politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The top ten political failures of 2016 – longstanding PBer & p

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The top ten political failures of 2016 – longstanding PBer & political punter, Pulpstar, makes his choice

10) Marco Rubio: He was the perfect GOP candidate, smart young and hispanic. The perfect foil to win the key state of Florida… The GOP primaries started off with a bang for little Marco when he scored an amazing third place in Iowa. The pundits were stunned “It shouldn’t be possible” they cried. People rushed to back him at 1.7 on Betfair, and he went as short as 5-2 for the presidency.

Read the full story here

Sandpit

First like Trump and Brexit!

Bromptonaut

Second like Zac

MarkSenior

Second like the economic fortunes of USA and UK following Trump and Brexit

DavidL

Bromptonaut said:

Second like Zac

We should be so lucky.

Richard_Nabavi

A great read, Pulpstar!

Still, I'm worried about one thing. You watched two Owen Smith/Jeremy Corbyn debates? 'Obsessive' hardly covers it!

SouthamObserver

Wot, no Boris??

FrancisUrquhart

http://order-order.com/2016/11/17/owen-jones-corbyn-will-never-win-election/

Owen says its all lies a mis-translation....I presume the journalist has it on tape if they care to argue.

Blue_rog

FPT curse of the new thread

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@david_herdson The full context of the half-sentence that causes you qualms is:

"Perhaps significantly, the Government has given up the argument that the issue is not justiciable in our courts. To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are indeed the guardians of the Constitution: if only we knew what it meant."

The title of the talk was "The Supreme Court: Guardians of the Constitution?" Far from prejudging the case, Lady Hale was giving an ironically anodyne ending to a very milk-and-water speech. Though I tend to agree with @Richard_Nabavi that she would have done better not to touch on the subject at all, so febrile is the atmosphere at present.

I'd regard that self-deprecatory conclusion as hiding a profound change in soft language. And it wasn't just that accepting of the guardian status; it was her willingness to consider that the Court has the power to effectively strike down primary legislation, as she does when she accepts the possibility that only a 'comprehensive' Act might be capable of enabling the triggering of A50. That is to say that a limited Act might not be adequate and if passed, could be ruled unconstitutional. To even consider that the Court might have that right is an immense power-grab, particularly given the subject matter in question.

One of the things I'm finding difficult to grasp is where the 'Great Repeal Bill' fits in. If the concern is about removing rights from the British people by triggering article 50, then the bill will transfer all current EU laws into U.K. Law so no rights will be lost. If parliament then decides to repeal these laws it will be by due parliamentary process. There's no loss of parliamentary sovereignty

FrancisUrquhart

What about Mr "What is Aleppo?" ...

Pulpstar

FrancisUrquhart said:

What about Mr "What is Aleppo?" ...

Overperformed, 5% is pretty good for the Libs.

TheScreamingEagles

SouthamObserver said:

Wot, no Boris??

Number 5 on the list

Bromptonaut

Blue_rog said:

FPT curse of the new thread

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@david_herdson The full context of the half-sentence that causes you qualms is:

"Perhaps significantly, the Government has given up the argument that the issue is not justiciable in our courts. To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are indeed the guardians of the Constitution: if only we knew what it meant."

The title of the talk was "The Supreme Court: Guardians of the Constitution?" Far from prejudging the case, Lady Hale was giving an ironically anodyne ending to a very milk-and-water speech. Though I tend to agree with @Richard_Nabavi that she would have done better not to touch on the subject at all, so febrile is the atmosphere at present.

I'd regard that self-deprecatory conclusion as hiding a profound change in soft language. And it wasn't just that accepting of the guardian status; it was her willingness to consider that the Court has the power to effectively strike down primary legislation, as she does when she accepts the possibility that only a 'comprehensive' Act might be capable of enabling the triggering of A50. That is to say that a limited Act might not be adequate and if passed, could be ruled unconstitutional. To even consider that the Court might have that right is an immense power-grab, particularly given the subject matter in question.

One of the things I'm finding difficult to grasp is where the 'Great Repeal Bill' fits in. If the concern is about removing rights from the British people by triggering article 50, then the bill will transfer all current EU laws into U.K. Law so no rights will be lost. If parliament then decides to repeal these laws it will be by due parliamentary process. There's no loss of parliamentary sovereignty

The right to live in other EU countries will be lost for a start. It's not hard to grasp.

