I'm startled someone as credible as @Peter_from_Putney is predicting.a Hung Parliament. I'd like to read a thread on it.
The path to PB fame: find ten 10/1 long shots. Tip them one at a time. Save all your posts. The one that comes in will keep you in free drinks for many a year....
LOL I often wonder that about OGH's famous Obama 50/1 prediction. Yes its an incredible result in isolation but considering how many hundreds if not thousands of tips/questions over the years of this site the odds are surely that one was bound to happen. Was it a stroke of genius or just a form of positivity bias where we forget all the predictions that never came true?
I've only taken money out my Bet fair and SpreadEx accounts in the last five years.
I'm startled someone as credible as @Peter_from_Putney is predicting.a Hung Parliament. I'd like to read a thread on it.
The path to PB fame: find ten 10/1 long shots. Tip them one at a time. Save all your posts. The one that comes in will keep you in free drinks for many a year....
LOL I often wonder that about OGH's famous Obama 50/1 prediction. Yes its an incredible result in isolation but considering how many hundreds if not thousands of tips/questions over the years of this site the odds are surely that one was bound to happen. Was it a stroke of genius or just a form of positivity bias where we forget all the predictions that never came true?
I've only taken money out my Bet fair and SpreadEx accounts in the last five years.
I'm not suggesting you'd do worse than average following tips here, just that given the frequency of tips you may ultimately be getting 1.3/1 not 50/1 overall (which is still incredibly good).
I'm startled someone as credible as @Peter_from_Putney is predicting.a Hung Parliament. I'd like to read a thread on it.
The path to PB fame: find ten 10/1 long shots. Tip them one at a time. Save all your posts. The one that comes in will keep you in free drinks for many a year....
LOL I often wonder that about OGH's famous Obama 50/1 prediction. Yes its an incredible result in isolation but considering how many hundreds if not thousands of tips/questions over the years of this site the odds are surely that one was bound to happen. Was it a stroke of genius or just a form of positivity bias where we forget all the predictions that never came true?
There are alot of tips that I haven't followed that have come in (Or come in alot in price), far more than poor value losers mentioned here. If you follow Richard Nabavi, Antifrank and others that know their onions (TCPoliticalbetting's Leadsom tip was eminently tradeable for instance), Morris Dancer on F1 and a few on the horses (ScottP, PtP), Pong particularly for timing of trading then you should end up miles ahead.
Of course everyone has losers - but blindly following the tips (Of posters with say > 200 posts) here would see you ahead I think.
There seems to be a bit of a misapprehension amongst some posters here.
Mrs May is moving left of Cameron, not right of Cameron, a move much facilitated by the welcome collapse of UKIP.
Admittedly she's doing her best to confuse the enemy with a nonsensical diversionary feint on grammar schools, but her tanks are dashing for the centre-ground, not the right flank of the battleground.
@justin124 May " I want the people to decide. " Corbyn " No ! I won't let them. I want you to remain PM for another 3 years. " In any normal circumstances it would be impossible for an opposition to prevent democracy. They'd have to be abnormal circumstances with clear polling the country didn't want an election at that moment. But if May's request for a dissolution passed the smell test it would be politically impossible for Corbyn to whip Labour MP's into blocking it.
There seems to be a bit of a misapprehension amongst some posters here.
Mrs May is moving left of Cameron, not right of Cameron, a move much facilitated by the welcome collapse of UKIP.
Admittedly she's doing her best to confuse the enemy with a nonsensical diversionary feint on grammar schools, but her tanks are dashing for the centre-ground, not the right flank of the battleground.
The feint seems to be working.
I'd take issue with that analysis, Mr. N. I'd say that TM is making a beeline for the "Common Ground". Left, right or centre doesn't enter into it. The green paper on improving education is actually part of her strategy, not a diversion.
As Labour would not be able to command the confidence of the house, Corbyn wouldn't be PM.
But neither did Campbell-Bannerman in December 1905 - in fact the Tories still had a majority of circa 100. He called an election - and Corbyn would have to do likewise.
Was that ever voted on in a way that the FTPA stipulates? The Act states:
"If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first."
Corbyn wouldn't win such a vote, and therefore wouldn't become Prime Minister.
That does not necessarily follow from what you have quoted there. There would have to be an election certainly - but there are constitutional scholars who argue that if the Government is defeated on this vote the Leader of the Opposition should be invited to put together a majority in Parliament , and becomes caretaker PM whilst he tries to do so. Of course he would fail, - and an election would then follow - but he remains caretaker PM til Polling Day.
Using your logic he would not be PM after he lost his no confidence vote? The PM remains PM until someone can be appointed who can command the confidence of the house.
It all depends what people mean by an early election. Next Spring is certainly very possible. Too late now. No one will want an election after the clocks go back plus the £ is too unsettled. The big problem is the shape of Brexit isn't in the Goldilocks Zone yet. For a successful Brexit election you need enough of an outline to claim a mandate but not enough of an outline to maximise opposition or get bogged down in the details. The other issue, May having ruled an election out, is you need a casus beli. You need either a Bruxelles or Parliamentary blockage to be cleared. But we won't get these ( if they happen ) till the middle of next year. ECA repeal isn't until the new session. Tusk's ' Hard Brexit or No Brexit ' wouldn't play until A50 is invoked.
And what happens if Corbyn refuses to play ball with any wish by TM to call an election for May 4th next year?
Corbyn has already shot his mouth off calling for an immeadiate GE and is, if we are frank, too thick to think strategically about the way ahead. But I agree Labour should set certain " tests " for a Brexit election. Blocking democracy would be impossible but saying the British people deserve to know X,Y,Z about Brexit policy before an election was granted could be pulled off.
I'm not an expert but I think the Cabinet manual says May can only resign when she can advise HM who her successor will be. As the Commons wouldn't have expressed confidence in a replacement for 14 days due to the Conservative majority May would be PM still when the automatic dissolution kicked in.
I don't think the Cabinet has any constitutional force at all - it is merely advice to a sitting PM by civil servants.. Constitutional precedents - eg December 1905 -would certainly override that.
'Precedent' from 1905 would not override the advice of the cabinet secretary. That small straw is broken I'm afraid Justin.
I believe - apologies to him if I am wrong - that David Herdson has made a similar point to my own on this. The Cabinet Secretary at the end of the day does not determine what is proper constitutional practice. Few of them have even been legally trained.
British constitutional practice is to make it up as you go along. You don't need to be legally trained to do that
And what happens if Corbyn refuses to play ball with any wish by TM to call an election for May 4th next year?
Corbyn has already shot his mouth off calling for an immeadiate GE and is, if we are frank, too thick to think strategically about the way ahead. But I agree Labour should set certain " tests " for a Brexit election. Blocking democracy would be impossible but saying the British people deserve to know X,Y,Z about Brexit policy before an election was granted could be pulled off.
I'm not an expert but I think the Cabinet manual says May can only resign when she can advise HM who her successor will be. As the Commons wouldn't have expressed confidence in a replacement for 14 days due to the Conservative majority May would be PM still when the automatic dissolution kicked in.
I don't think the Cabinet has any constitutional force at all - it is merely advice to a sitting PM by civil servants.. Constitutional precedents - eg December 1905 -would certainly override that.
'Precedent' from 1905 would not override the advice of the cabinet secretary. That small straw is broken I'm afraid Justin.
I believe - apologies to him if I am wrong - that David Herdson has made a similar point to my own on this. The Cabinet Secretary at the end of the day does not determine what is proper constitutional practice. Few of them have even been legally trained.
