 said:

"..as Labour are only a heartbeat away from a ‘hard left’ takeover."

Surely Labour are only JC's heartbeat away from a ‘moderate’ takeover?

The lab leadership is not inheritable and finding 35 morons (cf Mr McTernan) to nominate McDonnell could be difficult.

It depends if the next leadership election is before or after the next election at which the composition of the PLP will change dramatically (both in personnel and numbers).

If JC pops his clogs ('heartbeat away' etc) then the acting leader is a 'moderate' ( ie the fatman) and the next elex will no doubt be held at a time he is happy with.

Given that JC isn't going anywhere until he's got the rules changed to keep the hard left in power once he's gone, your scenario is sadly the easiest way the PLP can take back control of the party.

Quite.

Sandpit

shiney2 said:

Sandpit said:

shiney2 said:

tlg86 said:

shiney2 said:

"..as Labour are only a heartbeat away from a ‘hard left’ takeover."

Surely Labour are only JC's heartbeat away from a ‘moderate’ takeover?

The lab leadership is not inheritable and finding 35 morons (cf Mr McTernan) to nominate McDonnell could be difficult.

It depends if the next leadership election is before or after the next election at which the composition of the PLP will change dramatically (both in personnel and numbers).

If JC pops his clogs ('heartbeat away' etc) then the acting leader is a 'moderate' ( ie the fatman) and the next elex will no doubt be held at a time he is happy with.

Given that JC isn't going anywhere until he's got the rules changed to keep the hard left in power once he's gone, your scenario is sadly the easiest way the PLP can take back control of the party.

Quite.

Mrs May and the government will be praying for his continuing good health, at least for long enough to see the boundary changes through and the deselections happen.

What chance that the Islington friends of Palestine will conveniently hold a function in the evening of the boundary changes vote, thus giving half the Opposition front bench a reason to abstain?

Scott_P

So if neither Labour nor the SNP nor the Liberal Democrats speak with authority on behalf of those who believe close co-operation with the EU is the wise and progressive path, who does?

This may pain many pro-EU supporters of those parties, but the answer would appear to be former Tory chancellor, George Osborne.

Osborne has emerged as a much needed voice of common sense in the debate over the shape of Brexit.

Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/euan-mccolm-doff-your-caps-to-the-tory-toff-who-gives-brexit-s-losers-a-voice-1-4239544

Waiting for hard Brexit to fail so he can assume the Tory leadership as the "I told you so" candidate...

Scott_P

Top trolling from Ruth Davidson

Jeremy Corbyn’s re-election marks the demise of the Labour Party as a credible UK political force. His victory last year could have been written off as a spasm. But yesterday’s result has confirmed the fact that the unelectable hard left has now assumed a lock grip on Britain’s main party of opposition.

And the big question now is: who will speak for these decent, moderate Scottish voters who once looked to Labour for leadership, but who no longer recognise the party they once knew?

I am therefore determined to build a moderate Scottish Conservative party that appeals to the same people who supported Brown and Blair: one which knows that economic growth only has value if it works in tandem with social progress.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/we-will-represent-the-moderates-that-labour-has-now-abandoned-wspbcjh3p

PlatoSaid

What a great tale

"With only 8 minutes to go in the 90-minute telecast, a technical glitch knocked off the sound, rendering the pool feed mute. Not knowing when it would be restored, Ford and Carter just stood at their lecterns, not saying a word, until the glitch was fixed. It was traced to a blown transformer.

For a total of 27 minutes, they just stared and waited, “almost like robots,” Carter later said in a 2000 interview with Jim Lehrer. “We didn’t move around, we didn’t walk over and shake hands with each other. We just stood there.”

Ford later said, “I suspect both of us would have liked to sit down and relax while the technicians were fixing the system, but I think both of us were hesitant to make any gesture that might look like we weren’t physically or mentally able to handle a problem like this.”

http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/presidential-debate-jimmy-carter-gerald-ford-1201865111/

shiney2

Sandpit said:

shiney2 said:

Sandpit said:

shiney2 said:

tlg86 said:

shiney2 said:

"..as Labour are only a heartbeat away from a ‘hard left’ takeover."

Surely Labour are only JC's heartbeat away from a ‘moderate’ takeover?

The lab leadership is not inheritable and finding 35 morons (cf Mr McTernan) to nominate McDonnell could be difficult.

It depends if the next leadership election is before or after the next election at which the composition of the PLP will change dramatically (both in personnel and numbers).

If JC pops his clogs ('heartbeat away' etc) then the acting leader is a 'moderate' ( ie the fatman) and the next elex will no doubt be held at a time he is happy with.

Given that JC isn't going anywhere until he's got the rules changed to keep the hard left in power once he's gone, your scenario is sadly the easiest way the PLP can take back control of the party.

Quite.

Mrs May and the government will be praying for his continuing good health, at least for long enough to see the boundary changes through and the deselections happen.

What chance that the Islington friends of Palestine will conveniently hold a function in the evening of the boundary changes vote, thus giving half the Opposition front bench a reason to abstain?

I can believe that someone who can spot a 'f*ing useless conspirator' could also see value in that..

MarqueeMark

Scott_P said:

So if neither Labour nor the SNP nor the Liberal Democrats speak with authority on behalf of those who believe close co-operation with the EU is the wise and progressive path, who does?

This may pain many pro-EU supporters of those parties, but the answer would appear to be former Tory chancellor, George Osborne.

Osborne has emerged as a much needed voice of common sense in the debate over the shape of Brexit.

Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/euan-mccolm-doff-your-caps-to-the-tory-toff-who-gives-brexit-s-losers-a-voice-1-4239544

Waiting for hard Brexit to fail so he can assume the Tory leadership as the "I told you so" candidate...

I think the expression is "hold your breath"....

Sandpit

PlatoSaid said:

What a great tale

"With only 8 minutes to go in the 90-minute telecast, a technical glitch knocked off the sound, rendering the pool feed mute. Not knowing when it would be restored, Ford and Carter just stood at their lecterns, not saying a word, until the glitch was fixed. It was traced to a blown transformer.

For a total of 27 minutes, they just stared and waited, “almost like robots,” Carter later said in a 2000 interview with Jim Lehrer. “We didn’t move around, we didn’t walk over and shake hands with each other. We just stood there.”

