Those odds would still be crap value even if hillary fell under a bus.
Sigh if only you could bet on credit with Betfair
As is it'll return less than the mortgage
(-2.4k+ on her atm btw)
Do you see the third debate changing the Trump/Clinton odds?
Ooh Blimey, I'm not sure - I've been tilted towards Trump for ages, he could completely flop but he could come in...
I think I'll leave (+2 Clinton, +14 Trump) ish...
Yeah. I've mulled over having a bet on trump pre-debate - but on the polling evidence, Clinton remains value @ 1.2 and should probably be more like 1.1.
I think there is a reasonable chance Trump does well tonight (and his odds creep in a bit), but I'm not going to bet on it.
"On average, polls conducted within the final 21 days before the election — a period which in 2016 is this Tuesday — differ from the final result by 3.6 percentage points. Far more pollsters think that gap will be larger this year than average than think it will be smaller: 11 to 1. Another 18 think it will be about the same. "
I'll factor that into my betting. Average polling error of >3.6%.
Note - I don't think that's the same as saying the poll average is more likely than not to be out by more than 3.6%.
So pollsters expect Hillary to win but say their polls will probably be wrong ?
Cabinet ministers have been given detailed warnings that the UK pulling out of the EU customs union could lead to a 4.5% fall in GDP by 2030 and the clogging up of trade through Britain’s ports.
The predictions were contained in a paper circulated at a meeting of Theresa May’s special Brexit cabinet committee, which concluded that ministers were not yet prepared to decide whether the UK should withdraw from the EU’s free trade bloc.
I'm going with (%) Con 50 Lib Dem 20 Labour 15 Others inc UKIP 15
If the LDs got to 25/30 and knocked the Cons to early 40s, it would be quite the upset.
No way can LDs win this though.
I see the Wessex nationalists stood last time. I always thought Wessex stopped the other side of the Thames; had Oxfordshire down as a kind of Midland county.
I can't see how the Tories will do much worse than the national polling in one of the safest Tory seats in the country, even in a by-election facing the dead LD and Labour.
And surely it is Mercia, not Wessex. Nationalists ought to know better.
Cabinet ministers have been given detailed warnings that the UK pulling out of the EU customs union could lead to a 4.5% fall in GDP by 2030 and the clogging up of trade through Britain’s ports.
Great start to the article.
"UK hard Brexit pullout risks big fall in GDP and trade gridlock at ports, cabinet committee told"
A) It's not a fall. b) It's not big in the grand scheme of things. C) It's smaller than the Treasury forecast before the referendum, although I note it appears to be that forecast and a couple of others rehashed. D) A forecast 14 years ahead is worthless, there are too many imponderables.
This isn't news, it's BS.
Just pretend it's 2000 and think about an economic forecast for 2014 and what it would unavoidably omit.
Cabinet ministers have been given detailed warnings that the UK pulling out of the EU customs union could lead to a 4.5% fall in GDP by 2030 and the clogging up of trade through Britain’s ports.
Great start to the article.
"UK hard Brexit pullout risks big fall in GDP and trade gridlock at ports, cabinet committee told"
A) It's not a fall. b) It's not big in the grand scheme of things. C) It's smaller than the Treasury forecast before the referendum, although I note it appears to be that forecast and a couple of others rehashed. D) A forecast 14 years ahead is worthless, there are too many imponderables.
This isn't news, it's BS.
It's come to something when TSE is quoting nonsense from the Guardian to support his Euro Fanaticism.
Cabinet ministers have been given detailed warnings that the UK pulling out of the EU customs union could lead to a 4.5% fall in GDP by 2030 and the clogging up of trade through Britain’s ports.
Great start to the article.
"UK hard Brexit pullout risks big fall in GDP and trade gridlock at ports, cabinet committee told"
A) It's not a fall. b) It's not big in the grand scheme of things. C) It's smaller than the Treasury forecast before the referendum, although I note it appears to be that forecast and a couple of others rehashed. D) A forecast 14 years ahead is worthless, there are too many imponderables.
This isn't news, it's BS.
The news is that the cabinet is leaking like a sieve
and this
Although international trade secretary, Liam Fox, called for the UK’s withdrawal at the meeting, the prime minister was said to repeatedly stress that she was not ready to make any final decisions on the UK’s negotiating position.
I used to do quite a bit of business in and around the Witney constitutency. 5-10 days a year there.
Willing to pin my colours to the mast on this one. It will be a safe hold: Old fashioned Tory county set, strong suburban Oxford (and London commuter) contingent and quite a strong LMC element too.
Tories by 17.5-22.5%.
What is LMC?
I take it to stand for the Large Magellanic Cloud, one of our galaxy's two small satellite galaxies.
Cabinet ministers have been given detailed warnings that the UK pulling out of the EU customs union could lead to a 4.5% fall in GDP by 2030 and the clogging up of trade through Britain’s ports.
Great start to the article.
"UK hard Brexit pullout risks big fall in GDP and trade gridlock at ports, cabinet committee told"
A) It's not a fall. b) It's not big in the grand scheme of things. C) It's smaller than the Treasury forecast before the referendum, although I note it appears to be that forecast and a couple of others rehashed. D) A forecast 14 years ahead is worthless, there are too many imponderables.
This isn't news, it's BS.
It's come to something when TSE is quoting nonsense from the Guardian to support his Euro Fanaticism.
The story was in The Times, but as not everyone has paywall access, I thought I'd link to the free to access one.
I actually assumed that was some kind of Daily Mash spoof. Do these reporters expect anyone to swallow this drivel, or are they just seeing how far they can go?
It's come to something when TSE is quoting nonsense from the Guardian to support his Euro Fanaticism.
To be fair it's not TSE annoying me, it's the nonsense of pretending that long range economic forecasts are anything more than sticking a finger in the air. The world is not that predictable, it probably never was and certainly isn't in our current era where things change so fast.
Improving UK productivity would potentially make more difference than single market membership. Spending the next two years obsessing about that might be more worthwhile.
Eagles, I say this in all politeness, and your threads are always, of course, interesting, but you seem a wee bit obsessed by Europe presently. Mike spent six or seven years repeatedly assuring us that Europe wasn't a subject high up people's radar - I'd suggest that inasmuch as this was ever true it still is. Yes, the subject is salient, but I don't think the country as a whole is quite as bothered about Europe as your repeated threads on Europe would imply.
Brexit is a salient issue, in some polls conducted over the summer Brexit/EU matters was rated the number one issue among voters.
Well yes, I concede that. But I just wonder if your enthusiasm for remain - you campaigned for the cause - perhaps slightly blinds you to the way that many are reverting to their previous position of weary indifference or not really paying attention too much. By-elections are rarely won or lost on the issues which engage the likes of us. Labour still won in Oldham despite all the play of the incompetence of Jeremy Corbyn; when all's said and done, people usually vote for who they usually vote for.