TheScreamingEagles

Richard_Nabavi said:

A great read, Pulpstar!

Still, I'm worried about one thing. You watched two Owen Smith/Jeremy Corbyn debates? 'Obsessive' hardly covers it!

Pulpstar is very thorough when it comes to his bets.

logical_song

I loved this article it spot on all the way through. Very amusing and sadly so true.

SouthamObserver

Blue_rog said:

FPT curse of the new thread

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@david_herdson The full context of the half-sentence that causes you qualms is:

"Perhaps significantly, the Government has given up the argument that the issue is not justiciable in our courts. To that extent, at least, it is accepted that we are indeed the guardians of the Constitution: if only we knew what it meant."

The title of the talk was "The Supreme Court: Guardians of the Constitution?" Far from prejudging the case, Lady Hale was giving an ironically anodyne ending to a very milk-and-water speech. Though I tend to agree with @Richard_Nabavi that she would have done better not to touch on the subject at all, so febrile is the atmosphere at present.

I'd regard that self-deprecatory conclusion as hiding a profound change in soft language. And it wasn't just that accepting of the guardian status; it was her willingness to consider that the Court has the power to effectively strike down primary legislation, as she does when she accepts the possibility that only a 'comprehensive' Act might be capable of enabling the triggering of A50. That is to say that a limited Act might not be adequate and if passed, could be ruled unconstitutional. To even consider that the Court might have that right is an immense power-grab, particularly given the subject matter in question.

One of the things I'm finding difficult to grasp is where the 'Great Repeal Bill' fits in. If the concern is about removing rights from the British people by triggering article 50, then the bill will transfer all current EU laws into U.K. Law so no rights will be lost. If parliament then decides to repeal these laws it will be by due parliamentary process. There's no loss of parliamentary sovereignty

That would need to be argued, though, wouldn't it?

The court has always had the power to strike down legislation it considers unconstitutional, so I really don't see what David is getting at. But for a case to arrive in front of the Supreme Court it has to be brought by a third party, argued at first instance and then appealed.

SouthamObserver

TheScreamingEagles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Wot, no Boris??

Number 5 on the list

Ha, ha. I should delete the original post, but I don't deserve that luxury so it will stay there forever to humiliate me!!!!

Sandpit

Brilliantly written article @Pulpstar, very good read.

May I suggest a follow up on the winners on 2016, with #1 being the sharp punters following big nights closely - have any bettors on PB not made a boatload of cash this year?

MarkHopkins

Excellent read Pulp, you're a Star.

TheScreamingEagles

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Wot, no Boris??

Number 5 on the list

Ha, ha. I should delete the original post, but I don't deserve that luxury so it will stay there forever to humiliate me!!!!

Here's your get out jail card.

What you meant to say 'wot, no Boris in the top 2?'

Jason

2017 will be a year of shocks too. There's a new sheriff in town, and it ain't metropolitan liberalism.

rural_voter

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

A great read, Pulpstar!

Still, I'm worried about one thing. You watched two Owen Smith/Jeremy Corbyn debates? 'Obsessive' hardly covers it!

Pulpstar is very thorough when it comes to his bets.

Hello all, few recent posts from me because finishing some outside building work before winter arrives is top priority. But I took a break and found this famous quote with which I tend to disagree - I think some political careers were on balance quite successful.

Harold Wilson combined a moral crusade with electoral success. Four victories, though only one a landslide (1966). He craftily neutralised Tory opposition and set up the Open University, having nicked the basic idea from the Soviet Union. Millions of mature students benefited.

So successful were some of Clem Attlee's policies that Harold Macmillan continued them. In hindsight, Attlee was one of the most successful PMs of all time, especially given that Britain was broke during the 1945-51 parliaments.

Harold Macmillan himself deserves credit for showing how to build 300,000-500,000 homes per year. People right now are claiming that 200,000 is a high figure. It's not; we need over 300,000 or even more to solve the crisis.

Mortimer

What. A. Year. Thanks Pulps

TudorRose

Thanks Pulpstar - for me it's the best article of the year. So far.....!

[Deleted User]

So who are 2016's big winners? Farage, Trump, common sense, Khan ???