Ford later said, “I suspect both of us would have liked to sit down and relax while the technicians were fixing the system, but I think both of us were hesitant to make any gesture that might look like we weren’t physically or mentally able to handle a problem like this.”

http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/presidential-debate-jimmy-carter-gerald-ford-1201865111/

Brilliant story, one can only imagine what would happen if there's a similar technical gremlin in the works at some point during this year's debates.

By the way, 111.9m watched the Super Bowl in February, I wonder how close the first debate will come to that audience?

MarqueeMark

I see a suspect has been caught in the Washington state mall shooting.

He was born in Turkey. I guess the local police will be looking for a bunch more "Hispanics" to put in a line up....

shiney2

Scott_P said:

So if neither Labour nor the SNP nor the Liberal Democrats speak with authority on behalf of those who believe close co-operation with the EU is the wise and progressive path, who does?

This may pain many pro-EU supporters of those parties, but the answer would appear to be former Tory chancellor, George Osborne.

Osborne has emerged as a much needed voice of common sense in the debate over the shape of Brexit.

Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/euan-mccolm-doff-your-caps-to-the-tory-toff-who-gives-brexit-s-losers-a-voice-1-4239544

Waiting for hard Brexit to fail so he can assume the Tory leadership as the "I told you so" candidate...

Hang on, we haven't had the "I told you so" for the instant diy recession, or the ftse crash or the £4300.99 off my pocket money. Are they 'last in the queue'?

CD13

Mr Mark,

Mental health issues. Muslims are very susceptible.

Who knows the exact motive? But the default is 'not terrorist related' and/or 'mental health'.

Starving them of the oxygen of publicity, or pretending it isn't a problem - take your choice.

foxinsoxuk

Sandpit said:

shiney2 said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

PeterC said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe.

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.

It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.

And voting against a deal, which would lead to a hard Brexit, accomplishes this how?

You make a very good point. There is a dearth of understanding here. A hard Brexit is the default once A50 has been served. Frustrating a deal on the table does not mean we stay in the EU as A50 is an irreversible notice to quit. Instead it means we leave in chaos with no deal at all, reverting to a WTO trade regime. This is why the LibDem 'second referendum' proposal is such nonsense.

After A50 is invoked the two year deadline can be extended if both sides agree. And neither side will want chaos.

Isn't it all 28 sides, rather than only two, that have to agree an extension?

Yep. That's the beauty of A50.

MrsMay emails it to Druncker and by hook or by crook (with upto 2y delay) we are OUT for def.

A point which is completely lost on those who think a referendum on the 'deal' can somehow lead to the status quo ante.

To my mind a referendum on a soft Brexit deal (e.g. the EEA) is to see off the Bitter Enders who want a Hard Brexit rather than to remain in the EU, which will not be an option.

Without this any Soft Brexit deal is going to be under siege from the cries of"betrayal" from the kippers and hard right of the Tories.

tlg86

SouthamObserver said:

tlg86 said:

shiney2 said:

"..as Labour are only a heartbeat away from a ‘hard left’ takeover."

Surely Labour are only JC's heartbeat away from a ‘moderate’ takeover?

The lab leadership is not inheritable and finding 35 morons (cf Mr McTernan) to nominate McDonnell could be difficult.

It depends if the next leadership election is before or after the next election at which the composition of the PLP will change dramatically (both in personnel and numbers).

Corbyn does not control the NEC and so cannot force through any rule changes. The likelihood is that the PLP will be a lot smaller after the general election, but that it will still be hard for a far left candidate to make it onto a leadership ballot. Some favoured figures, such as Clive Lewis, may well end up losing their seats.

I see his notional seat will be 85% Norwich South and 15% South Norfolk so you're right to suggest that it could be tight. It might be a bit early but a thread on which Labour MPs are in danger of losing their seats would be useful (leaving aside deselections!).

PlatoSaid

Sandpit said:

PlatoSaid said:

What a great tale

"With only 8 minutes to go in the 90-minute telecast, a technical glitch knocked off the sound, rendering the pool feed mute. Not knowing when it would be restored, Ford and Carter just stood at their lecterns, not saying a word, until the glitch was fixed. It was traced to a blown transformer.

For a total of 27 minutes, they just stared and waited, “almost like robots,” Carter later said in a 2000 interview with Jim Lehrer. “We didn’t move around, we didn’t walk over and shake hands with each other. We just stood there.”

Ford later said, “I suspect both of us would have liked to sit down and relax while the technicians were fixing the system, but I think both of us were hesitant to make any gesture that might look like we weren’t physically or mentally able to handle a problem like this.”

http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/presidential-debate-jimmy-carter-gerald-ford-1201865111/

Brilliant story, one can only imagine what would happen if there's a similar technical gremlin in the works at some point during this year's debates.

By the way, 111.9m watched the Super Bowl in February, I wonder how close the first debate will come to that audience?

I saw some speculation that 90m was predicted for debate - but who knows?!

I'm still chortling over Gennifer Flowers. It's hilarious trolling. What was most amusing is the WTFery on Twitter 145k tweets ranging from What!??! to Who is Gennifer...OMG.

And then the massive sulk and claims of sexism from Hillary fans all claiming how scared Trump must be - yeah, right... I can't quite believe this is happening - even in theory.

It's done wonders to revive Flowers book sales, dragged up all the old juicy morsels/video clips of Bill lying on 60 Minutes, Hillary calling other women a 'bimbo eruption'... even Juanita Broderick has tweeted her rape claim trauma and she's now 73. For anyone too young to recall this gossipfest - it's an education.

SimonStClare

Morning all.

After Corbyn’s re-election victory yesterday, it will be interesting to see which members of the PLP are brave enough to venture forth into the TV studios this morning. The spin line will no doubt be party unity, peace and reconciliation, the reality might be resignations live on air. #Soap

Alistair

Trump brining up Gennifer Flowers means it's now open season on Trump infidelities.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, comrades.

Miss Plato, what's the Flowers business?

We're in a bad situation. Either the blues cruise to triumph, which is hardly a healthy democratic situation, or we end up with a full-blown cretin as PM. Marvellous.