That said, since I became politically aware the Tories have won only two by-elections while in government - in Newark and Rochester - both of which were at least a little atypical. I still cant get used to the idea of a Tory hold in a by-election.
Cabinet ministers have been given detailed warnings that the UK pulling out of the EU customs union could lead to a 4.5% fall in GDP by 2030 and the clogging up of trade through Britain’s ports.
Great start to the article.
"UK hard Brexit pullout risks big fall in GDP and trade gridlock at ports, cabinet committee told"
A) It's not a fall. b) It's not big in the grand scheme of things. C) It's smaller than the Treasury forecast before the referendum, although I note it appears to be that forecast and a couple of others rehashed. D) A forecast 14 years ahead is worthless, there are too many imponderables.
This isn't news, it's BS.
It's come to something when TSE is quoting nonsense from the Guardian to support his Euro Fanaticism.
Not to mention his line "Not since Oxford housed the King Charles I after his expulsion from London during the civil war has the politics of Oxfordshire been so important in a fractured country." Politics in Oxfordshire (e,g the Oxford Parliament of 1644) is not the same as politics of Oxfordshire. In addition he seems to have forgotten Charles II moved the seat of government to Oxford in 1666. It is quite sad really, especially when he drags up his fractured country nonsense.
On topic, depending on the market a grand or less could move that price from 50s to 10s.
In short we don't know. The assumption is that the money is informed but is it value backing or someone is going to win backing?
Off topic, from yesterday to today:
Yesterday: '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.'
Today, police in the Bahamas are investigating the possible paedo tendencies of Julian.
Anyone spot the pattern? To the people on here (and there are some) who thought he was once the dogs bollocks....watch your little hero bleed out after he is metaphorically cut into strips.
This threatens to be a really bitter and long destruction.
And the Article 50 court case could be referred to the ECJ...
Which Brexiteer's head would explode first?
It may need to go there. Doesn't the A50 say something about 'in accordance with the country's constitution'? We have given the ECJ the power to rule on what our constitution is, and if we wish to rescind from that, it has to be done in accordance with the prevailing law.
Cabinet ministers have been given detailed warnings that the UK pulling out of the EU customs union could lead to a 4.5% fall in GDP by 2030 and the clogging up of trade through Britain’s ports.
Great start to the article.
"UK hard Brexit pullout risks big fall in GDP and trade gridlock at ports, cabinet committee told"
A) It's not a fall. b) It's not big in the grand scheme of things. C) It's smaller than the Treasury forecast before the referendum, although I note it appears to be that forecast and a couple of others rehashed. D) A forecast 14 years ahead is worthless, there are too many imponderables.
This isn't news, it's BS.
It's come to something when TSE is quoting nonsense from the Guardian to support his Euro Fanaticism.
Not to mention his line "Not since Oxford housed the King Charles I after his expulsion from London during the civil war has the politics of Oxfordshire been so important in a fractured country." Politics in Oxfordshire (e,g the Oxford Parliament of 1644) is not the same as politics of Oxfordshire. In addition he seems to have forgotten Charles II moved the seat of government to Oxford in 1666. It is quite sad really, especially when he drags up his fractured country nonsense.
You seem to be a grumpy bear.
The heal the fractured country line was something I heard on the conference fringe used by a Leaver, he said it was incumbent on Leavers to assure the 48% that Brexit would work for them, that they had nothing to fear from it.
There certainly seems to be something of a fightback from the Remain/Soft-Brexit tendency. I'm hoping I've misjudged May, and the last few weeks were all about giving the hard-Right enough rope to hang themselves.
On topic, depending on the market a grand or less could move that price from 50s to 10s.
In short we don't know. The assumption is that the money is informed but is it value backing or someone is going to win backing?
Off topic, from yesterday to today:
Yesterday: '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.'
Today, police in the Bahamas are investigating the possible paedo tendencies of Julian.
Anyone spot the pattern? To the people on here (and there are some) who thought he was once the dogs bollocks....watch your little hero bleed out after he is metaphorically cut into strips.
This threatens to be a really bitter and long destruction.
I remember when the bbc / guardian / right on celebs thought he was a hero....
Eagles, I say this in all politeness, and your threads are always, of course, interesting, but you seem a wee bit obsessed by Europe presently. Mike spent six or seven years repeatedly assuring us that Europe wasn't a subject high up people's radar - I'd suggest that inasmuch as this was ever true it still is. Yes, the subject is salient, but I don't think the country as a whole is quite as bothered about Europe as your repeated threads on Europe would imply.
Brexit is a salient issue, in some polls conducted over the summer Brexit/EU matters was rated the number one issue among voters.
Well yes, I concede that. But I just wonder if your enthusiasm for remain - you campaigned for the cause - perhaps slightly blinds you to the way that many are reverting to their previous position of weary indifference or not really paying attention too much. By-elections are rarely won or lost on the issues which engage the likes of us. Labour still won in Oldham despite all the play of the incompetence of Jeremy Corbyn; when all's said and done, people usually vote for who they usually vote for.
That said, since I became politically aware the Tories have won only two by-elections while in government - in Newark and Rochester - both of which were at least a little atypical. I still cant get used to the idea of a Tory hold in a by-election.
Alas we didn't win the Rochester by election, much to my chagrin.
In the last 27 years, the Tories have only won one by election whilst in Government.
On topic, depending on the market a grand or less could move that price from 50s to 10s.
In short we don't know. The assumption is that the money is informed but is it value backing or someone is going to win backing?
Off topic, from yesterday to today:
Yesterday: '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.'
Today, police in the Bahamas are investigating the possible paedo tendencies of Julian.
Anyone spot the pattern? To the people on here (and there are some) who thought he was once the dogs bollocks....watch your little hero bleed out after he is metaphorically cut into strips.
This threatens to be a really bitter and long destruction.
I remember when the bbc / guardian thought he was a hero....
Between him and Mr Trumper Tantrum, there is going to be plenty of stories to come
Eagles, I say this in all politeness, and your threads are always, of course, interesting, but you seem a wee bit obsessed by Europe presently. Mike spent six or seven years repeatedly assuring us that Europe wasn't a subject high up people's radar - I'd suggest that inasmuch as this was ever true it still is. Yes, the subject is salient, but I don't think the country as a whole is quite as bothered about Europe as your repeated threads on Europe would imply.
Brexit is a salient issue, in some polls conducted over the summer Brexit/EU matters was rated the number one issue among voters.
Well yes, I concede that. But I just wonder if your enthusiasm for remain - you campaigned for the cause - perhaps slightly blinds you to the way that many are reverting to their previous position of weary indifference or not really paying attention too much. By-elections are rarely won or lost on the issues which engage the likes of us. Labour still won in Oldham despite all the play of the incompetence of Jeremy Corbyn; when all's said and done, people usually vote for who they usually vote for.
