The Guardian today is suffering from schizophrenia, simultaneously loathing bankers more than Phillip Green, and bleating that the very same bankers are going to jump ship next year because of Brexit. Everyone needs to calm the eff down.
Their descent into insanity is a pretty enjoyable by-product of the vote.
If the Remain majority in parliament overturned the referendum result tomorrow there would be an early General Election and a huge " Winchester " style backlash.
How exactly?
If there is a remain majority in Parliament, enough candidates would need to be replaced by Leavers
Are you suggesting UKIP would win hundreds of seats? Really?
EDIT: And even if they did, they might be replacing leavers...
I think UKIP would win a few seats especially in the north. Labour and LDs would do very badly.
Shame his son died, or else he'd have been POTUS. A far better candidate than Hillary, Michelle Obama also would have been superior (2020 or 2024 perhaps).
That article is very confused about how the FTPA actually works.
Yes it is. I don't think the author has understood it.
And it's also confused about the A50 process. Parliament can't block a hard Leave, since a hard Leave is what happens by default if no agreement is reached (or if Parliament votes down an agreement that is reached).
Re Gore in 2000. Surely 'the process of checking those hanging chads' was never 'completed and verified ' because the Supreme Court prevented the recount from taking place! Democracy did not prevail that year.
Wiki provides the following possible outcomes based on studies undertaken of the various contested elements. It is not clear that Gore would have won Florida - depends which way you look at it.
Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of limited sets of ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225 • Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430 • Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493 Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count) • Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537
I accept that the result remains unclear, but what was so appalling was the failure of the Courts to allow any recount to be completed,
A partial recount was unconstitutional as well as being silly. Gore should have asked for a full manual statewide recount from the start.
I agree with that - but a full recount should still have been allowed to go ahead!
Pensioners living in France wanting to move back to UK (According to twitter), but apparently there is a property glut in France so tricky to sell up quickly.
The Spanish Costas property market is vulnerable to an unfavourable Brexit. Over 20% of foreign buyers are UK born across the whole of Spain.
Re Gore in 2000. Surely 'the process of checking those hanging chads' was never 'completed and verified ' because the Supreme Court prevented the recount from taking place! Democracy did not prevail that year.
Wiki provides the following possible outcomes based on studies undertaken of the various contested elements. It is not clear that Gore would have won Florida - depends which way you look at it.
Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of limited sets of ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225 • Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430 • Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493 Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count) • Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537
I accept that the result remains unclear, but what was so appalling was the failure of the Courts to allow any recount to be completed,
A partial recount was unconstitutional as well as being silly. Gore should have asked for a full manual statewide recount from the start.
I agree with that - but a full recount should still have been allowed to go ahead!
The Guardian today is suffering from schizophrenia, simultaneously loathing bankers more than Phillip Green, and bleating that the very same bankers are going to jump ship next year because of Brexit. Everyone needs to calm the eff down.
Their descent into insanity is a pretty enjoyable by-product of the vote.
If the Remain majority in parliament overturned the referendum result tomorrow there would be an early General Election and a huge " Winchester " style backlash.
How exactly?
If there is a remain majority in Parliament, enough candidates would need to be replaced by Leavers
Are you suggesting UKIP would win hundreds of seats? Really?
EDIT: And even if they did, they might be replacing leavers...
I think UKIP would win a few seats especially in the north. Labour and LDs would do very badly.
The key would be the fate of remain Tory MPs, surely
That article is very confused about how the FTPA actually works.
That article sounds very vague - and fails to take any account of the possibility that far from being imprisoned in Downing Street Theresa May might have to make way for Corbyn to become a caretaker PM until Polling Day!. I cite the Balfour - Campbell -Bannerman precedent again.
If the Remain majority in parliament overturned the referendum result tomorrow there would be an early General Election and a huge " Winchester " style backlash.
How exactly?
If there is a remain majority in Parliament, enough candidates would need to be replaced by Leavers
Are you suggesting UKIP would win hundreds of seats? Really?
The country would be offered a Conservative manifesto based on Leaving with a then overwhelming pro Leave slate of candidates. It would be even easier than the referendum. You don't need 50% + 1 under first past the post.
I think we do need an early election, but it is more likely to be competing visions of Brexit on offer, as all parties have accepted the result, it is whether the mandate is for Hard or Soft Brexit that is undecided.
In such circumstances it would probably be the Tories that are most split, while UKIP is clearly for Hard Brexit, the LibDems, PC and Labour are for Soft; and the SNP for independence.
I've a lot of time for that view. The two routes to #Mayday are either seeking a dissolution immeadiately after invoking A50 in March. Ride the sentiment waive and seek a mandate for the negotiating aims. Or #Mayday following wrecking Sunrise clauses inserted into the A50 Bill needed if HMG loses the Supreme Court challenge. But you are right. In a FPTP system it would be a choice between the Tories Coke Brexit and Labour's Pepsi Brexit. Remain Cola would rack up hundreds of second places but win only a score of seats.
May will be constrained by Corbyn's attitude to the prospect of an early Dissolution. If the polls in late March are comparable to today's Opinium poll he might be up for it , but if they still showed a Tory lead well into double figures he would surely try to thwart her plans - or at least make her go down the Vote of No Confidence road with all its constitutional uncertainties.
keeping May prisoner in Downing Street.
I suspect Labour will indeed keep May a "prisoner" in Downing St - just not in the way they intend....they will simultaneously liberate a lot of themselves from the burdens of office...
Pensioners living in France wanting to move back to UK (According to twitter), but apparently there is a property glut in France so tricky to sell up quickly.
The Spanish Costas property market is vulnerable to an unfavourable Brexit. Over 20% of foreign buyers are UK born across the whole of Spain.
So we're going to get expats in Spain and France moving back to the UK, and foreign buyers purchasing UK property to rent out because the £ is so weak
I thought the intent of LEAVErs was to *stop* house price rises, not *accelerate* them...