British constitutional practice is to make it up as you go along. You don't need to be legally trained to do that
Precedent is important though.
Precedent involves far more than 'this happened before, so it must happen again'. It also involves weighing up how the constitutional set up has changed, how subsequent legislation has impacted it and, lets be frank, sometimes ignoring the most recent example of similarity because it is balls.
To think anything else risks sounding a little HYUFD-deterministic...
I believe - apologies to him if I am wrong - that David Herdson has made a similar point to my own on this. The Cabinet Secretary at the end of the day does not determine what is proper constitutional practice. Few of them have even been legally trained.
British constitutional practice is to make it up as you go along. You don't need to be legally trained to do that
Precedent is important though.
Just you're wrong, I attended an LSE event last year, for Corbyn to become PM, Tory MPs would have to either vote for it or abstain.
From their briefing paper:
What does the law say?
For example, there’s been big speculation about what happens if a minority Labour or Conservative government gets defeated on their Queen’s Speech. Which rather misses the point – nothing happens. The Government doesn’t fall. There is no dissolution of Parliament.
Under the FTPA the only circumstances in which a Government falls would be if (a) they resigned – unlikely but not impossible or (b) the following is passed by a majority in the House of Commons
“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government”. Nothing else forces a Government out of office – not defeat on a Queen’s Speech, a Budget, a key piece of legislation, a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, nothing.
Of course there may be political circumstances where a Government chooses to take such a defeat seriously and resigns. Or, more likely, they could put down the above motion themselves and dare their opponents to kick them out.
Even if the above motion is passed and the current Government is ousted there is then a 14 day period in which attempts to form a new Government can take place. And, as we often see on the Continent, that can often be an attempt by the current Government to cobble together a new combination to win a vote of confidence.
Which brings us to the second part of this process, accepting a new Government. Here the FTPA says that this must take the form of a majority of the House of Commons passing the following resolution:
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Note the important difference that this is a positive affirmation of confidence – arguably it would be harder to pass this motion than the no confidence one, simply because it would politically endorse the Government on offer, which might be awkward for some.
Just checked - it started in 93. So 48 years after. 33 years is a stretch indeed for almost but it is just under 75% of the way there which is almost as bad.
And only five more years between WW2 and that speech than between now and that speech.
#gettingold
Years ago there was a weekly programme on the television that looked at in documentary/news terms what has happened 25 years ago that week. It was called, if memory serves, "All Our Yesterdays". I remember watching it in the sixties when episode after episode seemed to be taken up with what happened in North Africa.
Could be an interesting format to reintroduce now.
#gettingoldisnotsobad
"All Our Yesterdays" covered two time periods - 25 years previous and 50 years previous, so both world wars were mentioned.
I'm startled someone as credible as @Peter_from_Putney is predicting.a Hung Parliament. I'd like to read a thread on it.
The path to PB fame: find ten 10/1 long shots. Tip them one at a time. Save all your posts. The one that comes in will keep you in free drinks for many a year....
LOL I often wonder that about OGH's famous Obama 50/1 prediction. Yes its an incredible result in isolation but considering how many hundreds if not thousands of tips/questions over the years of this site the odds are surely that one was bound to happen. Was it a stroke of genius or just a form of positivity bias where we forget all the predictions that never came true?
I've only taken money out my Bet fair and SpreadEx accounts in the last five years.
I'm not suggesting you'd do worse than average following tips here, just that given the frequency of tips you may ultimately be getting 1.3/1 not 50/1 overall (which is still incredibly good).
Political betting presents opportunities you simply can't get in say the gee gees where long term you might be able to win by 8% or so (If you're bloody good). Of course you can't turn the money over as quickly with politics but the ROI is unmatchable.
Of course everyone has losers - but blindly following the tips (Of posters with say > 200 posts) here would see you ahead I think.
One needs to be careful. There are some posters on here who do not actually bet on the outcome but bet on the bet as it were. They are looking for changes in the market and make their money on those and to hell with the eventual outcome. There are one or two posters who, I strongly suspect, will even post content that supports their betting position (talk their own book).
That might sound a statement of the bleedin' obvious to many, but time after time I see posts on here which imply that bookmakers set their odds on what they think will happen and not on the money placed.
There was a bloke who wrote a book on making money on political betting, can't remember his name though.
I'd take issue with that analysis, Mr. N. I'd say that TM is making a beeline for the "Common Ground". Left, right or centre doesn't enter into it. The green paper on improving education is actually part of her strategy, not a diversion.
Well, yes, 'left' and 'right' are very crude terms. The key point I'm making is that it's nonsense to see Theresa May as somehow radically different from Osborne and Cameron in her politics. They are all very similar, thank goodness. She's (deliberately I imagine) projecting a difference of style, but the substance remain much the same.
Whether she'll be as good remains to be seen.
On the specific point about education, if it was a serious part of her strategy, rather than chaff, then she went about it the wrong way; her approach has pretty much guaranteed that she won't be able to proceed with it.
Just checked - it started in 93. So 48 years after. 33 years is a stretch indeed for almost but it is just under 75% of the way there which is almost as bad.
And only five more years between WW2 and that speech than between now and that speech.
#gettingold
Years ago there was a weekly programme on the television that looked at in documentary/news terms what has happened 25 years ago that week. It was called, if memory serves, "All Our Yesterdays". I remember watching it in the sixties when episode after episode seemed to be taken up with what happened in North Africa.
Could be an interesting format to reintroduce now.
#gettingoldisnotsobad
"All Our Yesterdays" covered two time periods - 25 years previous and 50 years previous, so both world wars were mentioned.
Did you remember that, Mr. Alan, or did you google it up?
Either way, I still think it would be an interesting format to reintroduce.
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Is that type of language really necessary here?
I don't mind the language, I used [moderated] the other day to describe our Brexit ideologues (if there was a worse word I would use it)...it is these puerile, childish, immature, kiddie smiley yellow cartoon faces that sends me bonkers.
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Is that type of language really necessary here?
I don't mind the language, I used [moderated] the other day to describe our Brexit ideologues (if there was a worse word I would use it)...it is these puerile, childish, immature, kiddie smiley yellow cartoon faces that sends me bonkers.
You are just egging us on to use more, aren't you! *innocent face*
The Ecuadorian embassy cut off Assange's Internet access today. They really don't like him being there but he is becoming a real bit of an issue now. Pressure has started to come from external sources. Proper pressure. And this story about Russia Today getting its UK accounts frozen....something is going on....
Meanwhile, Donald Trump's links to the Russians are just starting to be revealed. It is really extensive. Trump said he didn't have any real investments in Russia but theres links by the ton (249 apparently). More to come. Donald is in way over his head on this one and he knows it. Possibly the first presidential candidate to have more loyalty to a foreign country than his own.
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Is that type of language really necessary here?
Do you understand he is a dangerous demagogue. He's not your run of the mill GOP candidate. It seems people will justify and overlook a lot when it's their own side. You can't really argue with him because he doesn't use any rational arguments, just seeks to divide.
I don't know how normally very smart people can't see this.
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Is that type of language really necessary here?
Do you understand he is a dangerous demagogue. He's not your run of the mill GOP candidate. It seems people will justify and overlook a lot when it's their own side. You can't really argue with him because he doesn't use any rational arguments, just seeks to divide.
I don't know how normally very smart people can't see this.
There, why didn't you just say that rather than "nastier piece of shit".
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Is that type of language really necessary here?
I don't mind the language, I used [moderated] the other day to describe our Brexit ideologues (if there was a worse word I would use it)...it is these puerile, childish, immature, kiddie smiley yellow cartoon faces that sends me bonkers.