PlatoSaid

Well that's a pretty clear polite eff off

Mayor Jennifer Roberts asked Hillary Clinton to push back her upcoming trip to Charlotte hours after the Democratic nominee announced she would visit in an attempt to reach out Black Lives Matter protesters and the law enforcement community.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2602751/

shiney2

foxinsoxuk said:

Sandpit said:

shiney2 said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

PeterC said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe.

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.

It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.

And voting against a deal, which would lead to a hard Brexit, accomplishes this how?

You make a very good point. There is a dearth of understanding here. A hard Brexit is the default once A50 has been served.

After A50 is invoked the two year deadline can be extended if both sides agree. And neither side will want chaos.

Isn't it all 28 sides, rather than only two, that have to agree an extension?

Yep. That's the beauty of A50.

MrsMay emails it to Druncker and by hook or by crook (with upto 2y delay) we are OUT for def.

A point which is completely lost on those who think a referendum on the 'deal' can somehow lead to the status quo ante.

To my mind a referendum on a soft Brexit deal (e.g. the EEA) is to see off the Bitter Enders who want a Hard Brexit rather than to remain in the EU, which will not be an option.

Without this any Soft Brexit deal is going to be under siege from the cries of"betrayal" from the kippers and hard right of the Tories.

No future gov is going to offer another eu related ref with a view to heading off the popular demand for border control.

To offer it without a government recommended option is pointless. Cameron has proven the alternative is a career ending step. It's hard brexit unless the eu offers FULL national border control (and how likely is that).

Sandpit

PlatoSaid said:

Sandpit said:

PlatoSaid said:

What a great tale

"With only 8 minutes to go in the 90-minute telecast, a technical glitch knocked off the sound, rendering the pool feed mute. Not knowing when it would be restored, Ford and Carter just stood at their lecterns, not saying a word, until the glitch was fixed. It was traced to a blown transformer.

For a total of 27 minutes, they just stared and waited, “almost like robots,” Carter later said in a 2000 interview with Jim Lehrer. “We didn’t move around, we didn’t walk over and shake hands with each other. We just stood there.”

Ford later said, “I suspect both of us would have liked to sit down and relax while the technicians were fixing the system, but I think both of us were hesitant to make any gesture that might look like we weren’t physically or mentally able to handle a problem like this.”

http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/presidential-debate-jimmy-carter-gerald-ford-1201865111/

Brilliant story, one can only imagine what would happen if there's a similar technical gremlin in the works at some point during this year's debates.

By the way, 111.9m watched the Super Bowl in February, I wonder how close the first debate will come to that audience?

I saw some speculation that 90m was predicted for debate - but who knows?!

I'm still chortling over Gennifer Flowers. It's hilarious trolling. What was most amusing is the WTFery on Twitter 145k tweets ranging from What!??! to Who is Gennifer...OMG.

And then the massive sulk and claims of sexism from Hillary fans all claiming how scared Trump must be - yeah, right... I can't quite believe this is happening - even in theory.

It's done wonders to revive Flowers book sales, dragged up all the old juicy morsels/video clips of Bill lying on 60 Minutes, Hillary calling other women a 'bimbo eruption'... even Juanita Broderick has tweeted her rape claim trauma and she's now 73. For anyone too young to recall this gossipfest - it's an education.

The record debate audience is 80m, for Carter and Reagan. I was a very young man then so can't compare how captured everyone was at that time compared to now. Trump's acceptance speech at the Convention got nearly 35m, more than the Oscars this year.

Gennifer Flowers, just hilarious. Trying to troll Trump in that way is like the proverbial mud wrestling with a pig.

What chance the Donald is also looking for Monica Lewinsky's phone number?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts_in_the_United_States#2016

foxinsoxuk

shiney2 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sandpit said:

shiney2 said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

PeterC said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe.

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.

It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.

And voting against a deal, which would lead to a hard Brexit, accomplishes this how?

You make a very good point. There is a dearth of understanding here. A hard Brexit is the default once A50 has been served.

After A50 is invoked the two year deadline can be extended if both sides agree. And neither side will want chaos.

Isn't it all 28 sides, rather than only two, that have to agree an extension?

Yep. That's the beauty of A50.

MrsMay emails it to Druncker and by hook or by crook (with upto 2y delay) we are OUT for def.

A point which is completely lost on those who think a referendum on the 'deal' can somehow lead to the status quo ante.

To my mind a referendum on

No future gov is going to offer another eu related ref with a view to heading off the popular demand for border control.

To offer it without a government recommended option is pointless. Cameron has proven the alternative is a career ending step. It's hard brexit unless the eu offers FULL national border control (and how likely is that).

I am arranging my affairs for a hard Brexit. It is the default option and all roads seem to go there.

Fortunately I am wealthy enough to be able to cope, and even prosper from it.

SimonStClare

PlatoSaid said:

Well that's a pretty clear polite eff off

Mayor Jennifer Roberts asked Hillary Clinton to push back her upcoming trip to Charlotte hours after the Democratic nominee announced she would visit in an attempt to reach out Black Lives Matter protesters and the law enforcement community.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2602751/

Good move by Clinton, even if trawling for the ethnic vote in Charlotte so soon after the civil unrest there makes her look like an ambulance chaser.

shiney2

foxinsoxuk said:

shiney2 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sandpit said:

shiney2 said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

PeterC said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe.

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.

It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.

And voting against a deal, which would lead to a hard Brexit, accomplishes this how?

You make a very good point. There is a dearth of understanding here. A hard Brexit is the default once A50 has been served.

After A50 is invoked the two year deadline can be extended if both sides agree. And neither side will want chaos.

Isn't it all 28 sides, rather than only two, that have to agree an extension?

Yep. That's the beauty of A50.

MrsMay emails it to Druncker and by hook or by crook (with upto 2y delay) we are OUT for def.

A point which is completely lost on those who think a referendum on the 'deal' can somehow lead to the status quo ante.

To my mind a referendum on

No future gov is going to offer another eu related ref with a view to heading off the popular demand for border control.

To offer it without a government recommended option is pointless. Cameron has proven the alternative is a career ending step. It's hard brexit unless the eu offers FULL national border control (and how likely is that).