Re Gore in 2000. Surely 'the process of checking those hanging chads' was never 'completed and verified ' because the Supreme Court prevented the recount from taking place! Democracy did not prevail that year.
Wiki provides the following possible outcomes based on studies undertaken of the various contested elements. It is not clear that Gore would have won Florida - depends which way you look at it.
Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of limited sets of ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225 • Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430 • Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493 Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count) • Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537
I accept that the result remains unclear, but what was so appalling was the failure of the Courts to allow any recount to be completed,
A partial recount was unconstitutional as well as being silly. Gore should have asked for a full manual statewide recount from the start.
I agree with that - but a full recount should still have been allowed to go ahead!
It couldn't have - nobody was asking for it.
Why would Gore not have asked for it in early December 2000? He could not have known the outcome of it and had the real prospect of emerging as the winner!
If the Remain majority in parliament overturned the referendum result tomorrow there would be an early General Election and a huge " Winchester " style backlash.
How exactly?
If there is a remain majority in Parliament, enough candidates would need to be replaced by Leavers
Are you suggesting UKIP would win hundreds of seats? Really?
The country would be offered a Conservative manifesto based on Leaving with a then overwhelming pro Leave slate of candidates. It would be even easier than the referendum. You don't need 50% + 1 under first past the post.
I think we do need an early election, but it is more likely to be competing visions of Brexit on offer, as all parties have accepted the result, it is whether the mandate is for Hard or Soft Brexit that is undecided.
In such circumstances it would probably be the Tories that are most split, while UKIP is clearly for Hard Brexit, the LibDems, PC and Labour are for Soft; and the SNP for independence.
I've a lot of time for that view. The two routes to #Mayday are either seeking a dissolution immeadiately after invoking A50 in March. Ride the sentiment waive and seek a mandate for the negotiating aims. Or #Mayday following wrecking Sunrise clauses inserted into the A50 Bill needed if HMG loses the Supreme Court challenge. But you are right. In a FPTP system it would be a choice between the Tories Coke Brexit and Labour's Pepsi Brexit. Remain Cola would rack up hundreds of second places but win only a score of seats.
May will be constrained by Corbyn's attitude to the prospect of an early Dissolution. If the polls in late March are comparable to today's Opinium poll he might be up for it , but if they still showed a Tory lead well into double figures he would surely try to thwart her plans - or at least make her go down the Vote of No Confidence road with all its constitutional uncertainties.
I understand Labour MPs have already worked out a plan to thwart any early election and describe it as keeping May prisoner in Downing Street. Which is perhaps a strange way to look at it.
Then again it would be rash to put much faith in the planning abilities of Labour MPs.
It would be strange thing if the Tories voted for a motion of No Confidence in their own government to force an election and the Opposition implied confidence in the government they normally oppose to prevent it.
Pensioners living in France wanting to move back to UK (According to twitter), but apparently there is a property glut in France so tricky to sell up quickly.
The Spanish Costas property market is vulnerable to an unfavourable Brexit. Over 20% of foreign buyers are UK born across the whole of Spain.
So we're going to get expats in Spain and France moving back to the UK, and foreign buyers purchasing UK property to rent out because the £ is so weak
I thought the intent of LEAVErs was to *stop* house price rises, not *accelerate* them...
It's fairly easy to sit around drumming up pessimistic scenarios for everything because you're grief-stricken , but what is actually happening?
Also, how would a flow of returners compare with current migration flows?
Questions with only two answers lead to bitterness and hatred, clearly. Suddenly it becomes obvious that the Liberals have for decades been the thin line between us and civil war.
Not true. The One Nation approach is the way forward. Leaders with the ability to understand and govern in the interests of both London and the country/small towns
"One Nation" is a nice little phrase, Mr Charles. I does not have much to do with the Tory Party, who are anything but that.
I don`t think the divide is between London and the country though. It is between the disgustingly wealthy and privileged and rest of us.
The May government doesn't feel particularly one Nation, but it's an ideal not a statement of fact
Re: your second paragraph it's a simplification For instance I spent last weekend with some people in the West Country who are extremely wealthy but have a great sense of duty and obligation to the other residents of their patch. The London wealthy tend to be more internationally minded and less aware of their local communities (my family is probably the closest that London has to squires and even we are relatively less significant than we were in past generations).
I think that's more the difference between old money and new money. The old money has much more social responsibility and a wish to look after those around them.
They are all about hanging onto and increasing their money, as has been proven over the years they don't give a fig for the peasants unless it is to their advantage. Old has just had more practice at hiding it.
A little harsh, but most have accepted the reality that for their own interests to flourish they need a stable society. Historically they used violence (or the threat of violence) to maintain control - these days that's no longer viable, so they accept that they need to contribute the society. Yes, it's in their own interests, but, as with all symbiotic relationships, both sides benefit
Definitely a little bit harsh, certainly the old money is not as bad as the trash that have the new money, most of them would shoot their granny for a pound never mind sell her.
As someone pointed out the other day, from their policies it's pretty clear Tories buy Grannies, not sell them....
That article is very confused about how the FTPA actually works.
That article sounds very vague - and fails to take any account of the possibility that far from being imprisoned in Downing Street Theresa May might have to make way for Corbyn to become a caretaker PM until Polling Day!. I cite the Balfour - Campbell -Bannerman precedent again.
Also seems not to consider that Hard Brexit would be imposed by the EU not voted on by Parliament, so the numbers are from that point of view irrelevant. A rare total shambles of an article by Atul, who is usually a pretty shrewd analyst.
The country would be offered a Conservative manifesto based on Leaving with a then overwhelming pro Leave slate of candidates. It would be even easier than the referendum. You don't need 50% + 1 under first past the post.
I suspect there are 2 problems with that scenario
Many people who voted leave are in the "never kissed a Tory" camp. Would they turn out to vote Tory?
Many people who voted Tory for years are in the Remain camp. Would they turn out to vote Tory on an explicitly leave ticket? I wouldn't.