You are just egging us on to use more, aren't you! *innocent face*
Of course I am.......you are possibly one of the few people here that has tried to understand my penchant for winding up....
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Is that type of language really necessary here?
I don't mind the language, I used [moderated] the other day to describe our Brexit ideologues (if there was a worse word I would use it)...it is these puerile, childish, immature, kiddie smiley yellow cartoon faces that sends me bonkers.
You are just egging us on to use more, aren't you! *innocent face*
Of course I am.......you are possibly one of the few people here that has tried to understand my penchant for winding up....
I'm editing PB for a few days starting tomorrow, I'll do an entire thread in emojis
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Is that type of language really necessary here?
I don't mind the language, I used [moderated] the other day to describe our Brexit ideologues (if there was a worse word I would use it)...it is these puerile, childish, immature, kiddie smiley yellow cartoon faces that sends me bonkers.
You are just egging us on to use more, aren't you! *innocent face*
Of course I am.......you are possibly one of the few people here that has tried to understand my penchant for winding up....
I'm editing PB for a few days starting tomorrow, I'll do an entire thread in emojis
Can we have bar charts made of emojis for the next poll. Tories = of course.
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Is that type of language really necessary here?
I don't mind the language, I used [moderated] the other day to describe our Brexit ideologues (if there was a worse word I would use it)...it is these puerile, childish, immature, kiddie smiley yellow cartoon faces that sends me bonkers.
You are just egging us on to use more, aren't you! *innocent face*
Of course I am.......you are possibly one of the few people here that has tried to understand my penchant for winding up....
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Is that type of language really necessary here?
I don't mind the language, I used [moderated] the other day to describe our Brexit ideologues (if there was a worse word I would use it)...it is these puerile, childish, immature, kiddie smiley yellow cartoon faces that sends me bonkers.
You are just egging us on to use more, aren't you! *innocent face*
Of course I am.......you are possibly one of the few people here that has tried to understand my penchant for winding up....
I'm editing PB for a few days starting tomorrow, I'll do an entire thread in emojis
Can we have bar charts made of emojis for the next poll. Tories = of course.
I'd take issue with that analysis, Mr. N. I'd say that TM is making a beeline for the "Common Ground". Left, right or centre doesn't enter into it. The green paper on improving education is actually part of her strategy, not a diversion.
Well, yes, 'left' and 'right' are very crude terms. The key point I'm making is that it's nonsense to see Theresa May as somehow radically different from Osborne and Cameron in her politics. They are all very similar, thank goodness. She's (deliberately I imagine) projecting a difference of style, but the substance remain much the same.
Whether she'll be as good remains to be seen.
On the specific point about education, if it was a serious part of her strategy, rather than chaff, then she went about it the wrong way; her approach has pretty much guaranteed that she won't be able to proceed with it.
Crikey, Mr. N, I know it is getting late and I am getting old, but wasn't it Keith Joseph who pointed out the difference between the mythical centre-ground and the "Common-Ground" and how elections were won from the latter?
That understanding of the "Common-ground" I don't think Cameron ever had and I doubt Osborne even had an idea that it could exist. Maybe, that is why both men failed. I hope TM will not.
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Is that type of language really necessary here?
I don't mind the language, I used [moderated] the other day to describe our Brexit ideologues (if there was a worse word I would use it)...it is these puerile, childish, immature, kiddie smiley yellow cartoon faces that sends me bonkers.
You are just egging us on to use more, aren't you! *innocent face*
Of course I am.......you are possibly one of the few people here that has tried to understand my penchant for winding up....
I'm editing PB for a few days starting tomorrow, I'll do an entire thread in emojis
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Is that type of language really necessary here?
I don't mind the language, I used [moderated] the other day to describe our Brexit ideologues (if there was a worse word I would use it)...it is these puerile, childish, immature, kiddie smiley yellow cartoon faces that sends me bonkers.
You are just egging us on to use more, aren't you! *innocent face*
Of course I am.......you are possibly one of the few people here that has tried to understand my penchant for winding up....
Ah ha! I knew it, you secretly love them.
Of course I don't mind them...I am just too technically ignorant to know how to use them myself, and I can use my faux pas indignation to wind people up.
Crikey, Mr. N, I know it is getting late and I am getting old, but wasn't it Keith Joseph who pointed out the difference between the mythical centre-ground and the "Common-Ground" and how elections were won from the latter?
That understanding of the "Common-ground" I don't think Cameron ever had and I doubt Osborne had even had an idea that it could exist. Maybe, that is why both men failed. I hope TM will not.
They didn't fail. They made the Conservative Party electable (in one term, not the two which everyone expected initially) and got a majority, precisely because they did understand the centre (or common, if you prefer) ground. If you recall, one Theresa May, when she was chair of the party, did an enormous amount of damage to that effort, by her failure to realise that her (admittedly quite correct) point about how the Conservative Party was seen was worded in such a way as to give massive ammunition to Labour.
Still, I'm very pleased that she's picked up the mantle and is processing along the same one-nation Tory route which her immediate predecessor did so much to revive. She's made a few missteps in her first few weeks, but that's not too surprising. So far she's got the big calls right, which is encouraging.
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Is that type of language really necessary here?
Do you understand he is a dangerous demagogue. He's not your run of the mill GOP candidate. It seems people will justify and overlook a lot when it's their own side. You can't really argue with him because he doesn't use any rational arguments, just seeks to divide.
I don't know how normally very smart people can't see this.
"It's Ok to say "shit". It ain't against God." - Prisoner Boggs, Alien 3
I'm startled someone as credible as @Peter_from_Putney is predicting.a Hung Parliament. I'd like to read a thread on it.
I might just take you up on that YS. My logic is based on the simple logic that for the Tories to lose their wafer thin majority, they have only to lose a small fraction of their 2015 support level. The loss of just a handful of the LibDem seats they won, some very narrowly, would just about do it. Right now, to me as a Tory, post the Brexit vote in which I voted to leave, post Cameron, who I felt was right to quit, I feel the party I support is looking exceptionally vulnerable over a range of issues and therefore susceptible to a mighty fall over the next 6 - 12 months.
The Home Office has no way of verifying the age of child refugees being brought to the UK, it has emerged amid concerns that adults are posing as minors to gain access to Britain.
I can't see it on 538 and it came out earlier today, is it real?
I can't see it either but I just searched for the poll on twitter thinking that is where he may well of see it. I will note that Georgia is the next state up to turn blue on the 538 snake of the individual states. I do think that this feels possible but still think that Trump should still hold on. I certainly hope since I bet on the Republicans getting 21-30 states with Ladbrokes back when it was 11/10 (it is now 4/9).
I can't see it either but I just searched for the poll on twitter thinking that is where he may well of see it. I will note that Georgia is the next state up to turn blue on the 538 snake of the individual states. I do think that this feels possible but still think that Trump should still hold on. I certainly hope since I bet on the Republicans getting 21-30 states with Ladbrokes back when it was 11/10 (it is now 4/9).
I'm startled someone as credible as @Peter_from_Putney is predicting.a Hung Parliament. I'd like to read a thread on it.
I might just take you up on that YS. My logic is based on the simple logic that for the Tories to lose their wafer thin majority, they have only to lose a small fraction of their 2015 support level. The loss of just a handful of the LibDem seats they won, some very narrowly, would just about do it. Right now, to me as a Tory, post the Brexit vote in which I voted to leave, post Cameron, who I felt was right to quit, I feel the party I support is looking exceptionally vulnerable over a range of issues and therefore susceptible to a mighty fall over the next 6 - 12 months.