I am arranging my affairs for a hard Brexit. It is the default option and all roads seem to go there.

Fortunately I am wealthy enough to be able to cope, and even prosper from it.

Aren't we all zzz

DecrepitJohnL

PlatoSaid said:

Well that's a pretty clear polite eff off

Mayor Jennifer Roberts asked Hillary Clinton to push back her upcoming trip to Charlotte hours after the Democratic nominee announced she would visit in an attempt to reach out Black Lives Matter protesters and the law enforcement community.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2602751/

True, though according to the Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph, the mayor has also asked Trump to stay away.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. StClare, is it a good move?

If she looks like she considers civil disturbance and fatal shootings to be an opportunity rather than a problem, that's not a good look.

Sandpit

Alistair said:

Trump brining up Gennifer Flowers means it's now open season on Trump infidelities.

Maybe, but the Flowers stuff is all very much public domain, and Hillary will be a lot more upset with the public's new history lesson than Trump would ever be.

I'm still waiting for a Republican PAC to make a House of Cards trailer showing the Clintons in place of the lead characters.

If they've really got balls, they'll do it with actual footage, will make a couple of days of headlines as HBO try and get it taken down - while everyone is talking about the comparison between the Underwoods and the Clintons.

PlatoSaid

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, comrades.

Miss Plato, what's the Flowers business?

We're in a bad situation. Either the blues cruise to triumph, which is hardly a healthy democratic situation, or we end up with a full-blown cretin as PM. Marvellous.

There's a reality TV rival of Trump called Mark Cuban - his show was canned several years ago but he still hates him. He bragged on Twitter that he'd been invited to sit in the front row on Team Hillary's side. So Trump offered an invitation to Gennifer Flowers. She had a 12yrs affair with Bill and was very visible during the Lewinski/impeachment stuff. She's an ex Playboy centrefold too!

Gennifer has accepted Trump's invite.

tlg86

Lucy Powell on BBC Breakfast. Calling for unity.

SquareRoot

foxinsoxuk said:

shiney2 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sandpit said:

shiney2 said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

PeterC said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe.

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.

It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.

And voting against a deal, which would lead to a hard Brexit, accomplishes this how?

You make a very good point. There is a dearth of understanding here. A hard Brexit is the default once A50 has been served.

After A50 is invoked the two year deadline can be extended if both sides agree. And neither side will want chaos.

Isn't it all 28 sides, rather than only two, that have to agree an extension?

Yep. That's the beauty of A50.

MrsMay emails it to Druncker and by hook or by crook (with upto 2y delay) we are OUT for def.

A point which is completely lost on those who think a referendum on the 'deal' can somehow lead to the status quo ante.

To my mind a referendum on

No future gov is going to offer another eu related ref with a view to heading off the popular demand for border control.

. Cameron has proven the alternative is a career ending step. It's hard brexit unless the eu offers FULL national border control (and how likely is that).

I am arranging my affairs for a hard Brexit. It is the default option and all roads seem to go there.

Fortunately I am wealthy enough to be able to cope, and even prosper from it.

Brexit at the moment seems like the phoney war, no "bombs" dropped yet, but you know they are coming.

Sandpit

DecrepitJohnL said:

PlatoSaid said:

Well that's a pretty clear polite eff off

Mayor Jennifer Roberts asked Hillary Clinton to push back her upcoming trip to Charlotte hours after the Democratic nominee announced she would visit in an attempt to reach out Black Lives Matter protesters and the law enforcement community.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2602751/

True, though according to the Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph, the mayor has also asked Trump to stay away.

I imagine the last thing any city facing a crisis wants, is a bloody Presidential candidate turning up and adding nothing positive to the mix. They'd both do well to remember that!

Essexit

Playing devil's advocate re: Article 50 - the EU is not really that bothered about obeying its own laws, as we saw when Greece was bailed out despite the unambiguous no bail-out clause in the Maastricht Treaty. What's to stop them saying we can have a referendum on any deal and remain full members if it's rejected, rather than the hard Brexit that A50 may imply?

Politically the rEU may decide we're not worth the bother, but I don't think they'd let their own laws get in the way if they did want to hang on to us.

Sandpit

foxinsoxuk said:

shiney2 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sandpit said:

shiney2 said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

PeterC said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.

It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.

And voting against a deal, which would lead to a hard Brexit, accomplishes this how?

You make a very good point. There is a dearth of understanding here. A hard Brexit is the default once A50 has been served.

After A50 is invoked the two year deadline can be extended if both sides agree. And neither side will want chaos.

Isn't it all 28 sides, rather than only two, that have to agree an extension?

Yep. That's the beauty of A50.

MrsMay emails it to Druncker and by hook or by crook (with upto 2y delay) we are OUT for def.

A point which is completely lost on those who think a referendum on the 'deal' can somehow lead to the status quo ante.

To my mind a referendum on

No future gov is going to offer another eu related ref with a view to heading off the popular demand for border control.

To offer it without a government recommended option is pointless. Cameron has proven the alternative is a career ending step. It's hard brexit unless the eu offers FULL national border control (and how likely is that).

I am arranging my affairs for a hard Brexit. It is the default option and all roads seem to go there.

Fortunately I am wealthy enough to be able to cope, and even prosper from it.

I don't think it will come to that, but both sides have to start by giving the impression they will walk away from any negotiations at this stage. It's in everyone's economic interests to do a deal, so that's probably what will happen, despite the current political grandstanding on all sides.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Essexit, an interesting idea but one that might harden Leave sentiment. We've already voted to leave.

It would also give the EU an incentive to offer us the worst possible deal.

Miss Plato, ah, so it's Operation Handbags

Thanks for the answer.

Black_Rook

FPT

fitalass said:

Put aside the financial loss of the Union or the issue of the currency. If you cannot even prove yourself fit enough to run the most vital public services, who would trust you to run an Independent Scotland with all the other problems that creates for the us? Many local SNP associations are now in turmoil after recent Yes converts have taken over and pushed out long time SNP members and activists who did so much of the on ground work in local areas.