That said, since I became politically aware the Tories have won only two by-elections while in government - in Newark and Rochester - both of which were at least a little atypical. I still cant get used to the idea of a Tory hold in a by-election.
Alas we didn't win the Rochester by election, much to my chagrin.
In the last 27 years, the Tories have only won one by election whilst in Government.
Eagles, I say this in all politeness, and your threads are always, of course, interesting, but you seem a wee bit obsessed by Europe presently. Mike spent six or seven years repeatedly assuring us that Europe wasn't a subject high up people's radar - I'd suggest that inasmuch as this was ever true it still is. Yes, the subject is salient, but I don't think the country as a whole is quite as bothered about Europe as your repeated threads on Europe would imply.
Brexit is a salient issue, in some polls conducted over the summer Brexit/EU matters was rated the number one issue among voters.
Well yes, I concede that. But I just wonder if your enthusiasm for remain - you campaigned for the cause - perhaps slightly blinds you to the way that many are reverting to their previous position of weary indifference or not really paying attention too much. By-elections are rarely won or lost on the issues which engage the likes of us. Labour still won in Oldham despite all the play of the incompetence of Jeremy Corbyn; when all's said and done, people usually vote for who they usually vote for.
That said, since I became politically aware the Tories have won only two by-elections while in government - in Newark and Rochester - both of which were at least a little atypical. I still cant get used to the idea of a Tory hold in a by-election.
Alas we didn't win the Rochester by election, much to my chagrin.
In the last 27 years, the Tories have only won one by election whilst in Government.
Corby?
Nope, lost that in the by-election. Took it back at the general election.
Not many seats have four different MPs in five years
And the Article 50 court case could be referred to the ECJ...
Which Brexiteer's head would explode first?
It may need to go there. Doesn't the A50 say something about 'in accordance with the country's constitution'? We have given the ECJ the power to rule on what our constitution is, and if we wish to rescind from that, it has to be done in accordance with the prevailing law.
No! and thrice NO.
In the end we will just declare UDI, repeal all EU laws - and we will say the Queen of Great Britain is sovereign in Great Britain. Likewise her subjects, duly represented in parliament.
The idea of judges in Strasbourg deliberating on British independence is a route to civil strife.
What happens to Northern Ireland?
Do we really want to set a precedent that a country can just abrogate its treaty obligations just like that and not adhere to the rules/law?
There certainly seems to be something of a fightback from the Remain/Soft-Brexit tendency. I'm hoping I've misjudged May, and the last few weeks were all about giving the hard-Right enough rope to hang themselves.
And the Article 50 court case could be referred to the ECJ...
Which Brexiteer's head would explode first?
It may need to go there. Doesn't the A50 say something about 'in accordance with the country's constitution'? We have given the ECJ the power to rule on what our constitution is, and if we wish to rescind from that, it has to be done in accordance with the prevailing law.
No! and thrice NO.
In the end we will just declare UDI, repeal all EU laws - and we will say the Queen of Great Britain is sovereign in Great Britain. Likewise her subjects, duly represented in parliament.
The idea of judges in Luxembourg deliberating on British independence is a route to civil strife.
What would the EU do? Nothing. They have no divisions.
And the Article 50 court case could be referred to the ECJ...
Which Brexiteer's head would explode first?
It may need to go there. Doesn't the A50 say something about 'in accordance with the country's constitution'? We have given the ECJ the power to rule on what our constitution is, and if we wish to rescind from that, it has to be done in accordance with the prevailing law.
No! and thrice NO.
In the end we will just declare UDI, repeal all EU laws - and we will say the Queen of Great Britain is sovereign in Great Britain. Likewise her subjects, duly represented in parliament.
The idea of judges in Strasbourg deliberating on British independence is a route to civil strife.
What happens to Northern Ireland?
Do we really want to set a precedent that a country can just abrogate its treaty obligations just like that and not adhere to the rules/law?
It is unclear what the rules are in this case, that is why it is at the courts. It would be quite frankly ridiculous for it to be decided at the ECJ.
In the end we will just declare UDI, repeal all EU laws - and we will say the Queen of Great Britain is sovereign in Great Britain. Likewise her subjects, duly represented in parliament.
The idea of judges in Luxembourg deliberating on British independence is a route to civil strife.
What would the EU do? Nothing. They have no divisions.
We would be in breach of international treaties.
What would that do for our Trade deals?
The Brexiteers have lost all reason... Kippers on Twitter are appalled that UK Parliamentarians might take a view on Brexit
And the Article 50 court case could be referred to the ECJ...
Which Brexiteer's head would explode first?
It may need to go there. Doesn't the A50 say something about 'in accordance with the country's constitution'? We have given the ECJ the power to rule on what our constitution is, and if we wish to rescind from that, it has to be done in accordance with the prevailing law.
No! and thrice NO.
In the end we will just declare UDI, repeal all EU laws - and we will say the Queen of Great Britain is sovereign in Great Britain. Likewise her subjects, duly represented in parliament.
The idea of judges in Strasbourg deliberating on British independence is a route to civil strife.
What happens to Northern Ireland?
Do we really want to set a precedent that a country can just abrogate its treaty obligations just like that and not adhere to the rules/law?
At least half a dozen Westminster seats in NI voted for Brexit.
And the Article 50 court case could be referred to the ECJ...
Which Brexiteer's head would explode first?
It may need to go there. Doesn't the A50 say something about 'in accordance with the country's constitution'? We have given the ECJ the power to rule on what our constitution is, and if we wish to rescind from that, it has to be done in accordance with the prevailing law.
No! and thrice NO.
In the end we will just declare UDI, repeal all EU laws - and we will say the Queen of Great Britain is sovereign in Great Britain. Likewise her subjects, duly represented in parliament.
The idea of judges in Strasbourg deliberating on British independence is a route to civil strife.
What happens to Northern Ireland?
Do we really want to set a precedent that a country can just abrogate its treaty obligations just like that and not adhere to the rules/law?
At least half a dozen Westminster seats in NI voted for Brexit.
On topic, depending on the market a grand or less could move that price from 50s to 10s.
In short we don't know. The assumption is that the money is informed but is it value backing or someone is going to win backing?
Off topic, from yesterday to today:
Yesterday: '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.'
Today, police in the Bahamas are investigating the possible paedo tendencies of Julian.
Anyone spot the pattern? To the people on here (and there are some) who thought he was once the dogs bollocks....watch your little hero bleed out after he is metaphorically cut into strips.
This threatens to be a really bitter and long destruction.
I remember when the bbc / guardian thought he was a hero....