Really? On what scenario? It seems to me that UKIP are in melt down and that there is 5-10% of the population going begging to a Tory PM who is delivering Brexit even if there are bumps in the road. I can see a scenario where some of the Lib Dem supporters that Dave picked up go back to their roots or even to Labour if they get rid of Corbyn but I see that being offset by Labour supporters who support Brexit and fall out with their natural party as a result or simply see Corbyn as an unelectable muppet.
If Brexit turned into a total disaster then just maybe a government committed to it might struggle but at the moment it seems to me that the small majority seriously understates the strength of the Tory position with every other major party in varying degrees of collapse.
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Is that type of language really necessary here?
I don't mind the language, I used [moderated] the other day to describe our Brexit ideologues (if there was a worse word I would use it)...it is these puerile, childish, immature, kiddie smiley yellow cartoon faces that sends me bonkers.
You are just egging us on to use more, aren't you! *innocent face*
Of course I am.......you are possibly one of the few people here that has tried to understand my penchant for winding up....
I'm editing PB for a few days starting tomorrow, I'll do an entire thread in emojis
You're not seriously telling us that OGH is off on holiday AGAIN are you? Ye Gods, I'm delighted to conclude that the once concerning financial viability of PB.com must have improved out of all recognition over recent years.
The Home Office has no way of verifying the age of child refugees being brought to the UK, it has emerged amid concerns that adults are posing as minors to gain access to Britain.
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Is that type of language really necessary here?
I don't mind the language, I used [moderated] the other day to describe our Brexit ideologues (if there was a worse word I would use it)...it is these puerile, childish, immature, kiddie smiley yellow cartoon faces that sends me bonkers.
You are just egging us on to use more, aren't you! *innocent face*
Of course I am.......you are possibly one of the few people here that has tried to understand my penchant for winding up....
I'm editing PB for a few days starting tomorrow, I'll do an entire thread in emojis
You're not seriously telling us that OGH is off on holiday AGAIN are you? Ye Gods, I'm delighted to conclude that the once concerning financial viability of PB.com must have improved out of all recognition over recent years.
As long as I keep bribing OGH to get the first, there is nothing to worry about... *ahem*
I can't see it either but I just searched for the poll on twitter thinking that is where he may well of see it. I will note that Georgia is the next state up to turn blue on the 538 snake of the individual states. I do think that this feels possible but still think that Trump should still hold on. I certainly hope since I bet on the Republicans getting 21-30 states with Ladbrokes back when it was 11/10 (it is now 4/9).
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Is that type of language really necessary here?
I don't mind the language, I used [moderated] the other day to describe our Brexit ideologues (if there was a worse word I would use it)...it is these puerile, childish, immature, kiddie smiley yellow cartoon faces that sends me bonkers.
You are just egging us on to use more, aren't you! *innocent face*
Of course I am.......you are possibly one of the few people here that has tried to understand my penchant for winding up....
I'm editing PB for a few days starting tomorrow, I'll do an entire thread in emojis
You're not seriously telling us that OGH is off on holiday AGAIN are you? Ye Gods, I'm delighted to conclude that the once concerning financial viability of PB.com must have improved out of all recognition over recent years.
The Home Office has no way of verifying the age of child refugees being brought to the UK, it has emerged amid concerns that adults are posing as minors to gain access to Britain.
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Is that type of language really necessary here?
I don't mind the language, I used [moderated] the other day to describe our Brexit ideologues (if there was a worse word I would use it)...it is these puerile, childish, immature, kiddie smiley yellow cartoon faces that sends me bonkers.
You are just egging us on to use more, aren't you! *innocent face*
Of course I am.......you are possibly one of the few people here that has tried to understand my penchant for winding up....
I'm editing PB for a few days starting tomorrow, I'll do an entire thread in emojis
You're not seriously telling us that OGH is off on holiday AGAIN are you? Ye Gods, I'm delighted to conclude that the once concerning financial viability of PB.com must have improved out of all recognition over recent years.
Also good to know there's something big in the pipeline in the political world. Any guesses?
I'm startled someone as credible as @Peter_from_Putney is predicting.a Hung Parliament. I'd like to read a thread on it.
I might just take you up on that YS. My logic is based on the simple logic that for the Tories to lose their wafer thin majority, they have only to lose a small fraction of their 2015 support level. The loss of just a handful of the LibDem seats they won, some very narrowly, would just about do it. Right now, to me as a Tory, post the Brexit vote in which I voted to leave, post Cameron, who I felt was right to quit, I feel the party I support is looking exceptionally vulnerable over a range of issues and therefore susceptible to a mighty fall over the next 6 - 12 months.
Really? On what scenario? It seems to me that UKIP are in melt down and that there is 5-10% of the population going begging to a Tory PM who is delivering Brexit even if there are bumps in the road. I can see a scenario where some of the Lib Dem supporters that Dave picked up go back to their roots or even to Labour if they get rid of Corbyn but I see that being offset by Labour supporters who support Brexit and fall out with their natural party as a result or simply see Corbyn as an unelectable muppet.
If Brexit turned into a total disaster then just maybe a government committed to it might struggle but at the moment it seems to me that the small majority seriously understates the strength of the Tory position with every other major party in varying degrees of collapse.
But it isn't just about Brexit and I haven't yet written off UKIP in the manner you suppose and both Labour and the LibDems would be very much more popular with half credible leaders. Hammond's is looking flakey. Inflation is set to increase markedly. Immigration isn't going to reduce. The NHS is this winter approaching yet another massive crisis. Spending generally is going through the roof. The Heathrow decision is likely to upset a number of Tory MPs and a large number of Tory voters. Etc, etc, etc.
The Home Office has no way of verifying the age of child refugees being brought to the UK, it has emerged amid concerns that adults are posing as minors to gain access to Britain.
What an absolute disgraceful fiasco. These are clearly adult men. Some look over 30. "Children"???
Every charity worker who sincerely wants to help refugees has been rendered comical, devious and mendacious in the eyes of the public.
When I hear the word children I think of something like 8-10, not 17!
They're not even 17. People are doing "what age am I" visual tests on Twitter, and getting everything from 25 to 39.
39.
It's so egregiously insulting it's hard to believe it's real. Fucking idiots. Bad for everyone.
And aren't they supposed to only be those with relatives in the UK? How was that proven if they can't prove their ages?
The entire thing is absurd and wrong. Black mark against this government. They should have stood firm, and carried on with the policy of taking GENUINE hard cases - infant orphans and so on - from refugee camps in Turkey.
At least this is happening because the camp is due to be demolished.
The Home Office has no way of verifying the age of child refugees being brought to the UK, it has emerged amid concerns that adults are posing as minors to gain access to Britain.
I can't see it either but I just searched for the poll on twitter thinking that is where he may well of see it. I will note that Georgia is the next state up to turn blue on the 538 snake of the individual states. I do think that this feels possible but still think that Trump should still hold on. I certainly hope since I bet on the Republicans getting 21-30 states with Ladbrokes back when it was 11/10 (it is now 4/9).
The Home Office has no way of verifying the age of child refugees being brought to the UK, it has emerged amid concerns that adults are posing as minors to gain access to Britain.
The Home Office has no way of verifying the age of child refugees being brought to the UK, it has emerged amid concerns that adults are posing as minors to gain access to Britain.
Will: Going to an under-18s disco where she works, so unfortunately you can't come. Wolfie: I can go. Will: What? Wolfie: I can go, I'm 17. Will: You're 17?! Wolfie: Yeah, I just look older. Will: There's looking older and then there's that! You look about 30!