I'm from down South and obviously miss out on a lot of the nuances of the Scottish situation. Are the SNP really starting to suffer from their own bout of Momentumitis? Well...

foxinsoxuk

SquareRoot said:

foxinsoxuk said:

shiney2 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sandpit said:

shiney2 said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

PeterC said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe.

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

Would he really be that petty?

It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.

And voting against a deal, which would lead to a hard Brexit, accomplishes this how?

You make a very good point. There is a dearth of understanding here. A hard Brexit is the default once A50 has been served.

After A50 is invoked the two year deadline can be extended if both sides agree. And neither side will want chaos.

Isn't it all 28 sides, rather than only two, that have to agree an extension?

Yep. That's the beauty of A50.

MrsMay emails it to Druncker and by hook or by crook (with upto 2y delay) we are OUT for def.

A point which is completely lost on those who think a referendum on the 'deal' can somehow lead to the status quo ante.

To my mind a referendum on

No future gov is going to offer another eu related ref with a view to heading off the popular demand for border control.

. Cameron has proven the alternative is a career ending step. It's hard brexit unless the eu offers FULL national border control (and how likely is that).

I am arranging my affairs for a hard Brexit. It is the default option and all roads seem to go there.

Fortunately I am wealthy enough to be able to cope, and even prosper from it.

Brexit at the moment seems like the phoney war, no "bombs" dropped yet, but you know they are coming.

Very much the phoney war, with phoneys in charge too.

Essexit

SquareRoot said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I am arranging my affairs for a hard Brexit. It is the default option and all roads seem to go there.

Fortunately I am wealthy enough to be able to cope, and even prosper from it.

Brexit at the moment seems like the phoney war, no "bombs" dropped yet, but you know they are coming.

No bombs dropped, just put under the economy apparently.

Sandpit

Essexit said:

Playing devil's advocate re: Article 50 - the EU is not really that bothered about obeying its own laws, as we saw when Greece was bailed out despite the unambiguous no bail-out clause in the Maastricht Treaty. What's to stop them saying we can have a referendum on any deal and remain full members if it's rejected, rather than the hard Brexit that A50 may imply?

Politically the rEU may decide we're not worth the bother, but I don't think they'd let their own laws get in the way if they did want to hang on to us.

The EU could probably fudge an extension to the two year deadline if they wished, but any second referendum, where we could vote to remain in, would have to come from the British government.

I'm not sure Theresa would last five minutes in the job if she proposed that, we'd have PM Gove in no time at all.

foxinsoxuk

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Essexit, an interesting idea but one that might harden Leave sentiment. We've already voted to leave.

It would also give the EU an incentive to offer us the worst possible deal.

Miss Plato, ah, so it's Operation Handbags

Thanks for the answer.

I don't think that the rEU want a hokey-cokey with the UK.

To the rEU Brexit means Brexit even more than it does to May.

PlatoSaid

Sandpit said:

Alistair said:

Trump brining up Gennifer Flowers means it's now open season on Trump infidelities.

Maybe, but the Flowers stuff is all very much public domain, and Hillary will be a lot more upset with the public's new history lesson than Trump would ever be.

I'm still waiting for a Republican PAC to make a House of Cards trailer showing the Clintons in place of the lead characters.

If they've really got balls, they'll do it with actual footage, will make a couple of days of headlines as HBO try and get it taken down - while everyone is talking about the comparison between the Underwoods and the Clintons.

That Trump had affairs has already been done - sure it'll get brought up again, but he's never claimed to be an unflawed person. And he wasn't President at the time or Gov of Arkansas.

It's pretty thin whataboutery that doesn't deflect much from the core problem - the Clintons have a crypt full of skeletons.

Bill lying on 60 Minutes is a corker. He later confessed under oath that he'd had a sexual relationship with Flowers. Was this the meaning of 'is' stuff? It was so absurd at the time - makes OJ Simpson look innocent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DZyE41T56w

foxinsoxuk

PlatoSaid said:

Sandpit said:

Alistair said:

Trump brining up Gennifer Flowers means it's now open season on Trump infidelities.

Maybe, but the Flowers stuff is all very much public domain, and Hillary will be a lot more upset with the public's new history lesson than Trump would ever be.

I'm still waiting for a Republican PAC to make a House of Cards trailer showing the Clintons in place of the lead characters.

If they've really got balls, they'll do it with actual footage, will make a couple of days of headlines as HBO try and get it taken down - while everyone is talking about the comparison between the Underwoods and the Clintons.

That Trump had affairs has already been done - sure it'll get brought up again, but he's never claimed to be an unflawed person. And he wasn't President at the time or Gov of Arkansas.

It's pretty thin whataboutery that doesn't deflect much from the core problem - the Clintons have a crypt full of skeletons.

Bill lying on 60 Minutes is a corker. He later confessed under oath that he'd had a sexual relationship with Flowers. Was this the meaning of 'is' stuff? It was so absurd at the time - makes OJ Simpson look innocent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DZyE41T56w

The difference is that Hillary was the wronged party in Bill's affairs, while Trump was the offender.

This is just gamesmanship prior to the debates.

Essexit

foxinsoxuk said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Essexit, an interesting idea but one that might harden Leave sentiment. We've already voted to leave.

It would also give the EU an incentive to offer us the worst possible deal.

Miss Plato, ah, so it's Operation Handbags

Thanks for the answer.

I don't think that the rEU want a hokey-cokey with the UK.

To the rEU Brexit means Brexit even more than it does to May.

Agree with you both - the EU probably doesn't think it's worth the bother, we'd continue being a troublesome half-in, half-out member anyway, made worse for them by the hardened Leave sentiment. The constraints to us remaining exist, but they are political rather than legal.

Black_Rook

PlatoSaid said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, comrades.

Miss Plato, what's the Flowers business?

We're in a bad situation. Either the blues cruise to triumph, which is hardly a healthy democratic situation, or we end up with a full-blown cretin as PM. Marvellous.

There's a reality TV rival of Trump called Mark Cuban - his show was canned several years ago but he still hates him. He bragged on Twitter that he'd been invited to sit in the front row on Team Hillary's side. So Trump offered an invitation to Gennifer Flowers. She had a 12yrs affair with Bill and was very visible during the Lewinski/impeachment stuff. She's an ex Playboy centrefold too!