Between him and Mr Trumper Tantrum, there is going to be plenty of stories to come
All because he supports Trump.
Assange should have been smart and donated to Hillary.
And the Article 50 court case could be referred to the ECJ...
Which Brexiteer's head would explode first?
No it really couldn't. Article 50 is crystal clear on this matter: "1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
The ECJ has jurisdiction to determine common European constitutional requirements. The UK Supreme Court decides our own constitutional requirements. Its our own that matter here.
Eagles, I say this in all politeness, and your threads are always, of course, interesting, but you seem a wee bit obsessed by Europe presently. Mike spent six or seven years repeatedly assuring us that Europe wasn't a subject high up people's radar - I'd suggest that inasmuch as this was ever true it still is. Yes, the subject is salient, but I don't think the country as a whole is quite as bothered about Europe as your repeated threads on Europe would imply.
Brexit is a salient issue, in some polls conducted over the summer Brexit/EU matters was rated the number one issue among voters.
Well yes, I concede that. But I just wonder if your enthusiasm for remain - you campaigned for the cause - perhaps slightly blinds you to the way that many are reverting to their previous position of weary indifference or not really paying attention too much. By-elections are rarely won or lost on the issues which engage the likes of us. Labour still won in Oldham despite all the play of the incompetence of Jeremy Corbyn; when all's said and done, people usually vote for who they usually vote for.
That said, since I became politically aware the Tories have won only two by-elections while in government - in Newark and Rochester - both of which were at least a little atypical. I still cant get used to the idea of a Tory hold in a by-election.
Alas we didn't win the Rochester by election, much to my chagrin.
In the last 27 years, the Tories have only won one by election whilst in Government.
Ach, you're right - how could I forget! Actually, I'll tell you how I could forget: when I wrote that to start with, I had it as only one, and then I thought, no, Rochester. But then I remembered your triumph at Mark Reckless's defeat. But of course, that was at the GE, wasn't it?
Newark was something of a special case: before 1997, it would always be pretty obvious at Tory defended by-elections whether Labour or the Lib Dems would be the main challenger. But with the coalition, Labour had to carry that baton alone, and Labour a) were crap, and b) had no real strength in the seat (despite having won it in 1997 - but I seem to remember it had rather different boundaries then). So the task of opposition fell to UKIP, which left many Lib/Lab types voting Tory to keep out UKIP. Things obviously aren't anything like so favourable for the Tories in 2016 in Witney as they were in 2014 (?) in Newark.
In the end we will just declare UDI, repeal all EU laws - and we will say the Queen of Great Britain is sovereign in Great Britain. Likewise her subjects, duly represented in parliament.
The idea of judges in Luxembourg deliberating on British independence is a route to civil strife.
What would the EU do? Nothing. They have no divisions.
We would be in breach of international treaties.
What would that do for our Trade deals?
The Brexiteers have lost all reason... Kippers on Twitter are appalled that UK Parliamentarians might take a view on Brexit
And the Article 50 court case could be referred to the ECJ...
Which Brexiteer's head would explode first?
No it really couldn't. Article 50 is crystal clear on this matter: "1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
The ECJ has jurisdiction to determine common European constitutional requirements. The UK Supreme Court decides our own constitutional requirements. Its our own that matter here.
What if the case was about what "in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" meant? That'd be an EU constitutional issue, surely?
By the way I found out that anyone on PB can commission their own 2016 poll from Google Consumer Surveys.
It's seems to be really cheap, you can run a single poll with a sample of 330 from any state basically using the $50 credit they give you when you sign up.
Their crappy 50 state poll is giving me thoughts though about their accuracy, however anyone can weight the poll results as they like.
And the Article 50 court case could be referred to the ECJ...
Which Brexiteer's head would explode first?
It may need to go there. Doesn't the A50 say something about 'in accordance with the country's constitution'? We have given the ECJ the power to rule on what our constitution is, and if we wish to rescind from that, it has to be done in accordance with the prevailing law.
No! and thrice NO.
In the end we will just declare UDI, repeal all EU laws - and we will say the Queen of Great Britain is sovereign in Great Britain. Likewise her subjects, duly represented in parliament.
The idea of judges in Strasbourg deliberating on British independence is a route to civil strife.
What happens to Northern Ireland?
Do we really want to set a precedent that a country can just abrogate its treaty obligations just like that and not adhere to the rules/law?
At least half a dozen Westminster seats in NI voted for Brexit.
Whoosh
You asked about NI, here's the list of Brexit leaning seats:
North Antrim East Antrim South Antrim Strangford Lagan Valley Upper Bann East Belfast
No it really couldn't. Article 50 is crystal clear on this matter: "1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
The ECJ has jurisdiction to determine common European constitutional requirements. The UK Supreme Court decides our own constitutional requirements. Its our own that matter here.
And the Article 50 court case could be referred to the ECJ...
Which Brexiteer's head would explode first?
It may need to go there. Doesn't the A50 say something about 'in accordance with the country's constitution'? We have given the ECJ the power to rule on what our constitution is, and if we wish to rescind from that, it has to be done in accordance with the prevailing law.
No! and thrice NO.
In the end we will just declare UDI, repeal all EU laws - and we will say the Queen of Great Britain is sovereign in Great Britain. Likewise her subjects, duly represented in parliament.
The idea of judges in Strasbourg deliberating on British independence is a route to civil strife.
What happens to Northern Ireland?
Do we really want to set a precedent that a country can just abrogate its treaty obligations just like that and not adhere to the rules/law?
At least half a dozen Westminster seats in NI voted for Brexit.
Whoosh
You asked about NI, here's the list of Brexit leaning seats:
North Antrim East Antrim South Antrim Strangford Lagan Valley Upper Bann East Belfast
I only asked about Northern Ireland as SeanT was coming up with plans for Great Britain, but nothing about Northern Ireland.
On topic, depending on the market a grand or less could move that price from 50s to 10s.
In short we don't know. The assumption is that the money is informed but is it value backing or someone is going to win backing?
Off topic, from yesterday to today:
Yesterday: '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.'
Today, police in the Bahamas are investigating the possible paedo tendencies of Julian.
Anyone spot the pattern? To the people on here (and there are some) who thought he was once the dogs bollocks....watch your little hero bleed out after he is metaphorically cut into strips.
This threatens to be a really bitter and long destruction.
I remember when the bbc / guardian thought he was a hero....
Between him and Mr Trumper Tantrum, there is going to be plenty of stories to come
All because he supports Trump.
Assange should have been smart and donated to Hillary.
No, its because he is a nasty little unpleasant abusive sh*t who is also in the pocket of a strategic opponent in global geopolitics. Assange has form as a character that means you wouldn't let him near the wife or daughter for a start.