I'm startled someone as credible as @Peter_from_Putney is predicting.a Hung Parliament. I'd like to read a thread on it.
.
Really? On what scenario? It seems to me that UKIP are in melt down and that there is 5-10% of the population going begging to a Tory PM who is delivering Brexit even if there are bumps in the road. I can see a scenario where some of the Lib Dem supporters that Dave picked up go back to their roots or even to Labour if they get rid of Corbyn but I see that being offset by Labour supporters who support Brexit and fall out with their natural party as a result or simply see Corbyn as an unelectable muppet.
If Brexit turned into a total disaster then just maybe a government committed to it might struggle but at the moment it seems to me that the small majority seriously understates the strength of the Tory position with every other major party in varying degrees of collapse.
But it isn't just about Brexit and I haven't yet written off UKIP in the manner you suppose and both Labour and the LibDems would be very much more popular with half credible leaders. Hammond's is looking flakey. Inflation is set to increase markedly. Immigration isn't going to reduce. The NHS is this winter approaching yet another massive crisis. Spending generally is going through the roof. The Heathrow decision is likely to upset a number of Tory MPs and a large number of Tory voters. Etc, etc, etc.
The government undoubtedly faces a difficult road and some hard decisions in which there are no popular options but one only needs to look at this thread header to see that UKIP's time is up. Between them the Tories and UKIP got over 50% of the vote last time out. Even with some returning to DNV and some more to the next anti establishment bandwagon there really is an opportunity for May to clean up here.
I agree about Hammond. He is over promoted and to call him underwhelming to date would be deeply flattering. I also agree that this is likely to be a very difficult winter for the NHS although I expect Hammond to fund a decent bung in his Autumn/Winter statement.
If there was any opposition there would be reasons to be nervous but there really isn't a credible choice. Like Hilary you don't have to be good, just better than the other guy.
The Home Office has no way of verifying the age of child refugees being brought to the UK, it has emerged amid concerns that adults are posing as minors to gain access to Britain.
I believe - apologies to him if I am wrong - that David Herdson has made a similar point to my own on this. The Cabinet Secretary at the end of the day does not determine what is proper constitutional practice. Few of them have even been legally trained.
British constitutional practice is to make it up as you go along. You don't need to be legally trained to do that
Precedent is important though.
Just you're wrong, I attended an LSE event last year, for Corbyn to become PM, Tory MPs would have to either vote for it or abstain.
From their briefing paper:
What does the law say?
For example, there’s been big speculation about what happens if a minority Labour or Conservative government gets defeated on their Queen’s Speech. Which rather misses the point – nothing happens. The Government doesn’t fall. There is no dissolution of Parliament.
Under the FTPA the only circumstances in which a Government falls would be if (a) they resigned – unlikely but not impossible or (b) the following is passed by a majority in the House of Commons
“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government”. Nothing else forces a Government out of office – not defeat on a Queen’s Speech, a Budget, a key piece of legislation, a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, nothing.
Of course there may be political circumstances where a Government chooses to take such a defeat seriously and resigns. Or, more likely, they could put down the above motion themselves and dare their opponents to kick them out.
Even if the above motion is passed and the current Government is ousted there is then a 14 day period in which attempts to form a new Government can take place. And, as we often see on the Continent, that can often be an attempt by the current Government to cobble together a new combination to win a vote of confidence.
Which brings us to the second part of this process, accepting a new Government. Here the FTPA says that this must take the form of a majority of the House of Commons passing the following resolution:
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Note the important difference that this is a positive affirmation of confidence – arguably it would be harder to pass this motion than the no confidence one, simply because it would politically endorse the Government on offer, which might be awkward for some.
The Home Office has no way of verifying the age of child refugees being brought to the UK, it has emerged amid concerns that adults are posing as minors to gain access to Britain.
The Home Office has no way of verifying the age of child refugees being brought to the UK, it has emerged amid concerns that adults are posing as minors to gain access to Britain.
@justin124 May " I want the people to decide. " Corbyn " No ! I won't let them. I want you to remain PM for another 3 years. " In any normal circumstances it would be impossible for an opposition to prevent democracy. They'd have to be abnormal circumstances with clear polling the country didn't want an election at that moment. But if May's request for a dissolution passed the smell test it would be politically impossible for Corbyn to whip Labour MP's into blocking it.
Disagree with that. Labour MPs who rebelled on that would be denied endorsement by the NEC at the election and ,therefore, effectively deselected.Corbyn could happily face down any criticism directed at him were he to block an election at a time when the polling evidence was bleak. The timing of an election has little mileage with the electorate one way or the other , and if by delaying Polling Day by a few months he has good grounds for believing that 'events' will improve his prospects at a later date his tactics might well appear vindicated in due course. What I am really saying is that if the polls look really bleak he would have nothing to lose by being awkward if by doing so he enhances the prospects of the party he leads!
The Home Office has no way of verifying the age of child refugees being brought to the UK, it has emerged amid concerns that adults are posing as minors to gain access to Britain.
What an absolute disgraceful fiasco. These are clearly adult men. Some look over 30. "Children"???
Every charity worker who sincerely wants to help refugees has been rendered comical, devious and mendacious in the eyes of the public.
When I hear the word children I think of something like 8-10, not 17!
They're not even 17. People are doing "what age am I" visual tests on Twitter, and getting everything from 25 to 39.
39.
It's so egregiously insulting it's hard to believe it's real. Fucking idiots. Bad for everyone.
Quite. I'm as pro-refugee as they come, we sponsored a 'refugees welcome' motion at council, wanted the UK to sign up to the UN scheme and take more than 20,000 in total.
But my jaw is dropping at today's pictures. What a total own goal. We talk of desperate unaccompanied child refugees, and the pictures are clearly of anything but. I can't imagine the anti-refugee crowd will take this quietly.
There seems to be a bit of a misapprehension amongst some posters here.
Mrs May is moving left of Cameron, not right of Cameron, a move much facilitated by the welcome collapse of UKIP.
Admittedly she's doing her best to confuse the enemy with a nonsensical diversionary feint on grammar schools, but her tanks are dashing for the centre-ground, not the right flank of the battleground.
The feint seems to be working.
Left economically, right socially I think.
The exact opposite of me. Having been happy voting for Blair and Cameron I'm now homeless. Room for a centrist liberal party exists (what happened to the liberal.....er.....what were they called?)
As Labour would not be able to command the confidence of the house, Corbyn wouldn't be PM.
But neither did Campbell-Bannerman in December 1905 - in fact the Tories still had a majority of circa 100. He called an election - and Corbyn would have to do likewise.
Was that ever voted on in a way that the FTPA stipulates? The Act states:
"If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first."
Corbyn wouldn't win such a vote, and therefore wouldn't become Prime Minister.
That does not necessarily follow from what you have quoted there. There would have to be an election certainly - but there are constitutional scholars who argue that if the Government is defeated on this vote the Leader of the Opposition should be invited to put together a majority in Parliament , and becomes caretaker PM whilst he tries to do so. Of course he would fail, - and an election would then follow - but he remains caretaker PM til Polling Day.
Using your logic he would not be PM after he lost his no confidence vote? The PM remains PM until someone can be appointed who can command the confidence of the house.
He would be PM but had he failed to obtain an affirmative Vote of Confidence within 14 days of the original No Confidence Vote a Dissolution would automatically occur.