TheScreamingEagles

rural_voter said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

A great read, Pulpstar!

Still, I'm worried about one thing. You watched two Owen Smith/Jeremy Corbyn debates? 'Obsessive' hardly covers it!

Pulpstar is very thorough when it comes to his bets.

Hello all, few recent posts from me because finishing some outside building work before winter arrives is top priority. But I took a break and found this famous quote with which I tend to disagree - I think some political careers were on balance quite successful.

Harold Wilson combined a moral crusade with electoral success. Four victories, though only one a landslide (1966). He craftily neutralised Tory opposition and set up the Open University, having nicked the basic idea from the Soviet Union. Millions of mature students benefited.

So successful were some of Clem Attlee's policies that Harold Macmillan continued them. In hindsight, Attlee was one of the most successful PMs of all time, especially given that Britain was broke during the 1945-51 parliaments.

Harold Macmillan himself deserves credit for showing how to build 300,000-500,000 homes per year. People right now are claiming that 200,000 is a high figure. It's not; we need over 300,000 or even more to solve the crisis.

For next month, I'm writing my review on David Cameron, I do toy with those thoughts you mention.

FrancisUrquhart

Patrick said:

So who are 2016's big winners? Farage, Trump, common sense, Khan ???

Rod's bank account....

TudorRose

Patrick said:

So who are 2016's big winners? Farage, Trump, common sense, Khan ???

And could Boris (legitimately) appear in both lists?

Carolus_Rex

Patrick said:

So who are 2016's big winners? Farage, Trump, common sense, Khan ???

Plato?

SandyRentool

Patrick said:

So who are 2016's big winners? Farage, Trump, common sense, Khan ???

May and Jezza.

And of course Labour Leave.

Mortimer

Sad to see 619 not merit an honourable mention.

Has he reappeared since Trump started winning?

Stark_Dawning

A very good and entertaining list. I suspect all of those have vanished for good or are on the wane with the exception of Osborne - he looks to be enjoying life to me, and is already progressing with his political reinvention and planning his comeback.

FrancisUrquhart

Mortimer said:

Sad to see 619 not merit an honourable mention.

Has he reappeared since Trump started winning?

LOL...nope....Just like IoS after GE 2015. It was as if they were you know paid to post.

Alistair

Jill Stein's going to end up on about 1.03% I think.

Mortimer

Stark_Dawning said:

A very good and entertaining list. I suspect all of those have vanished for good or are on the wane with the exception of Osborne - he looks to be enjoying life to me, and is already progressing with his political reinvention and planning his comeback.

I suspect, a bit like others before him, Osborne will always be planning his comeback - but never quite achieve it. He was too wrong for too long.

Carolus_Rex

Of course 2016 isn't over yet. Come 5 December you may need to slot Matteo Renzi's name in there somewhere.

Mortimer

FrancisUrquhart said:

Mortimer said:

Sad to see 619 not merit an honourable mention.

Has he reappeared since Trump started winning?

LOL...nope....Just like IoS after GE 2015. It was as if they were you know paid to post.

Its Bobajobabobajobabobajob I feel sorry for. All those anti 'Trump ramper' rants in vain......

Sandpit

TheScreamingEagles said:

rural_voter said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

A great read, Pulpstar!

Still, I'm worried about one thing. You watched two Owen Smith/Jeremy Corbyn debates? 'Obsessive' hardly covers it!

Pulpstar is very thorough when it comes to his bets.

Hello all, few recent posts from me because finishing some outside building work before winter arrives is top priority. But I took a break and found this famous quote with which I tend to disagree - I think some political careers were on balance quite successful.

Harold Wilson combined a moral crusade with electoral success. Four victories, though only one a landslide (1966). He craftily neutralised Tory opposition and set up the Open University, having nicked the basic idea from the Soviet Union. Millions of mature students benefited.

So successful were some of Clem Attlee's policies that Harold Macmillan continued them. In hindsight, Attlee was one of the most successful PMs of all time, especially given that Britain was broke during the 1945-51 parliaments.

Harold Macmillan himself deserves credit for showing how to build 300,000-500,000 homes per year. People right now are claiming that 200,000 is a high figure. It's not; we need over 300,000 or even more to solve the crisis.

For next month, I'm writing my review on David Cameron, I do toy with those thoughts you mention.