Plenty of people were told a while back that Wikileaks was just a Russian intelligence front, they were told about how Assange encouraged Snowden to go to Moscow.
They didn't listen, but only the most bone headed and reluctant to face up to it are now refusing to see it.
There certainly seems to be something of a fightback from the Remain/Soft-Brexit tendency. I'm hoping I've misjudged May, and the last few weeks were all about giving the hard-Right enough rope to hang themselves.
Best case scenario: she's setting up the good cop/bad cop scenario for the negotiations.
I'm not saying that's what is happening. It seems much more likely that the noise we hear is that of a lot of people who fully agree on neither strategy nor the end point they're trying to reach - which is to be expected given where we were six months ago. But if I were trying to stage manage exit negotiations, the way I would be doing it would be to hint to Europe that many people who might influence the outcome would like a soft Brexit while showing that many others are quite prepared for - indeed, are arguing for - hard Brexit. I certainly wouldn't want to be appearing united on the need for soft Brexit. That is is the way to a very shitty deal, or to no Brexit at all - and thereby to losing the next election. Such are the complexities of negotiations between bodies who do not hold internally consistent views.
Why are Remainers so emotionally stupid? They are often quite well informed on law and economics, but they totally lack the language of nation, patriotism, identity, culture, tribe, family and belonging.
This is why they lost, and why they may turn their defeat into a rout.
If people like you tried to get Brexit scuppered via the European Court of Justice then, in all seriousness, I would like to see you imprisoned as a traitor. I use that word "traitor" in trolling jest, sometimes.
Not this time.
And nobody suggested that.
But the speed with which you abandoned all reason was most entertaining.
The Brexiteer belief in British exceptionalism is truly astonishing.
"International Law you say? Fuck 'em, we're British..."
And they wonder why the rest of the World looks on aghast
Anyway, enough of such gloom. I have successfully (I think) reinstalled the various bits of software on my laptop that appeared to have been rendered mysteriously unusable by my cat sleeping on it, and am off to bed.
If people like you tried to get Brexit scuppered via the European Court of Justice then, in all seriousness, I would like to see you imprisoned as a traitor. I use that word "traitor" in trolling jest, sometimes.
Not this time.
And nobody suggested that.
But the speed with which you abandoned all reason was most entertaining.
The Brexiteer belief in British exceptionalism is truly astonishing.
"International Law you say? Fuck 'em, we're British..."
And they wonder why the rest of the World looks on aghast
a) Didn't we suspect that the barmy odds in the EURef were down to a few optimistic Remainers with a lot of cash? Witney odds shortening could be a similar phenomenon. By-elections do throw up surprises and it would be hubristic to write the LDs off entirely, but from 6.8% in 2015 winning the seat would be very unlikely indeed.
b) A constituency that voted Remain electing a Remain MP would not be earth-shattering.
If you really think this is a fruitful line to take, versus the expressed will of the British people, then good luck.
Eventually people like you would be hanged on Tower Green.
You think "the British people voted to become lawless Brigands, forced to plunder ships at sea in lieu of legal trade" is a fruitful line to take?
If people like you tried to get Brexit scuppered via the European Court of Justice then, in all seriousness, I would like to see you imprisoned as a traitor. I use that word "traitor" in trolling jest, sometimes.
Not this time.
I don't think anyone was suggesting trying to scupper Brexit via the ECJ. All that is suggested is that the ECJ may need to adjudicate on what our constitutional requirements are on the issue. After all, the EU has an interest in the legality of the process too.
Having said that, I doubt that taking the matter to the ECJ would play very well in the UK.
If you really think this is a fruitful line to take, versus the expressed will of the British people, then good luck.
Eventually people like you would be hanged on Tower Green.
You think "the British people voted to become lawless Brigands, forced to plunder ships at sea in lieu of legal trade" is a fruitful line to take?
If people like you tried to get Brexit scuppered via the European Court of Justice then, in all seriousness, I would like to see you imprisoned as a traitor. I use that word "traitor" in trolling jest, sometimes.
Not this time.
I don't think anyone was suggesting trying to scupper Brexit via the ECJ. All that is suggested is that the ECJ may need to adjudicate on what our constitutional requirements are on the issue. After all, the EU has an interest in the legality of the process too.
Having said that, I doubt that taking the matter to the ECJ would play very well in the UK.
If people like you tried to get Brexit scuppered via the European Court of Justice then, in all seriousness, I would like to see you imprisoned as a traitor. I use that word "traitor" in trolling jest, sometimes.
Not this time.
And nobody suggested that.
But the speed with which you abandoned all reason was most entertaining.
The Brexiteer belief in British exceptionalism is truly astonishing.
"International Law you say? Fuck 'em, we're British..."
And they wonder why the rest of the World looks on aghast
Let them look. Who cares. We are the British. We gave the world Shakespeare, the Beatles, TV, the internet, the Industrial Revolution, cricket, rugby, tennis, football, the Theory of Evolution, Decorated Architecture, London, Bath, Edinburgh, Railways, Oxford, the discovery of DNA, Cambridge, skiing, Sir Isaac Newton, the English language, Masterchef, Strictly, Top Gear, the jet engine, computers, and the single largest global empire the world has seen, or will ever see.
If people like you tried to get Brexit scuppered via the European Court of Justice then, in all seriousness, I would like to see you imprisoned as a traitor. I use that word "traitor" in trolling jest, sometimes.
Not this time.
And nobody suggested that.
But the speed with which you abandoned all reason was most entertaining.
The Brexiteer belief in British exceptionalism is truly astonishing.
"International Law you say? Fuck 'em, we're British..."
And they wonder why the rest of the World looks on aghast
Let them look. Who cares. We are the British. We gave the world Shakespeare, the Beatles, TV, the internet, the Industrial Revolution, cricket, rugby, tennis, football, the Theory of Evolution, Decorated Architecture, London, Bath, Edinburgh, Railways, Oxford, the discovery of DNA, Cambridge, skiing, Sir Isaac Newton, the English language, Masterchef, Strictly, Top Gear, the jet engine, computers, and the single largest global empire the world has seen, or will ever see.
We will cope with Brexit.
You forgot PB.com!!!
Isn't PB hosted in the Cayman Islands for tax purposes?
Why are Remainers so emotionally stupid? They are often quite well informed on law and economics, but they totally lack the language of nation, patriotism, identity, culture, tribe, family and belonging.
This is why they lost, and why they may turn their defeat into a rout.
If people like you tried to get Brexit scuppered via the European Court of Justice then, in all seriousness, I would like to see you imprisoned as a traitor. I use that word "traitor" in trolling jest, sometimes.
Not this time.
And nobody suggested that.
But the speed with which you abandoned all reason was most entertaining.
The Brexiteer belief in British exceptionalism is truly astonishing.