@Peter_from_Putney It's an interesting analysis. I agree there is enormous capacity for the government to become very unpopular quite quickly next year. But that's midterm unpopularity. The fundamentals of British politics ( England and anglophone Wales ) seems as sympathetic to the Conservatives as they've been in my lifetime. We'd need Brexit to go very wrong and for a remarkable realignmwnt on the left to see the Conservatives making net losses in 2020. Far from impossible but the odds seems against it. New boundaries as well.
The Home Office has no way of verifying the age of child refugees being brought to the UK, it has emerged amid concerns that adults are posing as minors to gain access to Britain.
As Labour would not be able to command the confidence of the house, Corbyn wouldn't be PM.
But neither did Campbell-Bannerman in December 1905 - in fact the Tories still had a majority of circa 100. He called an election - and Corbyn would have to do likewise.
Was that ever voted on in a way that the FTPA stipulates? The Act states:
"If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first."
Corbyn wouldn't win such a vote, and therefore wouldn't become Prime Minister.
That does not necessarily follow from what you have quoted there. There would have to be an election certainly - but there are constitutional scholars who argue that if the Government is defeated on this vote the Leader of the Opposition should be invited to put together a majority in Parliament , and becomes caretaker PM whilst he tries to do so. Of course he would fail, - and an election would then follow - but he remains caretaker PM til Polling Day.
Using your logic he would not be PM after he lost his no confidence vote? The PM remains PM until someone can be appointed who can command the confidence of the house.
He would be PM but had he failed to obtain an affirmative Vote of Confidence within 14 days of the original No Confidence Vote a Dissolution would automatically occur.
HM would never appoint him as he would not be able to command a majority on the house.
I believe - apologies to him if I am wrong - that David Herdson has made a similar point to my own on this. The Cabinet Secretary at the end of the day does not determine what is proper constitutional practice. Few of them have even been legally trained.
British constitutional practice is to make it up as you go along. You don't need to be legally trained to do that
Precedent is important though.
Just you're wrong, I attended an LSE event last year, for Corbyn to become PM, Tory MPs would have to either vote for it or abstain.
From their briefing paper:
What does the law say?
Of course there may be political circumstances where a Government chooses to take such a defeat seriously and resigns. Or, more likely, they could put down the above motion themselves and dare their opponents to kick them out.
Even if the above motion is passed and the current Government is ousted there is then a 14 day period in which attempts to form a new Government can take place. And, as we often see on the Continent, that can often be an attempt by the current Government to cobble together a new combination to win a vote of confidence.
Which brings us to the second part of this process, accepting a new Government. Here the FTPA says that this must take the form of a majority of the House of Commons passing the following resolution:
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Note the important difference that this is a positive affirmation of confidence – arguably it would be harder to pass this motion than the no confidence one, simply because it would politically endorse the Government on offer, which might be awkward for some.
I am partly legally trained and I really do not believe that what you have quoted here settles the issue one way or the other. If the issue arises I have no doubt that constitutional experts will have a field day!
As Labour would not be able to command the confidence of the house, Corbyn wouldn't be PM.
But neither did Campbell-Bannerman in December 1905 - in fact the Tories still had a majority of circa 100. He called an election - and Corbyn would have to do likewise.
Was that ever voted on in a way that the FTPA stipulates? The Act states:
"If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first."
Corbyn wouldn't win such a vote, and therefore wouldn't become Prime Minister.
That does not necessarily follow from what you have quoted there. There would have to be an election certainly - but there are constitutional scholars who argue that if the Government is defeated on this vote the Leader of the Opposition should be invited to put together a majority in Parliament , and becomes caretaker PM whilst he tries to do so. Of course he would fail, - and an election would then follow - but he remains caretaker PM til Polling Day.
Using your logic he would not be PM after he lost his no confidence vote? The PM remains PM until someone can be appointed who can command the confidence of the house.
He would be PM but had he failed to obtain an affirmative Vote of Confidence within 14 days of the original No Confidence Vote a Dissolution would automatically occur.
HM would never appoint him as he would not be able to command a majority on the house.
But he would have tried - and failed - and then called an election. It was quite clear in December 1905 that Campbell - Bannerman did not command a majority in the Commons - the Tory majority was circa 100 - but he was still appointed PM. He then immediately called an election.
I believe - apologies to him if I am wrong - that David Herdson has made a similar point to my own on this. The Cabinet Secretary at the end of the day does not determine what is proper constitutional practice. Few of them have even been legally trained.
British constitutional practice is to make it up as you go along. You don't need to be legally trained to do that
Precedent is important though.
Just you're wrong, I attended an LSE event last year, for Corbyn to become PM, Tory MPs would have to either vote for it or abstain.
From their briefing paper:
What does the law say?
Of course there may be political circumstances where a Government chooses to take such a defeat seriously and resigns. Or, more likely, they could put down the above motion themselves and dare their opponents to kick them out.
Even if the above motion is passed and the current Government is ousted there is then a 14 day period in which attempts to form a new Government can take place. And, as we often see on the Continent, that can often be an attempt by the current Government to cobble together a new combination to win a vote of confidence.
Which brings us to the second part of this process, accepting a new Government. Here the FTPA says that this must take the form of a majority of the House of Commons passing the following resolution:
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Note the important difference that this is a positive affirmation of confidence – arguably it would be harder to pass this motion than the no confidence one, simply because it would politically endorse the Government on offer, which might be awkward for some.
I am partly legally trained and I really do not believe that what you have quoted here settles the issue one way or the other. If the issue arises I have no doubt that constitutional experts will have a field day!
The briefing paper was written in part by the authors of the FTPA legislation, clearly you know more about it than they do. All of them are legally trained and experts in constitutional law.
Their views were backed up by Sir Gus O'Donnell and Lord Hennesey
Lie No. 1 is that there are only two political ideas in the world, Republican and Democrat. Lie No. 2 is that the parties are violent ideological opposites, and that during campaign season we can only speak about the areas where they differ (abortion, guns, etc.) and never the areas where there's typically consensus (defense spending, surveillance, torture, trade, and so on). Lie No. 3, a corollary to No. 2, is that all problems are the fault of one party or the other, and never both. Assuming you watch the right channels, everything is always someone else's fault...
...That such a small man would have such an awesome impact on our nation's history is terrible, but it makes sense if you believe in the essential ridiculousness of the human experience. Trump picked exactly the wrong time to launch his mirror-gazing rampage to nowhere. He ran at a time when Americans on both sides of the aisle were experiencing a deep sense of betrayal by the political class, anger that was finally ready to express itself at the ballot box. The only thing that could get in the way of real change – if not now, then surely very soon – was a rebellion so maladroit, ill-conceived and irresponsible that even the severest critics of the system would become zealots for the status quo. In the absolute best-case scenario, the one in which he loses, this is what Trump's run accomplished. He ran as an outsider antidote to a corrupt two-party system, and instead will leave that system more entrenched than ever. If he goes on to lose, he will be our Bonaparte, the monster who will continue to terrify us even in exile, reinforcing the authority of kings...
I believe - apologies to him if I am wrong - that David Herdson has made a similar point to my own on this. The Cabinet Secretary at the end of the day does not determine what is proper constitutional practice. Few of them have even been legally trained.
British constitutional practice is to make it up as you go along. You don't need to be legally trained to do that
Precedent is important though.
Just you're wrong, I attended an LSE event last year, for Corbyn to become PM, Tory MPs would have to either vote for it or abstain.
From their briefing paper:
What does the law say?
Which brings us to the second part of this process, accepting a new Government. Here the FTPA says that this must take the form of a majority of the House of Commons passing the following resolution:
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Note the important difference that this is a positive affirmation of confidence – arguably it would be harder to pass this motion than the no confidence one, simply because it would politically endorse the Government on offer, which might be awkward for some.