Gennifer has accepted Trump's invite.

Gennifer Flowers attempted to sue Hillary at some point during that episode. The case was later dismissed, but those kinds of subtle nuances tend to get forgotten when the Trump publicity galleon is in full sail.

Just another allegation of sleaze from a previous Clinton presidency when they were all too common. Needless to say, if Trump can plant enough doubt in the minds of Hillary's less committed supporters, and give the unenthusiastic good excuses to steer clear of the ballot boxes, then he can win.

DecrepitJohnL

Sandpit said:

Essexit said:

Playing devil's advocate re: Article 50 - the EU is not really that bothered about obeying its own laws, as we saw when Greece was bailed out despite the unambiguous no bail-out clause in the Maastricht Treaty. What's to stop them saying we can have a referendum on any deal and remain full members if it's rejected, rather than the hard Brexit that A50 may imply?

Politically the rEU may decide we're not worth the bother, but I don't think they'd let their own laws get in the way if they did want to hang on to us.

The EU could probably fudge an extension to the two year deadline if they wished, but any second referendum, where we could vote to remain in, would have to come from the British government.

I'm not sure Theresa would last five minutes in the job if she proposed that, we'd have PM Gove in no time at all.

A second referendum could easily be sold by PM May to the party, provided there was something substantive on offer. She'd have cross-party support in parliament and would almost certainly have the Leaver-in-Chief onside -- that's Boris, btw -- which would bring over the softer Brexiteers on the backbenches. Considering Theresa May's age, she could also throw in hints of retirement once the whole thing is settled.

JonathanD

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

I think May would probably be wise to call an early election before the Brexit wheels fall off. I am not convinced that she is wise though.

May didn't get to where she is by making bold moves... The grammar school debate seems to be the first time she's tried to front a policy change, not sure that bodes well for the future.

Sandpit

Ooh, this is interesting. The French finally realising that the problems at Calais are French problems.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/24/calais-jungle-to-be-closed-within-weeks-as-migrants-are-moved-ac/
"French President François Hollande has vowed to shut down the notorious “Jungle” migrant camp in Calais within weeks by dispatching its residents to dozens of “reception centres” dotted across the country.

"Around 9,000 people will be moved from Calais to 140 centres across France in the coming weeks, Mr Hollande said during a visit to one of the new centres in the city of Tours in the Loire Valley."

foxinsoxuk

Essexit said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Essexit, an interesting idea but one that might harden Leave sentiment. We've already voted to leave.

It would also give the EU an incentive to offer us the worst possible deal.

Miss Plato, ah, so it's Operation Handbags

Thanks for the answer.

I don't think that the rEU want a hokey-cokey with the UK.

To the rEU Brexit means Brexit even more than it does to May.

Agree with you both - the EU probably doesn't think it's worth the bother, we'd continue being a troublesome half-in, half-out member anyway, made worse for them by the hardened Leave sentiment. The constraints to us remaining exist, but they are political rather than legal.

The closest that we could come to remaining in would be the EEA, but that would be an unstable situation. It would anger the Bitter Enders, and I think that we would depart that too in time, because of resentment over taxation without representation. I am not at all convinced that the EEA (exEU part) would want us in as we would be the bull in the china shop.

So hard Brexit it is.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. D, indeed. That said, if she's going to learn the importance of doing the groundwork, better to cock up with grammar schools and having to withdraw them than with the EU negotiation.

Mr. L, it doesn't take many Conservatives to put a leader in a spot of bother. And a second referendum is something that will really piss off many voters. If it's In/Out, we've already answered that. If it's In or Out With New Deal, there's an active incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal and concede nothing on anything.

Regardless of how the vote went, I'd give serious consideration to voting for another party next time.

kle4

SouthamObserver said:

PeterC said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Three in a row?

There will be an election in 2022 which the Tories will lose.

Why 2022?

Because there'll be a general election next year.

Has anything actually changed on the early election front?

It's clear that the Tories are beginning to fall out over Brexit. May needs a mandate or she won't get a deal through the Commons.

An overzealous No 10, maybe. On Article 50, the courts will decide that point although I suspect the prerogative is legal. For ratifying any deal, would the Commons really vote against a deal, forcing us onto the hardest Brexit, just to make a point? I doubt that.

We'll see. Cameron may be quitting. Osborne clearly isn't.

Would he really be that petty? In any case, I suspect the alternative to any deal would focus minds and it would be passed with a large majority.

It's not petty to want to prevent a hard Brexit.

And voting against a deal, which would lead to a hard Brexit, accomplishes this how?

You make a very good point. There is a dearth of understanding here. A hard Brexit is the default once A50 has been served. Frustrating a deal on the table does not mean we stay in the EU as A50 is an irreversible notice to quit. Instead it means we leave in chaos with no deal at all, reverting to a WTO trade regime. This is why the LibDem 'second referendum' proposal is such nonsense.

After A50 is invoked the two year deadline can be extended if both sides agree. And neither side will want chaos.

Indeed they won't, but us staying in the eu at that point woukd quite rightly been seen as a Chaotic option . Were unlikely to suddenly become fans of more integration, so we'd continue to complain and cause trouble. Leaving would be more disruptive in the short term, but given our reluctance to get on board with the common agenda and that we decided to leave once and coukd again, if the eu wants a future they can plan for at least, they won't be taking any measures to let us stay even if we change our minds.

A second referendum before a50 makes more sense than after, but is even more of a political non starter.

PlatoSaid

Black_Rook said:

PlatoSaid said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, comrades.

Miss Plato, what's the Flowers business?

We're in a bad situation. Either the blues cruise to triumph, which is hardly a healthy democratic situation, or we end up with a full-blown cretin as PM. Marvellous.

There's a reality TV rival of Trump called Mark Cuban - his show was canned several years ago but he still hates him. He bragged on Twitter that he'd been invited to sit in the front row on Team Hillary's side. So Trump offered an invitation to Gennifer Flowers. She had a 12yrs affair with Bill and was very visible during the Lewinski/impeachment stuff. She's an ex Playboy centrefold too!

Gennifer has accepted Trump's invite.

Gennifer Flowers attempted to sue Hillary at some point during that episode. The case was later dismissed, but those kinds of subtle nuances tend to get forgotten when the Trump publicity galleon is in full sail.