You're unusual. Most Conservatives would vote Conservative, as would most Kippers, in that situation. The Conservatives would likely get 45% or so.
Pensioners living in France wanting to move back to UK (According to twitter), but apparently there is a property glut in France so tricky to sell up quickly.
They need to be careful on the way back. They might be mistaken for unaccompanied children.
Shame his son died, or else he'd have been POTUS.....
I must respectfully disagree. Post-Savile, the treatment of women as sex objects has become much less accepted. Biden, whilst not in the same class as Trump, does have difficulty respecting boundaries with women: kisses on the cheek become kisses on the lips, light touches become grabs, he holds on a bit too long, and so on. The clips on YouTube are illustrative. It is to his great good fortune that he goes down in history as a justly respected civil servant who nearly obtained the highest office in the land, instead of a bit of an old groper who lost the election to President Rubio
That article is very confused about how the FTPA actually works.
Yes it is. I don't think the author has understood it.
And it's also confused about the A50 process. Parliament can't block a hard Leave, since a hard Leave is what happens by default if no agreement is reached (or if Parliament votes down an agreement that is reached).
That takes us onto if an A50 notification can be revoked. But let's leave that till another day !
'In such circumstances it would probably be the Tories that are most split, while UKIP is clearly for Hard Brexit, the LibDems, PC and Labour are for Soft; and the SNP for independence.'
The Lib Dems & SNP could fight the election as a pro EU anti UK alliance ?
That article is very confused about how the FTPA actually works.
That article sounds very vague - and fails to take any account of the possibility that far from being imprisoned in Downing Street Theresa May might have to make way for Corbyn to become a caretaker PM until Polling Day!. I cite the Balfour - Campbell -Bannerman precedent again.
Can I please add though that Balfour didn't lose a vote of confidence - he resigned because he thought the Liberal party was splitting and would, if forced to form a government, fracture entirely.
Because Asquith had the spine of a particularly floppy jellyfish, that didn't happen, but the Relugas Compact shows that Balfour wasn't as far off in his judgement as is sometimes thought.
The last PM to swap roles due to a vote of confidence without an election was as long ago as the 1880s, when wholly different rules applied. In practice, May would remain PM for an election as there is no way Corbyn could form a government.
Re Gore in 2000. Surely 'the process of checking those hanging chads' was never 'completed and verified ' because the Supreme Court prevented the recount from taking place! Democracy did not prevail that year.
Wiki provides the following possible outcomes based on studies undertaken of the various contested elements. It is not clear that Gore would have won Florida - depends which way you look at it.
Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of limited sets of ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225 • Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430 • Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493 Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count) • Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537
I accept that the result remains unclear, but what was so appalling was the failure of the Courts to allow any recount to be completed,
The supreme court decision was so nakedly partisan and at odds with the concurring judgesbstated legal beliefs that hey made it non precedent setting so it couldn't be used by Dems in a future contented election.
Gore fucked up though by not asking for a statewide recount. It would have given SCOTUS very little room to manouver.
Re Gore in 2000. Surely 'the process of checking those hanging chads' was never 'completed and verified ' because the Supreme Court prevented the recount from taking place! Democracy did not prevail that year.
Wiki provides the following possible outcomes based on studies undertaken of the various contested elements. It is not clear that Gore would have won Florida - depends which way you look at it.
Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of limited sets of ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225 • Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430 • Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493 Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count) • Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537
I accept that the result remains unclear, but what was so appalling was the failure of the Courts to allow any recount to be completed,
A partial recount was unconstitutional as well as being silly. Gore should have asked for a full manual statewide recount from the start.
I agree with that - but a full recount should still have been allowed to go ahead!
It couldn't have - nobody was asking for it.
Why would Gore not have asked for it in early December 2000? He could not have known the outcome of it and had the real prospect of emerging as the winner!
Good question. Presumably he thought that having a recount only in the most Dem counties was his best chance
But once he hadn't asked for a full recount the Supreme Court couldn't impose one.
Re Gore in 2000. Surely 'the process of checking those hanging chads' was never 'completed and verified ' because the Supreme Court prevented the recount from taking place! Democracy did not prevail that year.
Wiki provides the following possible outcomes based on studies undertaken of the various contested elements. It is not clear that Gore would have won Florida - depends which way you look at it.
Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of limited sets of ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225 • Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430 • Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493 Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count) • Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537
I accept that the result remains unclear, but what was so appalling was the failure of the Courts to allow any recount to be completed,
A partial recount was unconstitutional as well as being silly. Gore should have asked for a full manual statewide recount from the start.
I agree with that - but a full recount should still have been allowed to go ahead!
It couldn't have - nobody was asking for it.
Why would Gore not have asked for it in early December 2000? He could not have known the outcome of it and had the real prospect of emerging as the winner!
Good question. Presumably he thought that having a recount only in the most Dem counties was his best chance
But once he hadn't asked for a full recount the Supreme Court couldn't impose one.
But could Gore not have asked for a full recount at that point - ie early December? 'If we cannot have a partial recount , let us proceed with a full recount!'
Re Gore in 2000. Surely 'the process of checking those hanging chads' was never 'completed and verified ' because the Supreme Court prevented the recount from taking place! Democracy did not prevail that year.
Wiki provides the following possible outcomes based on studies undertaken of the various contested elements. It is not clear that Gore would have won Florida - depends which way you look at it.
Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of limited sets of ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225 • Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430 • Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493 Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count) • Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537
I accept that the result remains unclear, but what was so appalling was the failure of the Courts to allow any recount to be completed,
The supreme court decision was so nakedly partisan and at odds with the concurring judgesbstated legal beliefs that hey made it non precedent setting so it couldn't be used by Dems in a future contented election.
Gore fucked up though by not asking for a statewide recount. It would have given SCOTUS very little room to manouver.
Re Gore in 2000. Surely 'the process of checking those hanging chads' was never 'completed and verified ' because the Supreme Court prevented the recount from taking place! Democracy did not prevail that year.