David Cameron was undoubtedly the best politician of his generation, he had the chance to lead his country for a decade and shape Britain in his image for decades to come - until that day in February when he came back from the EU summit, and tried to sell his shitty little deal as the best thing since sliced bread.

Pro_Rata

Regarding lawyers and their rulesets: I posed a question to the PB lawyers in an indirect way the other evening, but got no bites.

It is around how contradictory the Divisional Court arguments can be from the Supreme Court arguments.

For instance, after the Divisional Court case one poster here noted that the constitutional relationship between a referendum and parliament formed little part of the argument in the Divisional Court, and that a fuller exploration of this should be made central to the Supreme Court case. This assumed the lawyers could change tack and something peripheral to the original case could be central to the appeal. The thought occurs that maybe this has to do with additional areas that the Supreme Court can consider but which the Divisional Court could not, but I'm not sure.

However, more obviously contradictory is that everyone accepted arguments in Divisional Court that A50 trigger was not reversible. I now see a debate around Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties that A50 trigger IS reversible (thus does not of itself revoke EC Act 1972) and that government lawyers should contend that it is. Whether that helpful to HMG is moot - surely that then moves the parliamentary part of the vote to the deal that is (or is not) ultimately obtained?

I imagine how far a defendant would get going totally about face between one hearing and the next or the consistency an appelant in a school's admission appeal is instructed to keep (both of which follow 'anything that you later rely on &c' principles).

My question is why government lawyers are not bound by 'anything that you later rely on' and seem able to reverse their arguments without damaging their case? After all these should be people who should be far more capable of tying up the consistency of their arguments than ordinary laymen.

Answers please. This one has been bugging me greatly.

Pulpstar

SandyRentool said:

Patrick said:

So who are 2016's big winners? Farage, Trump, common sense, Khan ???

May and Jezza.

And of course Labour Leave.

May, Jezza, Khan, Farage, Trump, Rod Crosby.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

An interesting list.

As I said before the vote, if Clinton didn't win she'd go down in history as the worst loser in US political history. And so she has.

Mr. Sandpit, Cameron ran a textbook guide on how not to campaign in a referendum.

SimonStClare

Great thread Mr Pulpstar. - 'The pundits, Media, consensus, (some of) US', worthy winners of the most spectacular failures of 2016.

Alistair

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

An interesting list.

As I said before the vote, if Clinton didn't win she'd go down in history as the worst loser in US political history. And so she has.

Mr. Sandpit, Cameron ran a textbook guide on how not to campaign in a referendum.

Which he copied from Better Together. It was bonkers.

Richard_Nabavi

Bromptonaut said:

The right to live in other EU countries will be lost for a start. It's not hard to grasp.

It might, it might not. That depends on the outcome of negotiation with other countries.

Pulpstar

SouthamObserver said:

Wot, no Boris??

Yes Boris ended up 6th.

taffys

''I suspect, a bit like others before him, Osborne will always be planning his comeback - but never quite achieve it. He was too wrong for too long. ''

George Osborne would make a brilliant business secretary. He was behind the UK's tech City, now said to be eclipsing silicon valley. He has backed graphene and threw money at the sabre next generation jet engine. He has a genuine feeling for and sympathy with business and all his greatest achievements will be from this sector.

stodge

Afternoon all

Not sure I quite see the attraction in continuing to rub HRC's nose in the fact she lost but it seems that's all people want to do at the moment. So much easier to dwell on the past rather than consider the challenges of the future. Perhaps a tenet elements of Brexit and Trump supporters share...

As this is a betting site, 2017's list of political failures would have been much more helpful but there you go.

rkrkrk

Boris Johnson began the year as a bankbench MP and outgoing Mayor of London and ended it as Foreign Secretary. That's hardly failure...

I'd put Dilma Rouseff in on the list- going from first female President of Brazil to being impeached and removed is quite a fall...

MarkHopkins

Sheffield: Hotbed of civil unrest

Richard_Nabavi

stodge said:

As this is a betting site, 2017's list of political failures would have been much more helpful but there you go.

You have to subscribe to the premium service for that.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Alistair, it was worse than that. "Little Englanders" was bloody stupid. Imagine if the pro-union side in Scotland had referred to "Little Scotlanders."