Just another allegation of sleaze from a previous Clinton presidency when they were all too common. Needless to say, if Trump can plant enough doubt in the minds of Hillary's less committed supporters, and give the unenthusiastic good excuses to steer clear of the ballot boxes, then he can win.

The weird thing is that back in 1992 - I was quite impressed and sympathetic to HRC - she took it on the chin and toughed it out. But then she's exploited Bill's success again and again to feather her nest, and now tries to claim to be all for wimmins rights. It's laughable. She's one of the few politicians I totally detest. Her lying is legendary - Trump lies like a braggart, not a conniving lawyer seeking to wiggle their way out over the definition of 'is'.

Paul_Bedfordshire

Interesting dispatch from Peter Hitchens who is in Moscow (Idaho).

He too fears that the USA will elect a maniac who will drag the world to war, said maniac being Mrs Hillary Clinton.

http://dailym.ai/2dfupKy

DecrepitJohnL

PlatoSaid said:

Sandpit said:

Alistair said:

Trump brining up Gennifer Flowers means it's now open season on Trump infidelities.

Maybe, but the Flowers stuff is all very much public domain, and Hillary will be a lot more upset with the public's new history lesson than Trump would ever be.

I'm still waiting for a Republican PAC to make a House of Cards trailer showing the Clintons in place of the lead characters.

If they've really got balls, they'll do it with actual footage, will make a couple of days of headlines as HBO try and get it taken down - while everyone is talking about the comparison between the Underwoods and the Clintons.

That Trump had affairs has already been done - sure it'll get brought up again, but he's never claimed to be an unflawed person. And he wasn't President at the time or Gov of Arkansas.

It's pretty thin whataboutery that doesn't deflect much from the core problem - the Clintons have a crypt full of skeletons.

Bill lying on 60 Minutes is a corker. He later confessed under oath that he'd had a sexual relationship with Flowers. Was this the meaning of 'is' stuff? It was so absurd at the time - makes OJ Simpson look innocent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DZyE41T56w

And this helps Trump how? Precisely which Hillary supporters will stay at home because her old man couldn't keep his old man in his pants 20 years ago (or even last week if anything new emerges)? The feminist-light camp will see this as another attack on women, doubly so because of the suggestion her husband will be the power behind the throne, whereas (ironically) it will remind many other Democrats that they actually prefer Bill.

Black_Rook

PlatoSaid said:

It's done wonders to revive Flowers book sales, dragged up all the old juicy morsels/video clips of Bill lying on 60 Minutes, Hillary calling other women a 'bimbo eruption'... even Juanita Broderick has tweeted her rape claim trauma and she's now 73. For anyone too young to recall this gossipfest - it's an education.

Oh my, I'd forgotten all about the "bimbo eruption" remarks. For a candidate whose central campaign plank appears to be the whole glass ceiling smashing/sisterhood thing, it's not a good look.

kle4

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Essexit said:

Playing devil's advocate re: Article 50 - the EU is not really that bothered about obeying its own laws, as we saw when Greece was bailed out despite the unambiguous no bail-out clause in the Maastricht Treaty. What's to stop them saying we can have a referendum on any deal and remain full members if it's rejected, rather than the hard Brexit that A50 may imply?

Politically the rEU may decide we're not worth the bother, but I don't think they'd let their own laws get in the way if they did want to hang on to us.

The EU could probably fudge an extension to the two year deadline if they wished, but any second referendum, where we could vote to remain in, would have to come from the British government.

I'm not sure Theresa would last five minutes in the job if she proposed that, we'd have PM Gove in no time at all.

A second referendum could easily be sold by PM May to the party, provided there was something substantive on offer. She'd have cross-party support in parliament and would almost certainly have the Leaver-in-Chief onside -- that's Boris, btw -- which would bring over the softer Brexiteers on the backbenches. Considering Theresa May's age, she could also throw in hints of retirement once the whole thing is settled.

If the eu made a substantial new offer, I for one am open to bring persuaded - it was a tough decision, and the critical factor in voting keave for me was we had a bad offer from them and the Eu seemed incapable of change. Theoretically I could consider a new offer and it woukd theoretically be a change in circumstance to justify a halt. But it would have to be a very good offer and it's not really in the EUs interest to do that - the message would be for everyone to vote to leave to get a good deal, blackmail essentially - without an economic catastrophe public opinion will not make a change in direction politically viable and we'll have triggered a60 long before then if it even hsppens, and while a fudge to extend or withdraw the a50 period may be possible, it is even more politically difficult for everyone to achieve at that point.

We're leaving, it's just too hard to stop it now even if it were to be shown to be a mistake.

foxinsoxuk

Black_Rook said:

PlatoSaid said:

It's done wonders to revive Flowers book sales, dragged up all the old juicy morsels/video clips of Bill lying on 60 Minutes, Hillary calling other women a 'bimbo eruption'... even Juanita Broderick has tweeted her rape claim trauma and she's now 73. For anyone too young to recall this gossipfest - it's an education.

Oh my, I'd forgotten all about the "bimbo eruption" remarks. For a candidate whose central campaign plank appears to be the whole glass ceiling smashing/sisterhood thing, it's not a good look.

I think even the sisterhood would accept that a woman cuckolded by a former centrefold could legitimately describe Flowers as a bimbo. Indeed it may well be the truest remark that Hillary has ever made!

Black_Rook

tlg86 said:

SouthamObserver said:

tlg86 said:

shiney2 said:

"..as Labour are only a heartbeat away from a ‘hard left’ takeover."

Surely Labour are only JC's heartbeat away from a ‘moderate’ takeover?

The lab leadership is not inheritable and finding 35 morons (cf Mr McTernan) to nominate McDonnell could be difficult.

It depends if the next leadership election is before or after the next election at which the composition of the PLP will change dramatically (both in personnel and numbers).

Corbyn does not control the NEC and so cannot force through any rule changes. The likelihood is that the PLP will be a lot smaller after the general election, but that it will still be hard for a far left candidate to make it onto a leadership ballot. Some favoured figures, such as Clive Lewis, may well end up losing their seats.