Wiki provides the following possible outcomes based on studies undertaken of the various contested elements. It is not clear that Gore would have won Florida - depends which way you look at it.
Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of limited sets of ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225 • Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430 • Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493 Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count) • Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537
I accept that the result remains unclear, but what was so appalling was the failure of the Courts to allow any recount to be completed,
The supreme court decision was so nakedly partisan and at odds with the concurring judgesbstated legal beliefs that hey made it non precedent setting so it couldn't be used by Dems in a future contented election.
Gore fucked up though by not asking for a statewide recount. It would have given SCOTUS very little room to manouver.
He looked like a total idiot. Even more of a total idiot than he did after his 'I concede, hold on I don't concede, I'm not sure what's happening, er....' moment on election night.
That being said, that isn't especially hard as he is a total idiot. Why the Dems thought he would make a good candidate I'm not sure. Rich Hall's rather dry comment that the 2000 election was a choice between 'a slimeball and a spud' sums it up nicely.
You should take the 11-4 if you think the chance of the Donald not accepting a Hillary win is higher than 32%.
‘Donald Trump to publicly confirm he accepts the result of the poll at the post election rally.’
I struggle with this bet - were I a bookmaker, I wouldn't offer the market tbh.
The problem with Donald is he says completely contradictory things - even to the same audience. At a post-election rally, nobody is going to pin him down to "do you accept the result?" He'll maybe offer congratulations and then a minute later call her illegitimate or something.
The press will write whatever headlines they want to write - and then paddy power has a pile of pi$$ed off customers.
The country would be offered a Conservative manifesto based on Leaving with a then overwhelming pro Leave slate of candidates. It would be even easier than the referendum. You don't need 50% + 1 under first past the post.
I suspect there are 2 problems with that scenario
Many people who voted leave are in the "never kissed a Tory" camp. Would they turn out to vote Tory?
Many people who voted Tory for years are in the Remain camp. Would they turn out to vote Tory on an explicitly leave ticket? I wouldn't.
You're unusual. Most Conservatives would vote Conservative, as would most Kippers, in that situation. The Conservatives would likely get 45% or so.
Some Tory MP's campaigned as Leave in May 15 and Remain in June 16, so it shouldn't be difficult for them to toe the line in 17. There may not be such a Remain majority now that the PM is not campaigning for that outcome.
You should take the 11-4 if you think the chance of the Donald not accepting a Hillary win is higher than 32%.
‘Donald Trump to publicly confirm he accepts the result of the poll at the post election rally.’
I struggle with this bet - were I a bookmaker, I wouldn't offer the market tbh.
The problem with Donald is he says completely contradictory things - even to the same audience. At a post-election rally, nobody is going to pin him down to "do you accept the result?" He'll maybe offer congratulations and then a minute later call her illegitimate or something.
The press will write whatever headlines they want to write - and then paddy power has a pile of pi$$ed off customers.
Pensioners living in France wanting to move back to UK (According to twitter), but apparently there is a property glut in France so tricky to sell up quickly.
The Spanish Costas property market is vulnerable to an unfavourable Brexit. Over 20% of foreign buyers are UK born across the whole of Spain.
So we're going to get expats in Spain and France moving back to the UK, and foreign buyers purchasing UK property to rent out because the £ is so weak
I thought the intent of LEAVErs was to *stop* house price rises, not *accelerate* them...
Selling up in France and Spain is the problem, particularly with British buyers no longer about.
Though in the medium and longer term retirement suitable houses and flats on the South Coast are a good bet. There will be an ageing population and fewer options to retire overseas.
BBC Sunday Politics has made the right move IMHO to older journalists, with one exception, Polly. She is so blinkered in attacking the Govt at any single opportunity and she has no sense of balance to her comments. How did she ever pass the "impartiality" assessment when she worked at the BBC?
That article is very confused about how the FTPA actually works.
That article sounds very vague - and fails to take any account of the possibility that far from being imprisoned in Downing Street Theresa May might have to make way for Corbyn to become a caretaker PM until Polling Day!. I cite the Balfour - Campbell -Bannerman precedent again.
Can I please add though that Balfour didn't lose a vote of confidence - he resigned because he thought the Liberal party was splitting and would, if forced to form a government, fracture entirely.
Because Asquith had the spine of a particularly floppy jellyfish, that didn't happen, but the Relugas Compact shows that Balfour wasn't as far off in his judgement as is sometimes thought.
The last PM to swap roles due to a vote of confidence without an election was as long ago as the 1880s, when wholly different rules applied. In practice, May would remain PM for an election as there is no way Corbyn could form a government.
Constitutional experts do not all agree with you on this.Campbell- Bannerman did form a Government despite the Tories having a majority of 100 - and immediately called an election for January 1906. In terms of a hypothetical contemporary scenario following the FTA, some argue that if May failed to whip her own MPs to defeat a Vote of No Confidence her Government might be held to have effectively 'given up' in a similar way to Balfour at the end of 1905. She might then be expected to step aside to give the Opposition Leader the chance to form an administration. Corbyn would fail to obtain a majority in the Commons and proceed to call an election.
You should take the 11-4 if you think the chance of the Donald not accepting a Hillary win is higher than 32%.
‘Donald Trump to publicly confirm he accepts the result of the poll at the post election rally.’
I struggle with this bet - were I a bookmaker, I wouldn't offer the market tbh.
The problem with Donald is he says completely contradictory things - even to the same audience. At a post-election rally, nobody is going to pin him down to "do you accept the result?" He'll maybe offer congratulations and then a minute later call her illegitimate or something.
The press will write whatever headlines they want to write - and then paddy power has a pile of pi$$ed off customers.
It's a market Paddy won't settle for ages either !
You should take the 11-4 if you think the chance of the Donald not accepting a Hillary win is higher than 32%.
‘Donald Trump to publicly confirm he accepts the result of the poll at the post election rally.’
I struggle with this bet - were I a bookmaker, I wouldn't offer the market tbh.