I am partly legally trained and I really do not believe that what you have quoted here settles the issue one way or the other. If the issue arises I have no doubt that constitutional experts will have a field day!
The briefing paper was written in part by the authors of the FTPA legislation, clearly you know more about it than they do. All of them are legally trained and experts in constitutional law.
Their views were backed up by Sir Gus O'Donnell and Lord Hennesey
I am sorry but I don't actually believe that it contradicts - or undermines - the points that I have made.
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Is that type of language really necessary here?
I don't mind the language, I used [moderated] the other day to describe our Brexit ideologues (if there was a worse word I would use it)...it is these puerile, childish, immature, kiddie smiley yellow cartoon faces that sends me bonkers.
You are just egging us on to use more, aren't you! *innocent face*
Of course I am.......you are possibly one of the few people here that has tried to understand my penchant for winding up....
I'm editing PB for a few days starting tomorrow, I'll do an entire thread in emojis
With that avatar, shouldn't it be all CAPS LOCKED ?
The Home Office has no way of verifying the age of child refugees being brought to the UK, it has emerged amid concerns that adults are posing as minors to gain access to Britain.
I'm not convinced there's a 39 year old who has been accepted as a child refugee.
As you say, hard to believe it's real.
I don't deny the situation is concerning though. France needs to do more.
I'd say the "39 year old" is probably a 33 year old, worn down by trouble and strife. And god bless him, who wouldn't be prematurely aged. No one doubts these poor souls have had terrible journeys, to get to Calais.
But 33 is so far from "child" it is ridiculous. It devalues the whole exercise in a fatal way. It turns nice people into cynics, and cynics into racists. And the media look preposterous.
BAD.
Night night.
It's like they still don't get why Brexit happened. Or why Trump is happening.
@Peter_from_Putney It's an interesting analysis. I agree there is enormous capacity for the government to become very unpopular quite quickly next year. But that's midterm unpopularity. The fundamentals of British politics ( England and anglophone Wales ) seems as sympathetic to the Conservatives as they've been in my lifetime. We'd need Brexit to go very wrong and for a remarkable realignmwnt on the left to see the Conservatives making net losses in 2020. Far from impossible but the odds seems against it. New boundaries as well.
I felt at the time that the 2015 GE represented something very close to an optimum result for the Tories, with just about everything going in their favour, including a near wipe-out of the LibDems, huge Labour losses to the SNP, failure of UKIP to win more than 1 seat. Good wins for the Tories in the Midlands, Yorkshire and even Wales. I just don't see any scope for them to improve on that position and that it is in fact more likely after 10 years in Government that they will lose seats on a net basis - they only need to lose 7, I believe, to lose their majority. If you disagree, please provide some sort of indication of the further seats you see them winning - surely not in any of the major cities?
The Home Office has no way of verifying the age of child refugees being brought to the UK, it has emerged amid concerns that adults are posing as minors to gain access to Britain.
I'm not convinced there's a 39 year old who has been accepted as a child refugee.
As you say, hard to believe it's real.
I don't deny the situation is concerning though. France needs to do more.
I'd say the "39 year old" is probably a 33 year old, worn down by trouble and strife. And god bless him, who wouldn't be prematurely aged. No one doubts these poor souls have had terrible journeys, to get to Calais.
But 33 is so far from "child" it is ridiculous. It devalues the whole exercise in a fatal way. It turns nice people into cynics, and cynics into racists. And the media look preposterous.
BAD.
Night night.
It's ridiculous. I think the vast majority of people would have thought they would actually be young vulnerable children. Also illuminating there isn't a single girl in sight, which just reinforces my suspicion that they are economic migrants.
@Peter_from_Putney It's an interesting analysis. I agree there is enormous capacity for the government to become very unpopular quite quickly next year. But that's midterm unpopularity. The fundamentals of British politics ( England and anglophone Wales ) seems as sympathetic to the Conservatives as they've been in my lifetime. We'd need Brexit to go very wrong and for a remarkable realignmwnt on the left to see the Conservatives making net losses in 2020. Far from impossible but the odds seems against it. New boundaries as well.
I felt at the time that the 2015 GE represented something very close to an optimum result for the Tories, with just about everything going in their favour, including a near wipe-out of the LibDems, huge Labour losses to the SNP, failure of UKIP to win more than 1 seat. Good wins for the Tories in the Midlands, Yorkshire and even Wales. I just don't see any scope for them to improve on that position and that it is in fact more likely after 10 years in Government that they will lose seats on a net basis - they only need to lose 7, I believe, to lose their majority. If you disagree, please provide some sort of indication of the further seats you see them winning - surely not in any of the major cities?
Many contributors on here ,I suspect, will refer you to the proposed Boundary changes. In reality, however, it is very far from certain that they will be approved!
The Home Office has no way of verifying the age of child refugees being brought to the UK, it has emerged amid concerns that adults are posing as minors to gain access to Britain.
I don't deny the situation is concerning though. France needs to do more.
I'd say the "39 year old" is probably a 33 year old, worn down by trouble and strife. And god bless him, who wouldn't be prematurely aged. No one doubts these poor souls have had terrible journeys, to get to Calais.
But 33 is so far from "child" it is ridiculous. It devalues the whole exercise in a fatal way. It turns nice people into cynics, and cynics into racists. And the media look preposterous.
BAD.
Night night.
It's ridiculous. I think the vast majority of people would have thought they would actually be young vulnerable children. Also illuminating there isn't a single girl in sight, which just reinforces my suspicion that they are economic migrants.
They are supposed to be Asylum Seekers aged under 18 with sufficient family connections to the UK to qualify for their Asylum claim to be heard here not the first EU country they entered. The guidance says " benefit of the doubt " should be offered if no age documentation is available. Asylum Seekers often don't have documentation.
So what does an 18 year old +" benefit of the doubt" look like ? I accept some of those photographed look older than 18. I also accept given the media circus the Home Office should have picked more archetypally sympathetic candidates to be first. Maybe the print press has picked the most obviously suspect photos ? Some do look under 18. Maybe Asylum Seekers deserved more privicy than these have been shown. Certainly it's a presentational cock up. Though as the Calais 10K are utterly unrepresentable of the migrant crisis pro migrant Campaigners have reaped what they sowed to an extent.
The Home Office has no way of verifying the age of child refugees being brought to the UK, it has emerged amid concerns that adults are posing as minors to gain access to Britain.
@Peter_from_Putney It's an interesting challenge to my thinking. You have my mind buzzing. I'd conceed my view is predicated on big assumptions about 2020 which while currently true may not be in 3.5 years time. And I may be over compensating for not seeing 2015 and Brexit coming.
Comments
Of course everyone has losers - but blindly following the tips (Of posters with say > 200 posts) here would see you ahead I think.
(I thank you!)
To think anything else risks sounding a little HYUFD-deterministic...
From their briefing paper:
What does the law say?
For example, there’s been big speculation about what happens if a minority Labour or Conservative government gets defeated on their Queen’s Speech. Which rather misses the point – nothing happens. The Government doesn’t fall. There is no dissolution of Parliament.
Under the FTPA the only circumstances in which a Government falls would be if (a) they resigned – unlikely but not impossible or (b) the following is passed by a majority in the House of Commons
“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government”.
Nothing else forces a Government out of office – not defeat on a Queen’s Speech, a Budget, a key piece of legislation, a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, nothing.
Of course there may be political circumstances where a Government chooses to take such a defeat seriously and resigns. Or, more likely, they could put down the above motion themselves and dare their opponents to kick them out.