"International Law you say? Fuck 'em, we're British..."
And they wonder why the rest of the World looks on aghast
Let them look. Who cares. We are the British. We gave the world Shakespeare, the Beatles, TV, the internet, the Industrial Revolution, cricket, rugby, tennis, football, the Theory of Evolution, Decorated Architecture, London, Bath, Edinburgh, Railways, Oxford, the discovery of DNA, Cambridge, skiing, Sir Isaac Newton, the English language, Masterchef, Strictly, Top Gear, the jet engine, computers, and the single largest global empire the world has seen, or will ever see.
We will cope with Brexit.
You forgot PB.com!!!
Isn't PB hosted in the Cayman Islands for tax purposes?
If people like you tried to get Brexit scuppered via the European Court of Justice then, in all seriousness, I would like to see you imprisoned as a traitor. I use that word "traitor" in trolling jest, sometimes.
Not this time.
And nobody suggested that.
But the speed with which you abandoned all reason was most entertaining.
The Brexiteer belief in British exceptionalism is truly astonishing.
"International Law you say? Fuck 'em, we're British..."
And they wonder why the rest of the World looks on aghast
Let them look. Who cares. We are the British. We gave the world Shakespeare, the Beatles, TV, the internet, the Industrial Revolution, cricket, rugby, tennis, football, the Theory of Evolution, Decorated Architecture, London, Bath, Edinburgh, Railways, Oxford, the discovery of DNA, Cambridge, skiing, Sir Isaac Newton, the English language, Masterchef, Strictly, Top Gear, the jet engine, computers, and the single largest global empire the world has seen, or will ever see.
We will cope with Brexit.
You really should say all that only when Land of Hope & Glory is playing in the background
Cabinet ministers have been given detailed warnings that the UK pulling out of the EU customs union could lead to a 4.5% fall in GDP by 2030 and the clogging up of trade through Britain’s ports.
Great start to the article.
"UK hard Brexit pullout risks big fall in GDP and trade gridlock at ports, cabinet committee told"
A) It's not a fall. b) It's not big in the grand scheme of things. C) It's smaller than the Treasury forecast before the referendum, although I note it appears to be that forecast and a couple of others rehashed. D) A forecast 14 years ahead is worthless, there are too many imponderables.
This isn't news, it's BS.
It's come to something when TSE is quoting nonsense from the Guardian to support his Euro Fanaticism.
It is quite sad really, especially when he drags up his fractured country nonsense.
It is a bit - this has clearly got to him - but then the Osbornites dreams of power and advancement have turned to dust - and semi-hysterical carping from the sidelines is not going to bring them back. That someone who knows about polls could seriously entertain the idea that a politician with Osborne's ratings could ever be PM speaks to the triumph of hope over experience.....
10+ Lib Dem leaflets, 2 fake newspapers, and a personalised letter. Labour seem to have finally woken up, two leaflets, one fake newspaper since saturday. Conservatives one generic letter from the PM today and another generic letter last week. And oh 1 green party letter.
Well this is making the British state look a fool. If we are to take refugees with a UK claim, fine. But bringing them here as "children" is absurd, and only serves to stoke tension and make the case for accepting further refugees harder. Still, there's always some who are so blind they will not see...
David Davies MP @DavidTCDavies These don't look like "children" to me. I hope British hospitality is not being abused.
stellacreasy @stellacreasy You make me ashamed to be in same Parliament @DavidTCDavies feeding this hatred and undermining child refugees #notimpressed
Well this is making the British state look a fool. If we are to take refugees with a UK claim, fine. But bringing them here as "children" is absurd, and only serves to stoke tension and make the case for accepting further refugees harder. Still, there's always some who are so blind they will not see...
David Davies MP @DavidTCDavies These don't look like "children" to me. I hope British hospitality is not being abused.
stellacreasy @stellacreasy You make me ashamed to be in same Parliament @DavidTCDavies feeding this hatred and undermining child refugees #notimpressed
Well this is making the British state look a fool. If we are to take refugees with a UK claim, fine. But bringing them here as "children" is absurd, and only serves to stoke tension and make the case for accepting further refugees harder. Still, there's always some who are so blind they will not see...
David Davies MP @DavidTCDavies These don't look like "children" to me. I hope British hospitality is not being abused.
stellacreasy @stellacreasy You make me ashamed to be in same Parliament @DavidTCDavies feeding this hatred and undermining child refugees #notimpressed
10+ Lib Dem leaflets, 2 fake newspapers, and a personalised letter. Labour seem to have finally woken up, two leaflets, one fake newspaper since saturday. Conservatives one generic letter from the PM today and another generic letter last week. And oh 1 green party letter.
10+ Lib Dem leaflets, 2 fake newspapers, and a personalised letter. Labour seem to have finally woken up, two leaflets, one fake newspaper since saturday. Conservatives one generic letter from the PM today and another generic letter last week. And oh 1 green party letter.
I'm going with (%) Con 50 Lib Dem 20 Labour 15 Others inc UKIP 15
If the LDs got to 25/30 and knocked the Cons to early 40s, it would be quite the upset.
This doesn't add up. The LDs surely wouldn't be wasting so many resources on a fight that their best hope is a 10 point loss?
They have to fight the by-elections as they come up. Going from fourth to second would be a significant result. I would be astonished if the LDs won, but I do think it's a fight between them and the Tories with other parties squeezed. 30% for "others"seems high. Maybe 20% - 25% with Lib Dems on 25% to 30%.
Well this is making the British state look a fool. If we are to take refugees with a UK claim, fine. But bringing them here as "children" is absurd, and only serves to stoke tension and make the case for accepting further refugees harder. Still, there's always some who are so blind they will not see...
David Davies MP @DavidTCDavies These don't look like "children" to me. I hope British hospitality is not being abused.
stellacreasy @stellacreasy You make me ashamed to be in same Parliament @DavidTCDavies feeding this hatred and undermining child refugees #notimpressed
lol, is she trying to defend this absurdity?
Her timeline is a treat. It really comes down to this one [admittedly to Louise Mensch who is rarely right these days]:
stellacreasy @stellacreasy So let me get this straight- you think on basis of a photo in a paper you know better than the border officials overseeing process?
To which I would say: Yes. More properly, on the basis of several photos. One superannuated "teenager" is unfortunate, two or more looks like carelessness.
Well this is making the British state look a fool. If we are to take refugees with a UK claim, fine. But bringing them here as "children" is absurd, and only serves to stoke tension and make the case for accepting further refugees harder. Still, there's always some who are so blind they will not see...
David Davies MP @DavidTCDavies These don't look like "children" to me. I hope British hospitality is not being abused.
stellacreasy @stellacreasy You make me ashamed to be in same Parliament @DavidTCDavies feeding this hatred and undermining child refugees #notimpressed
lol, is she trying to defend this absurdity?