The problem with Donald is he says completely contradictory things - even to the same audience. At a post-election rally, nobody is going to pin him down to "do you accept the result?" He'll maybe offer congratulations and then a minute later call her illegitimate or something.
The press will write whatever headlines they want to write - and then paddy power has a pile of pi$$ed off customers.
It's a market Paddy won't settle for ages either !
The Trum penis size one may be a long wait, at least for a hard measurement.
Interesting article. I heard of my first bit of post vote racism yesterday. An Italian friend who owns a wine bar was speaking to a representative from a brewery ordering beer. He had to answer several standard questions. His English is reasonable but not perfect and one of the questions he couldn't understand so asked for clarification.
This didn't help much and he heard the lady from the brewery presumably believing her hand was covering the phone saying to a colleague 'When are these foreigners going to be sent home?". When they resumed my friend reminded her that he might be a foreigner but he was also a customer! Flustered she said she wasn't talking about him.........
He said he's never encountered anything like that before and he's been in the UK for 4 years.
Undeniable that Brexit has given many the license to express the worst kinds of opinions.
And let us not forget Jo Cox was murdered by a Brexiting madman.
It is very poor show for Brexiters to deny this (though they are not of course responsible for it).
That's a very poor show by you.
All we know is that Jo Cox was murdered by a madman. We know nothing about his reasons.
Chaz:
Please don't feed the [MODERATED]. Self-importance is all it has....
If the Remain majority in parliament overturned the referendum result tomorrow there would be an early General Election and a huge " Winchester " style backlash.
How exactly?
If there is a remain majority in Parliament, enough candidates would need to be replaced by Leavers
Are you suggesting UKIP would win hundreds of seats? Really?
The country would be offered a Conservative manifesto based on Leaving with a then overwhelming pro Leave slate of candidates. It would be even easier than the referendum. You don't need 50% + 1 under first past the post.
I think we do need an early election, but it is more likely to be competing visions of Brexit on offer, as all parties have accepted the result, it is whether the mandate is for Hard or Soft Brexit that is undecided.
In such circumstances it would probably be the Tories that are most split, while UKIP is clearly for Hard Brexit, the LibDems, PC and Labour are for Soft; and the SNP for independence.
I've a lot of time for that view. The two routes to #Mayday are either seeking a dissolution immeadiately after invoking A50 in March. Ride the sentiment waive and seek a mandate for the negotiating aims. Or #Mayday following wrecking Sunrise clauses inserted into the A50 Bill needed if HMG loses the Supreme Court challenge. But you are right. In a FPTP system it would be a choice between the Tories Coke Brexit and Labour's Pepsi Brexit. Remain Cola would rack up hundreds of second places but win only a score of seats.
May will be constrained by Corbyn's attitude to the prospect of an early Dissolution. If the polls in late March are comparable to today's Opinium poll he might be up for it , but if they still showed a Tory lead well into double figures he would surely try to thwart her plans - or at least make her go down the Vote of No Confidence road with all its constitutional uncertainties.
I understand Labour MPs have already worked out a plan to thwart any early election and describe it as keeping May prisoner in Downing Street. Which is perhaps a strange way to look at it.
Then again it would be rash to put much faith in the planning abilities of Labour MPs.
It would be strange thing if the Tories voted for a motion of No Confidence in their own government to force an election and the Opposition implied confidence in the government they normally oppose to prevent it.
That article is very confused about how the FTPA actually works.
That article sounds very vague - and fails to take any account of the possibility that far from being imprisoned in Downing Street Theresa May might have to make way for Corbyn to become a caretaker PM until Polling Day!. I cite the Balfour - Campbell -Bannerman precedent again.
Can I please add though that Balfour didn't lose a vote of confidence - he resigned because he thought the Liberal party was splitting and would, if forced to form a government, fracture entirely.
Because Asquith had the spine of a particularly floppy jellyfish, that didn't happen, but the Relugas Compact shows that Balfour wasn't as far off in his judgement as is sometimes thought.
The last PM to swap roles due to a vote of confidence without an election was as long ago as the 1880s, when wholly different rules applied. In practice, May would remain PM for an election as there is no way Corbyn could form a government.
Constitutional experts do not all agree with you on this.Campbell- Bannerman did form a Government despite the Tories having a majority of 100 - and immediately called an election for January 1906. In terms of a hypothetical contemporary scenario following the FTA, some argue that if May failed to whip her own MPs to defeat a Vote of No Confidence her Government might be held to have effectively 'given up' in a similar way to Balfour at the end of 1905. She might then be expected to step aside to give the Opposition Leader the chance to form an administration. Corbyn would fail to obtain a majority in the Commons and proceed to call an election.
My point was he hadn't lost a vote of confidence.
Edit - it's also hard to see what Corbyn would gain if May tried to hand over. Campbell-Bannerman jumped at the chance because it meant he could call an early election he was certain of winning. Corbyn on the other hand could not call an election (even if he could he would be annihilated) nor could he govern while 100 seats adrift of the Tories.
The Guardian today is suffering from schizophrenia, simultaneously loathing bankers more than Phillip Green, and bleating that the very same bankers are going to jump ship next year because of Brexit. Everyone needs to calm the eff down.
Their descent into insanity is a pretty enjoyable by-product of the vote.
Italian news is reporting a banking flight from London. My enjoyment will be greater when we see how Brexit vandals try and respond to the fact that they impoverished and split up the the UK. At least us little Englanders have control back....ha ha ha....morons with a capital M...
It would be strange thing if the Tories voted for a motion of No Confidence in their own government to force an election and the Opposition implied confidence in the government they normally oppose to prevent it.
Would the Tory government not just resign, on the principled grounds that they were unable to proceed with their program of government, and then use their majority to vote down any attempt by Corbyn to form a government. No need to go through the embarrassment of a confidence vote.
That article is very confused about how the FTPA actually works.