I see his notional seat will be 85% Norwich South and 15% South Norfolk so you're right to suggest that it could be tight. It might be a bit early but a thread on which Labour MPs are in danger of losing their seats would be useful (leaving aside deselections!).

Wells makes the proposed new Norwich South a straight Con-Lab marginal with a notional Labour majority of about 4,500. This would require a plausible-looking 4.3% swing to the Tories. However... there are over 6,000 Green voters in play and I suspect that a lot of them will be willing to switch sides and back Lewis, on the strong assumption that he is the Labour candidate.

I would therefore suspect that Lewis' chances of survival would still be high under these circumstances.

PlatoSaid

Dignity in Dying
Heading to #labconf16 for our fringe event today. 1pm at Hilton City Centre. Please come to discuss an exciting year for end of life choice.

Sandpit

PlatoSaid said:

Sandpit said:

Alistair said:

Trump brining up Gennifer Flowers means it's now open season on Trump infidelities.

Maybe, but the Flowers stuff is all very much public domain, and Hillary will be a lot more upset with the public's new history lesson than Trump would ever be.

I'm still waiting for a Republican PAC to make a House of Cards trailer showing the Clintons in place of the lead characters.

If they've really got balls, they'll do it with actual footage, will make a couple of days of headlines as HBO try and get it taken down - while everyone is talking about the comparison between the Underwoods and the Clintons.

That Trump had affairs has already been done - sure it'll get brought up again, but he's never claimed to be an unflawed person. And he wasn't President at the time or Gov of Arkansas.

It's pretty thin whataboutery that doesn't deflect much from the core problem - the Clintons have a crypt full of skeletons.

Bill lying on 60 Minutes is a corker. He later confessed under oath that he'd had a sexual relationship with Flowers. Was this the meaning of 'is' stuff? It was so absurd at the time - makes OJ Simpson look innocent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DZyE41T56w

The last two minutes of that video are pure House of Cards. The willingness to do and say absolutely anything in the quest for the pursuit of power.

And remember in all this, that Bill later admitted under oath that the allegations against him were true.

kle4

Black_Rook said:

FPT

fitalass said:

Put aside the financial loss of the Union or the issue of the currency. If you cannot even prove yourself fit enough to run the most vital public services, who would trust you to run an Independent Scotland with all the other problems that creates for the us? Many local SNP associations are now in turmoil after recent Yes converts have taken over and pushed out long time SNP members and activists who did so much of the on ground work in local areas.

I'm from down South and obviously miss out on a lot of the nuances of the Scottish situation. Are the SNP really starting to suffer from their own bout of Momentumitis? Well...

I dont know either but I'll save an snp supporter the trouble and say

Yeah right, most popular in Scotland, bunch of useless donkeys wishing that was happening, I'm not a fanatic I just think everything is good for the SNP all the time, donkeys again.

tlg86

Black_Rook said:

tlg86 said:

SouthamObserver said:

tlg86 said:

shiney2 said:

"..as Labour are only a heartbeat away from a ‘hard left’ takeover."

Surely Labour are only JC's heartbeat away from a ‘moderate’ takeover?

The lab leadership is not inheritable and finding 35 morons (cf Mr McTernan) to nominate McDonnell could be difficult.

It depends if the next leadership election is before or after the next election at which the composition of the PLP will change dramatically (both in personnel and numbers).

Corbyn does not control the NEC and so cannot force through any rule changes. The likelihood is that the PLP will be a lot smaller after the general election, but that it will still be hard for a far left candidate to make it onto a leadership ballot. Some favoured figures, such as Clive Lewis, may well end up losing their seats.

I see his notional seat will be 85% Norwich South and 15% South Norfolk so you're right to suggest that it could be tight. It might be a bit early but a thread on which Labour MPs are in danger of losing their seats would be useful (leaving aside deselections!).

Wells makes the proposed new Norwich South a straight Con-Lab marginal with a notional Labour majority of about 4,500. This would require a plausible-looking 4.3% swing to the Tories. However... there are over 6,000 Green voters in play and I suspect that a lot of them will be willing to switch sides and back Lewis, on the strong assumption that he is the Labour candidate.

I would therefore suspect that Lewis' chances of survival would still be high under these circumstances.

Thank you, that sounds about right.

vik

Hillary's lead in Pennsylvania falls from 8 points to only 2 points, in the Muhlenberg College/Morning Call poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5964.html

And her National lead falls from 5 points to 2 points in the ABC News/Washington Post poll

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-race-narrows-doorstep-debates-poll/story?id=42313593

Morris_Dancer

Dr. Foxinsox, point of order: can women be cuckolded? I thought it only applied to men. [Not that I'm an expert in the field].

I'm wondering if there's a rarely used but feminine version of the term.

MarqueeMark

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Foxinsox, point of order: can women be cuckolded? I thought it only applied to men. [Not that I'm an expert in the field].

I'm wondering if there's a rarely used but feminine version of the term.

Wiki tells me that "The female equivalent cuckquean first appears in English literature in 1562"

Black_Rook

shiney2 said:

tlg86 said:

shiney2 said:

"..as Labour are only a heartbeat away from a ‘hard left’ takeover."

Surely Labour are only JC's heartbeat away from a ‘moderate’ takeover?

The lab leadership is not inheritable and finding 35 morons (cf Mr McTernan) to nominate McDonnell could be difficult.

It depends if the next leadership election is before or after the next election at which the composition of the PLP will change dramatically (both in personnel and numbers).

If JC pops his clogs ('heartbeat away' etc) then the acting leader is a 'moderate' ( ie the fatman) and the next elex will no doubt be held at a time he is happy with.

It comes to something when Labour's best chance of survival as a party of Government is for the leader to unexpectedly die before he can complete his takeover of the party machinery.

It's always possible, of course, but highly unlikely. Corbyn is 67, but he's also a bicycling, teetotal vegetarian with a life full of purpose - exactly the sort of budding septuagenarian whom one would most expect to live to a ripe old age. And he's only got to last long enough to capture 3 or 4 more seats on the NEC, or for the moderates to be deselected and a new wave of radicals to be returned to the Commons in 2020.

I think we are reasonably safe to assume that pre-2015 Labour is a dead parrot.