Her timeline is a treat. It really comes down to this one [admittedly to Louise Mensch who is rarely right these days]:
stellacreasy @stellacreasy So let me get this straight- you think on basis of a photo in a paper you know better than the border officials overseeing process?
To which I would say: Yes. More properly, on the basis of several photos. One superannuated "teenager" is unfortunate, two or more looks like carelessness.
What troubles me is that the designated children may well be still in the camp. It does present the appearance of might being right - the children having been bullied out of the way for the tough young men.
Why are all these 'children' male, for one thing?
What do their 'families' have to say about these 'children'? Are they the ones they expected to see?
Well this is making the British state look a fool. If we are to take refugees with a UK claim, fine. But bringing them here as "children" is absurd, and only serves to stoke tension and make the case for accepting further refugees harder. Still, there's always some who are so blind they will not see...
David Davies MP @DavidTCDavies These don't look like "children" to me. I hope British hospitality is not being abused.
stellacreasy @stellacreasy You make me ashamed to be in same Parliament @DavidTCDavies feeding this hatred and undermining child refugees #notimpressed
lol, is she trying to defend this absurdity?
To which I would say: Yes. More properly, on the basis of several photos. One superannuated "teenager" is unfortunate, two or more looks like carelessness.
And risks a public reaction which stops genuine children getting into the country, if these young men are found out to be older than they claim.....
If the Commission gets a letter purporting to be from the UK government invoking Article 50, they will accept it with alacrity. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell that they would want to throw yet more confusion, delay and damaging economic uncertainty into the already toxic mix by doubting its validity. There is, accordingly, less than a snowflake's chance in hell of the ECJ getting involved in any judgement on the validity of the Article 50 trigger.
Not so much Cherchez la femme as Chechez la politique. Or, in English, get real.
I'm going with (%) Con 50 Lib Dem 20 Labour 15 Others inc UKIP 15
If the LDs got to 25/30 and knocked the Cons to early 40s, it would be quite the upset.
No way can LDs win this though.
I see the Wessex nationalists stood last time. I always thought Wessex stopped the other side of the Thames; had Oxfordshire down as a kind of Midland county.
My current prediction would be something like this:
10+ Lib Dem leaflets, 2 fake newspapers, and a personalised letter. Labour seem to have finally woken up, two leaflets, one fake newspaper since saturday. Conservatives one generic letter from the PM today and another generic letter last week. And oh 1 green party letter.
10+ Lib Dem leaflets, 2 fake newspapers, and a personalised letter. Labour seem to have finally woken up, two leaflets, one fake newspaper since saturday. Conservatives one generic letter from the PM today and another generic letter last week. And oh 1 green party letter.
I'm going with (%) Con 50 Lib Dem 20 Labour 15 Others inc UKIP 15
If the LDs got to 25/30 and knocked the Cons to early 40s, it would be quite the upset.
This doesn't add up. The LDs surely wouldn't be wasting so many resources on a fight that their best hope is a 10 point loss?
They have to fight the by-elections as they come up. Going from fourth to second would be a significant result. I would be astonished if the LDs won, but I do think it's a fight between them and the Tories with other parties squeezed. 30% for "others"seems high. Maybe 20% - 25% with Lib Dems on 25% to 30%.
I know there's a lot of optimism about the LibDems on here. And I know that have utterly flooded the constituency with activists. And I know they have - to some extent - got their mojo back.
But let's think about this rationally for a minute. The Conservative Party is about 8 points up on their GE share right now. The Liberal Democrats, even being charitable, are one point up, and might be down.
If we take the biggest swings achieved by the (then popular) LibDems against the (then unpopular) Conservatives, and apply them to this by-election, the Tories still win by 10 points.
Now, I backed the LDs at 24 on Betfair (23-1) with a fiver. A fiver I expect to lose.
The only way the LDs can win this is if turnout collapses and the Labour vote goes over in its entirety to them. I don't think that will happen.
Tories 45%, LDs 30%: a good result for them, but a fair way away from a victory.
(For the record, I suspect the Libs would win Richmond Park, because a, it is a lot more pro-Remain than Witney, b, because Heathrow, and c, because they have a large local activist base.)
I'm going with (%) Con 50 Lib Dem 20 Labour 15 Others inc UKIP 15
If the LDs got to 25/30 and knocked the Cons to early 40s, it would be quite the upset.
No way can LDs win this though.
I see the Wessex nationalists stood last time. I always thought Wessex stopped the other side of the Thames; had Oxfordshire down as a kind of Midland county.
My current prediction would be something like this:
Con 52% LD 26% Lab 10% UKIP 5% Green 5% Others 2%
I think the interesting question is the Con:LD ratio. I would be surprised if it was more than 2x or less than 1.5x.
(I also think the Greens will lose their deposit this time around.)
As an aside, for the LDs to win in Witney, you'd need to see UKIP siphoning off Conservative Brexit voters on the basis that "Vote UKIP To Make Sure The Conservatives Go Full Brexit".
If they could get 10-15% on the basis, in a very low turnout election, it would be theoretically possible for the Libs to sneak through.
Well this is making the British state look a fool. If we are to take refugees with a UK claim, fine. But bringing them here as "children" is absurd, and only serves to stoke tension and make the case for accepting further refugees harder. Still, there's always some who are so blind they will not see...
David Davies MP @DavidTCDavies These don't look like "children" to me. I hope British hospitality is not being abused.
stellacreasy @stellacreasy You make me ashamed to be in same Parliament @DavidTCDavies feeding this hatred and undermining child refugees #notimpressed
lol, is she trying to defend this absurdity?
Her timeline is a treat. It really comes down to this one [admittedly to Louise Mensch who is rarely right these days]:
stellacreasy @stellacreasy So let me get this straight- you think on basis of a photo in a paper you know better than the border officials overseeing process?
To which I would say: Yes. More properly, on the basis of several photos. One superannuated "teenager" is unfortunate, two or more looks like carelessness.
What troubles me is that the designated children may well be still in the camp. It does present the appearance of might being right - the children having been bullied out of the way for the tough young men.
Why are all these 'children' male, for one thing?
What do their 'families' have to say about these 'children'? Are they the ones they expected to see?
Have yet to see a single female 'child' coming through. Who selected these people? Whoever they are, they should be fired.
Comments
In fairness, they're not not saying that either.
The predictions were contained in a paper circulated at a meeting of Theresa May’s special Brexit cabinet committee, which concluded that ministers were not yet prepared to decide whether the UK should withdraw from the EU’s free trade bloc.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/18/theresa-may-given-stark-warning-about-leaving-customs-union
"UK hard Brexit pullout risks big fall in GDP and trade gridlock at ports, cabinet committee told"
A) It's not a fall. b) It's not big in the grand scheme of things. C) It's smaller than the Treasury forecast before the referendum, although I note it appears to be that forecast and a couple of others rehashed. D) A forecast 14 years ahead is worthless, there are too many imponderables.