That article sounds very vague - and fails to take any account of the possibility that far from being imprisoned in Downing Street Theresa May might have to make way for Corbyn to become a caretaker PM until Polling Day!. I cite the Balfour - Campbell -Bannerman precedent again.
Can I please add though that Balfour didn't lose a vote of confidence - he resigned because he thought the Liberal party was splitting and would, if forced to form a government, fracture entirely.
Because Asquith had the spine of a particularly floppy jellyfish, that didn't happen, but the Relugas Compact shows that Balfour wasn't as far off in his judgement as is sometimes thought.
The last PM to swap roles due to a vote of confidence without an election was as long ago as the 1880s, when wholly different rules applied. In practice, May would remain PM for an election as there is no way Corbyn could form a government.
Constitutional experts do not all agree with you on this.Campbell- Bannerman did form a Government despite the Tories having a majority of 100 - and immediately called an election for January 1906. In terms of a hypothetical contemporary scenario following the FTA, some argue that if May failed to whip her own MPs to defeat a Vote of No Confidence her Government might be held to have effectively 'given up' in a similar way to Balfour at the end of 1905. She might then be expected to step aside to give the Opposition Leader the chance to form an administration. Corbyn would fail to obtain a majority in the Commons and proceed to call an election.
My point was he hadn't lost a vote of confidence.
Indeed - but he clearly no longer had confidence in himself or his Government!
The Spanish socialists have just decided to abstain in the Rajoy investidure debate, meaning that PP will now form a new - minority - Spanish government after a year of political deadlock. Now the fun will really begin.
The Spanish socialists have just decided to abstain in the Rajoy investidure debate, meaning that PP will now form a new - minority - Spanish government after a year of political deadlock. Now the fun will really begin.
The latest polls give PSOE 14%. Now that is funny.
That article is very confused about how the FTPA actually works.
That article sounds very vague - and fails to take any account of the possibility that far from being imprisoned in Downing Street Theresa May might have to make way for Corbyn to become a caretaker PM until Polling Day!. I cite the Balfour - Campbell -Bannerman precedent again.
Can I please add though that Balfour didn't lose a vote of confidence - he resigned because he thought the Liberal party was splitting and would, if forced to form a government, fracture entirely.
Because Asquith had the spine of a particularly floppy jellyfish, that didn't happen, but the Relugas Compact shows that Balfour wasn't as far off in his judgement as is sometimes thought.
The last PM to swap roles due to a vote of confidence without an election was as long ago as the 1880s, when wholly different rules applied. In practice, May would remain PM for an election as there is no way Corbyn could form a government.
Constitutional experts do not all agree with you on this.Campbell- Bannerman did form a Government despite the Tories having a majority of 100 - and immediately called an election for January 1906. In terms of a hypothetical contemporary scenario following the FTA, some argue that if May failed to whip her own MPs to defeat a Vote of No Confidence her Government might be held to have effectively 'given up' in a similar way to Balfour at the end of 1905. She might then be expected to step aside to give the Opposition Leader the chance to form an administration. Corbyn would fail to obtain a majority in the Commons and proceed to call an election.
My point was he hadn't lost a vote of confidence.
Indeed - but he clearly no longer had confidence in himself or his Government!
That is a very fair point. He said the following May following the Valentine letters affair (and after he had found a seat) 'I am very weary of leading a party that seems unwilling or unable to follow what seem to me to be plain statements and were it not for the fact that leaving my post at this juncture would feel like desertion I should take my doctor's hard-pressed advice and throw up my leading role in what is too dull to be called 'comedy' and too farcical to be deserving of the name of 'tragedy'.'
But I don't think May has quite got to that stage of despondency yet...
The Spanish socialists have just decided to abstain in the Rajoy investidure debate, meaning that PP will now form a new - minority - Spanish government after a year of political deadlock. Now the fun will really begin.
The latest polls give PSOE 14%. Now that is funny.
Not as funny as Podemos on 26%. The new, minority government now has a big, self-created Catalonian problem to sort out.
Podemos is Corbyn Labour; PSOE is moderate Labour.
My Corbynite friends constantly point out the fate of the mainstay socialist parties in Greece and Span (and France) as proof that Jezza is the one true voice.
I could tolerate that argument....but you need also a charismatic, powerful, decisive leader of the hard left too. And we instead have the vain, dithering, duffer who has the electoral gravitas of slippers with wet wooly socks.
That article is very confused about how the FTPA actually works.
.
Can I please add though that Balfour didn't lose a vote of confidence - he resigned because he thought the Liberal party was splitting and would, if forced to form a government, fracture entirely.
Because Asquith had the spine of a particularly floppy jellyfish, that didn't happen, but the Relugas Compact shows that Balfour wasn't as far off in his judgement as is sometimes thought.
The last PM to swap roles due to a vote of confidence without an election was as long ago as the 1880s, when wholly different rules applied. In practice, May would remain PM for an election as there is no way Corbyn could form a government.
Constitutional experts do not all agree with you on this.Campbell- Bannerman did form a Government despite the Tories having a majority of 100 - and immediately called an election for January 1906. In terms of a hypothetical contemporary scenario following the FTA, some argue that if May failed to whip her own MPs to defeat a Vote of No Confidence her Government might be held to have effectively 'given up' in a similar way to Balfour at the end of 1905. She might then be expected to step aside to give the Opposition Leader the chance to form an administration. Corbyn would fail to obtain a majority in the Commons and proceed to call an election.
My point was he hadn't lost a vote of confidence.
Edit - it's also hard to see what Corbyn would gain if May tried to hand over. Campbell-Bannerman jumped at the chance because it meant he could call an early election he was certain of winning. Corbyn on the other hand could not call an election (even if he could he would be annihilated) nor could he govern while 100 seats adrift of the Tories.