Sandpit

Mortimer said:

Sad to see 619 not merit an honourable mention.

Has he reappeared since Trump started winning?

Contract expired at midnight on 8th. Funny that Hillary had so much money she could spend it on paying trolls to haunt sites where pretty much no-one had a vote in the US election!

FrancisUrquhart

Sandpit said:

Mortimer said:

Sad to see 619 not merit an honourable mention.

Has he reappeared since Trump started winning?

Contract expired at midnight on 8th. Funny that Hillary had so much money she could spend it on paying trolls to haunt sites where pretty much no-one had a vote in the US election!

I am sure he changed erhhhh square root of f##k all votes...all those swing states and they were spending money targeting informed readers of a niche UK website.

TheScreamingEagles

MarkHopkins said:

Sheffield: Hotbed of civil unrest

In my constituency too.

I'm not surprised. We keep on electing Lib Dems after all

MaxPB

FrancisUrquhart said:

Sandpit said:

Mortimer said:

Sad to see 619 not merit an honourable mention.

Has he reappeared since Trump started winning?

Contract expired at midnight on 8th. Funny that Hillary had so much money she could spend it on paying trolls to haunt sites where pretty much no-one had a vote in the US election!

I am sure he changed erhhhh square root of f##k all votes...all those swing states and they were spending money targeting informed readers of a niche UK website.

It might have been to move betting markets though.

logical_song

stodge said:

Afternoon all

Not sure I quite see the attraction in continuing to rub HRC's nose in the fact she lost but it seems that's all people want to do at the moment. So much easier to dwell on the past rather than consider the challenges of the future. Perhaps a tenet elements of Brexit and Trump supporters share...

As this is a betting site, 2017's list of political failures would have been much more helpful but there you go.

Liam Fox, Boris, May, Corbyn?

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

An interesting list.

As I said before the vote, if Clinton didn't win she'd go down in history as the worst loser in US political history. And so she has.

Mr. Sandpit, Cameron ran a textbook guide on how not to campaign in a referendum.

He'd already set out his bar for success in the Bloomberg Speech, and if he'd achieved a fraction of that we would have most likely voted to remain. But he went in to the negotiations with one hand tied behind his back, having promised the EU that he would campaign to remain regardless.

A bit like those wanting to tie Mrs May's hands behind her back, as she starts to negotiate with the EU next year.

SandyRentool

Sandpit said:

Mortimer said:

Sad to see 619 not merit an honourable mention.

Has he reappeared since Trump started winning?

Contract expired at midnight on 8th. Funny that Hillary had so much money she could spend it on paying trolls to haunt sites where pretty much no-one had a vote in the US election!

I reckon 619 is still here, back to using their normal user name...

TheScreamingEagles

FrancisUrquhart said:

Mortimer said:

Sad to see 619 not merit an honourable mention.

Has he reappeared since Trump started winning?

LOL...nope....Just like IoS after GE 2015. It was as if they were you know paid to post.

Nah, IOS posted for free. He genuinely believed Labour were on course for a majority, thanks to their brilliant ground game.

MaxPB

@Pulpstar on point two, this is the Clinton campaign stops for six weeks leading up to the end of September:

Clinton campaign schedule:
http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clintoncal0816.html
August 18 - New York, NY
August 19 - Martha's Vineyard, MA
August 20 - Nantucket, MA, Martha's Vineyard, MA
August 21 - Provincetown, MA, Osterville, MA
August 22 - Beverly Hills, CA
August 23 - Los Angeles, CA, Laguna Beach, CA, Piedmont, CA
August 24 - Redwood City, CA, Los Altos, CA, Woodside, CA
August 25 - Reno, NV
August 26 - None
August 27 - White Plains, NY
August 28 - Sag Harbor, NY, Southampton, NY, Bridgehampton, NY
August 29 - East Hampton, NY, Quogue, NY
August 30 - Sagaponack, NY, North Haven, NY
August 31 - Cincinnati, OH
September 1 - None
September 2 - None
September 3 - None
September 4 - None
September 5 - Cleveland, OH, Hampton, IL
September 6 - Tampa, FL
September 7 - New York, NY
September 8 - Charlotte, NC, Kansas City, MO
September 9 - New York, NY
September 10 - None
September 11 - New York, NY, Chappaqua, NY
September 12 - Chappaqua, NY
September 13 - Chappaqua, NY
September 14 - Chappaqua, NY
September 15 - Greensboro, NC, Washington, DC
September 16 - Washington, DC, New York, NY
September 17 - Washington, DC
September 18 - None
September 19 - Philadelphia, PA, New York, NY
September 20 - None
September 21 - Orlando, FL
September 22 - Chappaqua, NY
September 23 - Rye Brook, NY
September 24 - Rye Brook, NY
September 25 - New York, NY, Rye Brook, NY
September 26 - Hempstead, NY
September 27 - Raleigh, NC
September 28 - Durham, NH, Boston, MA
September 29 - Des Moines, IA, Chicago, IL
September 30 - Fort Pierce, FL, Coral Springs, FL, Miami Beach, FL