Even if the above motion is passed and the current Government is ousted there is then a 14 day period in which attempts to form a new Government can take place. And, as we often see on the Continent, that can often be an attempt by the current Government to cobble together a new combination to win a vote of confidence.
Which brings us to the second part of this process, accepting a new Government. Here the FTPA says that this must take the form of a majority of the House of Commons passing the following resolution:
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Note the important difference that this is a positive affirmation of confidence – arguably it would be harder to pass this motion than the no confidence one, simply because it would politically endorse the Government on offer, which might be awkward for some.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP11L9jRW94
That might sound a statement of the bleedin' obvious to many, but time after time I see posts on here which imply that bookmakers set their odds on what they think will happen and not on the money placed.
There was a bloke who wrote a book on making money on political betting, can't remember his name though.
Whether she'll be as good remains to be seen.
On the specific point about education, if it was a serious part of her strategy, rather than chaff, then she went about it the wrong way; her approach has pretty much guaranteed that she won't be able to proceed with it.
Blimey!
A shocker of a poll for the Trumpeter.
An absolute nightmare survey.
Yikes! Humiliation. And it couldn't happen to a nastier piece of shit.
Either way, I still think it would be an interesting format to reintroduce.
An absolute nightmare survey.
I can't see it on 538 and it came out earlier today, is it real?
I don't mind the language, I used [moderated] the other day to describe our Brexit ideologues (if there was a worse word I would use it)...it is these puerile, childish, immature, kiddie smiley yellow cartoon faces that sends me bonkers.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump's links to the Russians are just starting to be revealed. It is really extensive. Trump said he didn't have any real investments in Russia but theres links by the ton (249 apparently). More to come. Donald is in way over his head on this one and he knows it. Possibly the first presidential candidate to have more loyalty to a foreign country than his own.
Do you understand he is a dangerous demagogue. He's not your run of the mill GOP candidate. It seems people will justify and overlook a lot when it's their own side. You can't really argue with him because he doesn't use any rational arguments, just seeks to divide.
I don't know how normally very smart people can't see this.
I feel personally violated, and maybe something more.
That said,........fair enough
That understanding of the "Common-ground" I don't think Cameron ever had and I doubt Osborne even had an idea that it could exist. Maybe, that is why both men failed. I hope TM will not.
Of course I don't mind them...I am just too technically ignorant to know how to use them myself, and I can use my faux pas indignation to wind people up.
But our secret.......
Still, I'm very pleased that she's picked up the mantle and is processing along the same one-nation Tory route which her immediate predecessor did so much to revive. She's made a few missteps in her first few weeks, but that's not too surprising. So far she's got the big calls right, which is encouraging.
I don't know how normally very smart people can't see this.
"It's Ok to say "shit". It ain't against God."
- Prisoner Boggs, Alien 3
Right now, to me as a Tory, post the Brexit vote in which I voted to leave, post Cameron, who I felt was right to quit, I feel the party I support is looking exceptionally vulnerable over a range of issues and therefore susceptible to a mighty fall over the next 6 - 12 months.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/from-the-calais-jungle-to-croydon-migrant-children-arrive-in-bri/
I can't see it either but I just searched for the poll on twitter thinking that is where he may well of see it.
I will note that Georgia is the next state up to turn blue on the 538 snake of the individual states.
I do think that this feels possible but still think that Trump should still hold on. I certainly hope since I bet on the Republicans getting 21-30 states with Ladbrokes back when it was 11/10 (it is now 4/9).
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/16/georgia-flipped-hillary-clinton-stunning-electoral-map-projection.html
If Brexit turned into a total disaster then just maybe a government committed to it might struggle but at the moment it seems to me that the small majority seriously understates the strength of the Tory position with every other major party in varying degrees of collapse.
Clinton 47
Trump 38
Johnson 8
Stein 3
In head-to-head, Clinton leads by 51-40
Ye Gods, I'm delighted to conclude that the once concerning financial viability of PB.com must have improved out of all recognition over recent years.
Last price matched:
24
Big spread now on the (temporary I suspect) 2nd favourite.
Wolfie: I can go.
Will: What?
Wolfie: I can go, I'm 17.
Will: You're 17?!
Wolfie: Yeah, I just look older.
Will: There's looking older and then there's that! You look about 30!
I agree about Hammond. He is over promoted and to call him underwhelming to date would be deeply flattering. I also agree that this is likely to be a very difficult winter for the NHS although I expect Hammond to fund a decent bung in his Autumn/Winter statement.
If there was any opposition there would be reasons to be nervous but there really isn't a credible choice. Like Hilary you don't have to be good, just better than the other guy.
But my jaw is dropping at today's pictures. What a total own goal.
We talk of desperate unaccompanied child refugees, and the pictures are clearly of anything but. I can't imagine the anti-refugee crowd will take this quietly.
As you say, hard to believe it's real.
I don't deny the situation is concerning though. France needs to do more.
Their views were backed up by Sir Gus O'Donnell and Lord Hennesey
Adam Curtis's latest documentary, (nearly 3 hours long):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04b183c/adam-curtis-hypernormalisation
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-fury-and-failure-of-donald-trump-w444943
Lie No. 1 is that there are only two political ideas in the world, Republican and Democrat. Lie No. 2 is that the parties are violent ideological opposites, and that during campaign season we can only speak about the areas where they differ (abortion, guns, etc.) and never the areas where there's typically consensus (defense spending, surveillance, torture, trade, and so on). Lie No. 3, a corollary to No. 2, is that all problems are the fault of one party or the other, and never both. Assuming you watch the right channels, everything is always someone else's fault...
...That such a small man would have such an awesome impact on our nation's history is terrible, but it makes sense if you believe in the essential ridiculousness of the human experience. Trump picked exactly the wrong time to launch his mirror-gazing rampage to nowhere. He ran at a time when Americans on both sides of the aisle were experiencing a deep sense of betrayal by the political class, anger that was finally ready to express itself at the ballot box.
The only thing that could get in the way of real change – if not now, then surely very soon – was a rebellion so maladroit, ill-conceived and irresponsible that even the severest critics of the system would become zealots for the status quo.
In the absolute best-case scenario, the one in which he loses, this is what Trump's run accomplished. He ran as an outsider antidote to a corrupt two-party system, and instead will leave that system more entrenched than ever. If he goes on to lose, he will be our Bonaparte, the monster who will continue to terrify us even in exile, reinforcing the authority of kings...
Igor Bobic Verified account
@igorbobic
Darrell Issa is running this mailer. Incredible http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/darrell-issa-doug-applegate-trump_us_58038d74e4b06e04759557c5?2kktnayqdrmauzyqfr …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdmHHpAsMVw
More rockets
I just don't see any scope for them to improve on that position and that it is in fact more likely after 10 years in Government that they will lose seats on a net basis - they only need to lose 7, I believe, to lose their majority. If you disagree, please provide some sort of indication of the further seats you see them winning - surely not in any of the major cities?
Cheers Mr Pulpstar for the heads up.
So what does an 18 year old +" benefit of the doubt" look like ? I accept some of those photographed look older than 18. I also accept given the media circus the Home Office should have picked more archetypally sympathetic candidates to be first. Maybe the print press has picked the most obviously suspect photos ? Some do look under 18. Maybe Asylum Seekers deserved more privicy than these have been shown. Certainly it's a presentational cock up. Though as the Calais 10K are utterly unrepresentable of the migrant crisis pro migrant Campaigners have reaped what they sowed to an extent.
Repeatedly.