But an election would happen automatically if an affirmative Vote of Confidence had not been passed within 14 days. You say Corbyn would be annihilated anyway. Maybe so - but another possibility is that as a new PM - albeit in a caretaker capacity - he would enjoy a honeymoon of which we see good evidence currently. If he entered No 10 he would suddenly seem more Prime Ministerial and perceptions of him would shift sharply - at least for a time.Personally, I cannot imagine May wanting to risk fighting an election with Corbyn enjoying a honeymoon as a caretaker PM!
Trump's weight is listed as 236 lbs, there is no way he is under 17 stone in the vid I've just watched !
Perhaps it was when he started his run, he has been eating on the rubber chicken circuit almost every day since then (plus those McD's on his aircraft).
The Spanish socialists have just decided to abstain in the Rajoy investidure debate, meaning that PP will now form a new - minority - Spanish government after a year of political deadlock. Now the fun will really begin.
The latest polls give PSOE 14%. Now that is funny.
Not as funny as Podemos on 26%. The new, minority government now has a big, self-created Catalonian problem to sort out.
Podemos did much less well last time than the polls. Basically the left in Spain is f*****.
"Hundreds of thousands of refugees, he says, would arrive in Greece and try to break through the fences to the north. The Balkans would turn into a battleground for migrants, smugglers, border guards and soldiers, Knaus says. "That would be the end of European asylum policy."
Re Gore in 2000. Surely 'the process of checking those hanging chads' was never 'completed and verified ' because the Supreme Court prevented the recount from taking place! Democracy did not prevail that year.
Wiki provides the following possible outcomes based on studies undertaken of the various contested elements. It is not clear that Gore would have won Florida - depends which way you look at it.
Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of limited sets of ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225 • Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430 • Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493 Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count) • Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537
I accept that the result remains unclear, but what was so appalling was the failure of the Courts to allow any recount to be completed,
A partial recount was unconstitutional as well as being silly. Gore should have asked for a full manual statewide recount from the start.
I agree with that - but a full recount should still have been allowed to go ahead!
It couldn't have - nobody was asking for it.
Why would Gore not have asked for it in early December 2000? He could not have known the outcome of it and had the real prospect of emerging as the winner!
Good question. Presumably he thought that having a recount only in the most Dem counties was his best chance
But once he hadn't asked for a full recount the Supreme Court couldn't impose one.
But could Gore not have asked for a full recount at that point - ie early December? 'If we cannot have a partial recount , let us proceed with a full recount!'
No, it would have needed a whole new case which would have been thrown out as there wasn't enough time before the electoral college met.
The Guardian today is suffering from schizophrenia, simultaneously loathing bankers more than Phillip Green, and bleating that the very same bankers are going to jump ship next year because of Brexit. Everyone needs to calm the eff down.
Their descent into insanity is a pretty enjoyable by-product of the vote.
Italian news is reporting a banking flight from London. My enjoyment will be greater when we see how Brexit vandals try and respond to the fact that they impoverished and split up the the UK. At least us little Englanders have control back....ha ha ha....morons with a capital M...
The country would be offered a Conservative manifesto based on Leaving with a then overwhelming pro Leave slate of candidates. It would be even easier than the referendum. You don't need 50% + 1 under first past the post.
I suspect there are 2 problems with that scenario
Many people who voted leave are in the "never kissed a Tory" camp. Would they turn out to vote Tory?
Many people who voted Tory for years are in the Remain camp. Would they turn out to vote Tory on an explicitly leave ticket? I wouldn't.
My guess is a very low turnout.
The problem the Tories have is not the next election, but the following one. Putting together a manifesto pre-Brexit is going to be very tough because no-one knows how the actual departure from the EU will play out. That makes manifesto promises serious hostages to fortune that can come back to haunt you.
The Spanish socialists have just decided to abstain in the Rajoy investidure debate, meaning that PP will now form a new - minority - Spanish government after a year of political deadlock. Now the fun will really begin.
The latest polls give PSOE 14%. Now that is funny.
Not as funny as Podemos on 26%. The new, minority government now has a big, self-created Catalonian problem to sort out.
Podemos did much less well last time than the polls. Basically the left in Spain is f*****.
That article is very confused about how the FTPA actually works.
That article sounds very vague - and fails to take any account of the possibility that far from being imprisoned in Downing Street Theresa May might have to make way for Corbyn to become a caretaker PM until Polling Day!. I cite the Balfour - Campbell -Bannerman precedent again.
Can I please add though that Balfour didn't lose a vote of confidence - he resigned because he thought the Liberal party was splitting and would, if forced to form a government, fracture entirely.
Because Asquith had the spine of a particularly floppy jellyfish, that didn't happen, but the Relugas Compact shows that Balfour wasn't as far off in his judgement as is sometimes thought.
The last PM to swap roles due to a vote of confidence without an election was as long ago as the 1880s, when wholly different rules applied. In practice, May would remain PM for an election as there is no way Corbyn could form a government.
Constitutional experts do not all agree with you on this.Campbell- Bannerman did form a Government despite the Tories having a majority of 100 - and immediately called an election for January 1906. In terms of a hypothetical contemporary scenario following the FTA, some argue that if May failed to whip her own MPs to defeat a Vote of No Confidence her Government might be held to have effectively 'given up' in a similar way to Balfour at the end of 1905. She might then be expected to step aside to give the Opposition Leader the chance to form an administration. Corbyn would fail to obtain a majority in the Commons and proceed to call an election.
The constitution is what happens.
It strikes me as unlikely than expected for an example from over a hundred years ago when a very different set of rules applied would be used as precedent to enforce an absurd situation now.
Though in the medium and longer term retirement suitable houses and flats on the South Coast are a good bet. There will be an ageing population and fewer options to retire overseas.
That article is very confused about how the FTPA actually works.
That article sounds very vague - and fails to take any account of the possibility that far from being imprisoned in Downing Street Theresa May might have to make way for Corbyn to become a caretaker PM until Polling Day!. I cite the Balfour - Campbell -Bannerman precedent again.
Can I please add though that Balfour didn't lose a vote of confidence - he resigned because he thought the Liberal party was splitting and would, if forced to form a government, fracture entirely.