This isn't news, it's BS.
Just pretend it's 2000 and think about an economic forecast for 2014 and what it would unavoidably omit.
and this
Although international trade secretary, Liam Fox, called for the UK’s withdrawal at the meeting, the prime minister was said to repeatedly stress that she was not ready to make any final decisions on the UK’s negotiating position.
Jeez you leavers are such delicate flowers.
Which Brexiteer's head would explode first?
Improving UK productivity would potentially make more difference than single market membership. Spending the next two years obsessing about that might be more worthwhile.
That said, since I became politically aware the Tories have won only two by-elections while in government - in Newark and Rochester - both of which were at least a little atypical. I still cant get used to the idea of a Tory hold in a by-election.
In short we don't know. The assumption is that the money is informed but is it value backing or someone is going to win backing?
Off topic, from yesterday to today:
Yesterday: '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.'
Today, police in the Bahamas are investigating the possible paedo tendencies of Julian.
Anyone spot the pattern? To the people on here (and there are some) who thought he was once the dogs bollocks....watch your little hero bleed out after he is metaphorically cut into strips.
This threatens to be a really bitter and long destruction.
The heal the fractured country line was something I heard on the conference fringe used by a Leaver, he said it was incumbent on Leavers to assure the 48% that Brexit would work for them, that they had nothing to fear from it.
In the last 27 years, the Tories have only won one by election whilst in Government.
Corby?NewarkNot many seats have four different MPs in five years
Do we really want to set a precedent that a country can just abrogate its treaty obligations just like that and not adhere to the rules/law?
What would that do for our Trade deals?
The Brexiteers have lost all reason... Kippers on Twitter are appalled that UK Parliamentarians might take a view on Brexit
Assange should have been smart and donated to Hillary.
The ECJ has jurisdiction to determine common European constitutional requirements. The UK Supreme Court decides our own constitutional requirements. Its our own that matter here.
Actually, I'll tell you how I could forget: when I wrote that to start with, I had it as only one, and then I thought, no, Rochester. But then I remembered your triumph at Mark Reckless's defeat. But of course, that was at the GE, wasn't it?
Newark was something of a special case: before 1997, it would always be pretty obvious at Tory defended by-elections whether Labour or the Lib Dems would be the main challenger. But with the coalition, Labour had to carry that baton alone, and Labour a) were crap, and b) had no real strength in the seat (despite having won it in 1997 - but I seem to remember it had rather different boundaries then). So the task of opposition fell to UKIP, which left many Lib/Lab types voting Tory to keep out UKIP.
Things obviously aren't anything like so favourable for the Tories in 2016 in Witney as they were in 2014 (?) in Newark.
It's seems to be really cheap, you can run a single poll with a sample of 330 from any state basically using the $50 credit they give you when you sign up.
Their crappy 50 state poll is giving me thoughts though about their accuracy, however anyone can weight the poll results as they like.
North Antrim
East Antrim
South Antrim
Strangford
Lagan Valley
Upper Bann
East Belfast
Want a bet?
Plenty of people were told a while back that Wikileaks was just a Russian intelligence front, they were told about how Assange encouraged Snowden to go to Moscow.
They didn't listen, but only the most bone headed and reluctant to face up to it are now refusing to see it.
One way or another, he will taken off the scene.
REMAIN 48%
*runs and hides*
Nothing is likely to happen to Northern Ireland. No one in their right mind in Europe or elsewhere will want to piss with that one.
I'm not saying that's what is happening. It seems much more likely that the noise we hear is that of a lot of people who fully agree on neither strategy nor the end point they're trying to reach - which is to be expected given where we were six months ago. But if I were trying to stage manage exit negotiations, the way I would be doing it would be to hint to Europe that many people who might influence the outcome would like a soft Brexit while showing that many others are quite prepared for - indeed, are arguing for - hard Brexit. I certainly wouldn't want to be appearing united on the need for soft Brexit. That is is the way to a very shitty deal, or to no Brexit at all - and thereby to losing the next election.
Such are the complexities of negotiations between bodies who do not hold internally consistent views.
Goodnight.
But the speed with which you abandoned all reason was most entertaining.
The Brexiteer belief in British exceptionalism is truly astonishing.
"International Law you say? Fuck 'em, we're British..."
And they wonder why the rest of the World looks on aghast
*UN members
b) A constituency that voted Remain electing a Remain MP would not be earth-shattering.
Having said that, I doubt that taking the matter to the ECJ would play very well in the UK.
I expect that the Supreme Court would try very hard to avoid having to answer that question.
GAME CHANGER
David Davies MP @DavidTCDavies
These don't look like "children" to me. I hope British hospitality is not being abused.
stellacreasy @stellacreasy
You make me ashamed to be in same Parliament @DavidTCDavies feeding this hatred and undermining child refugees #notimpressed
'Losing deposits here' might become the new parliamentary catchphrase....
stellacreasy @stellacreasy
So let me get this straight- you think on basis of a photo in a paper you know better than the border officials overseeing process?
To which I would say: Yes. More properly, on the basis of several photos. One superannuated "teenager" is unfortunate, two or more looks like carelessness.
Why are all these 'children' male, for one thing?
What do their 'families' have to say about these 'children'? Are they the ones they expected to see?
Not so much Cherchez la femme as Chechez la politique. Or, in English, get real.
Con 52%
LD 26%
Lab 10%
UKIP 5%
Green 5%
Others 2%
But let's think about this rationally for a minute. The Conservative Party is about 8 points up on their GE share right now. The Liberal Democrats, even being charitable, are one point up, and might be down.
If we take the biggest swings achieved by the (then popular) LibDems against the (then unpopular) Conservatives, and apply them to this by-election, the Tories still win by 10 points.
Now, I backed the LDs at 24 on Betfair (23-1) with a fiver. A fiver I expect to lose.
The only way the LDs can win this is if turnout collapses and the Labour vote goes over in its entirety to them. I don't think that will happen.
Tories 45%, LDs 30%: a good result for them, but a fair way away from a victory.
(For the record, I suspect the Libs would win Richmond Park, because a, it is a lot more pro-Remain than Witney, b, because Heathrow, and c, because they have a large local activist base.)
(I also think the Greens will lose their deposit this time around.)
If they could get 10-15% on the basis, in a very low turnout election, it would be theoretically possible for the Libs to sneak through.
Still don't think it's likely mind.
That's two threads in a row where I've used Alastair's suggestions as headlines
'Nothing compares to EU'
Oh and 'Stuck in the middle with EU'