Because Asquith had the spine of a particularly floppy jellyfish, that didn't happen, but the Relugas Compact shows that Balfour wasn't as far off in his judgement as is sometimes thought.
The last PM to swap roles due to a vote of confidence without an election was as long ago as the 1880s, when wholly different rules applied. In practice, May would remain PM for an election as there is no way Corbyn could form a government.
Constitutional experts do not all agree with you on this.Campbell- Bannerman did form a Government despite the Tories having a majority of 100 - and immediately called an election for January 1906. In terms of a hypothetical contemporary scenario following the FTA, some argue that if May failed to whip her own MPs to defeat a Vote of No Confidence her Government might be held to have effectively 'given up' in a similar way to Balfour at the end of 1905. She might then be expected to step aside to give the Opposition Leader the chance to form an administration. Corbyn would fail to obtain a majority in the Commons and proceed to call an election.
The constitution is what happens.
It strikes me as unlikely than expected for an example from over a hundred years ago when a very different set of rules applied would be used as precedent to enforce an absurd situation now.
But why should the rules be different?. It is all very well to say that 'different rules applied' , but how can that be asserted with any confidence at all given that the scenario has not arisen in the intervening period?.
Re Gore in 2000. Surely 'the process of checking those hanging chads' was never 'completed and verified ' because the Supreme Court prevented the recount from taking place! Democracy did not prevail that year.
Wiki provides the following possible outcomes based on studies undertaken of the various contested elements. It is not clear that Gore would have won Florida - depends which way you look at it.
Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of limited sets of ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225 • Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430 • Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493 Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count) • Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537
I accept that the result remains unclear, but what was so appalling was the failure of the Courts to allow any recount to be completed,
A partial recount was unconstitutional as well as being silly. Gore should have asked for a full manual statewide recount from the start.
I
.
Why would Gore not have asked for it in early December 2000? He could not have known the outcome of it and had the real prospect of emerging as the winner!
But could Gore not have asked for a full recount at that point - ie early December? 'If we cannot have a partial recount , let us proceed with a full recount!'
No, it would have needed a whole new case which would have been thrown out as there wasn't enough time before the electoral college met.
It seems more than a little absurd that the meeting of the electoral college could not have been deferred for a week or so in the wider interests of democracy!
Pensioners living in France wanting to move back to UK (According to twitter), but apparently there is a property glut in France so tricky to sell up quickly.
The Spanish Costas property market is vulnerable to an unfavourable Brexit. Over 20% of foreign buyers are UK born across the whole of Spain.
Comments
Shame his son died, or else he'd have been POTUS. A far better candidate than Hillary, Michelle Obama also would have been superior (2020 or 2024 perhaps).
Latest Polls in Spain:
PP 35
Podemos 26
Ciudadanos 14
PSOE 14
For those interested PSOE is the Labour party
Why fight a sitting Tory or Labour Leaver?
I thought the intent of LEAVErs was to *stop* house price rises, not *accelerate* them...
Also, how would a flow of returners compare with current migration flows?
You should take the 11-4 if you think the chance of the Donald not accepting a Hillary win is higher than 32%.
'In such circumstances it would probably be the Tories that are most split, while UKIP is clearly for Hard Brexit, the LibDems, PC and Labour are for Soft; and the SNP for independence.'
The Lib Dems & SNP could fight the election as a pro EU anti UK alliance ?
Because Asquith had the spine of a particularly floppy jellyfish, that didn't happen, but the Relugas Compact shows that Balfour wasn't as far off in his judgement as is sometimes thought.
The last PM to swap roles due to a vote of confidence without an election was as long ago as the 1880s, when wholly different rules applied. In practice, May would remain PM for an election as there is no way Corbyn could form a government.
Gore fucked up though by not asking for a statewide recount. It would have given SCOTUS very little room to manouver.
But once he hadn't asked for a full recount the Supreme Court couldn't impose one.
That being said, that isn't especially hard as he is a total idiot. Why the Dems thought he would make a good candidate I'm not sure. Rich Hall's rather dry comment that the 2000 election was a choice between 'a slimeball and a spud' sums it up nicely.
I struggle with this bet - were I a bookmaker, I wouldn't offer the market tbh.
The problem with Donald is he says completely contradictory things - even to the same audience. At a post-election rally, nobody is going to pin him down to "do you accept the result?" He'll maybe offer congratulations and then a minute later call her illegitimate or something.
The press will write whatever headlines they want to write - and then paddy power has a pile of pi$$ed off customers.
Though in the medium and longer term retirement suitable houses and flats on the South Coast are a good bet. There will be an ageing population and fewer options to retire overseas.
Please don't feed the [MODERATED]. Self-importance is all it has....
Edit - it's also hard to see what Corbyn would gain if May tried to hand over. Campbell-Bannerman jumped at the chance because it meant he could call an early election he was certain of winning. Corbyn on the other hand could not call an election (even if he could he would be annihilated) nor could he govern while 100 seats adrift of the Tories.
But I don't think May has quite got to that stage of despondency yet...
https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/790176449936392192
I could tolerate that argument....but you need also a charismatic, powerful, decisive leader of the hard left too. And we instead have the vain, dithering, duffer who has the electoral gravitas of slippers with wet wooly socks.
"Hundreds of thousands of refugees, he says, would arrive in Greece and try to break through the fences to the north. The Balkans would turn into a battleground for migrants, smugglers, border guards and soldiers, Knaus says. "That would be the end of European asylum policy."
NEW THREAD
The problem the Tories have is not the next election, but the following one. Putting together a manifesto pre-Brexit is going to be very tough because no-one knows how the actual departure from the EU will play out. That makes manifesto promises serious hostages to fortune that can come back to haunt you.
Clinton 53 .. Trump 41
http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1184a12016ElectionTrackingNo1.pdf
It strikes me as unlikely than expected for an example from over a hundred years ago when a very different set of rules applied would be used as precedent to enforce an absurd situation now.