MaxPB

Compare that to the Donald:

Trump's schedule:
http://www.p2016.org/trump/trumpcal0916.html
August 18 - Mooresville, NC, Statesville, NC, Charlotte, NC
August 19 - Baton Rouge, LA, Dimondale, MI, Minneapolis, MN
August 20 - New York, NY, Fredericksburg, VA
August 21 - Betminster, NJ
August 22 - Akron, OH
August 23 - Fort Worth, TX, Austin, TX
August 24 - Tampa, FL, Jackson, MS
August 25 - New York, NY, Manchester, NH, Aspen, CO
August 26 - Las Vegas, NV, Stateline, NV
August 27 - Des Moines, IA
August 28 - Bedminster, NJ
August 29 - Woodside, CA
August 30 - Tulare, CA, Everett, WA
August 31 - Mexico City, Phoenix, AZ
September 1 - Cincinnati, OH, Wilmington, OH, New York, NY
September 2 - Philadelphia, PA
September 3 - Detroit, MI
September 4 - None
September 5 - Cleveland, OH, Youngstown, OH
September 6 - Virginia Beach, VA, Greenville, NC
September 7 - Philadelphia, PA, New York, NY
September 8 - Cleveland, OH
September 9 - Washington, DC, Pensacola, FL
September 10 - St. Louis, MO
September 11 - New York, NY
September 12 - Baltimore, MD, Dundalk, MD, Asheville, NC
September 13 - Des Moines, IA, Aston, PA
September 14 - Flint, MI, Canton, OH
September 15 - New York, NY, Laconia, NH
September 16 - Washington, DC, Miami, FL
September 17 - Houston, TX, Norman, OK, Colorado Springs, CO
September 18 - None
September 19 - Fort Myers, FL, New York, NY
September 20 - High Point, NC, Greensboro, NC, Kenansville, NC
September 21 - Clev. Heights, OH, Toledo, OH, Dayton, OH
September 22 - Pittsburgh, PA, Philadelphia, PA, Chester Township, PA
September 23 - New York, NY
September 24 - New York, NY, Roanoke, VA
September 25 - New York, NY
September 26 - Hempstead, NY
September 27 - Miami, FL, Longwood, FL, Melbourne, FL
September 28 - Bollingbrook, IL, Council Bluffs, IA, Waukesha, WI
September 29 - Bedford, NH
September 30 - Grand Rapids, MI, Novi, MI, Detroit, MI

Clinton just never got herself out there.

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Mortimer said:

Sad to see 619 not merit an honourable mention.

Has he reappeared since Trump started winning?

LOL...nope....Just like IoS after GE 2015. It was as if they were you know paid to post.

Nah, IOS posted for free. He genuinely believed Labour were on course for a majority, thanks to their brilliant ground game.

Those two words should now come with a trigger warning

MaxPB

I think @JackW and his ARSE deserve and honourable mention in the list. He's not good at gauging insurgent campaigns, he was out by 5 points on Brexit, the US election and SIndy. His ARSE needs recalibrating!

TheScreamingEagles

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rural_voter said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

A great read, Pulpstar!

Still, I'm worried about one thing. You watched two Owen Smith/Jeremy Corbyn debates? 'Obsessive' hardly covers it!

Pulpstar is very thorough when it comes to his bets.

Hello all, few recent posts from me because finishing some outside building work before winter arrives is top priority. But I took a break and found this famous quote with which I tend to disagree - I think some political careers were on balance quite successful.

Harold Wilson combined a moral crusade with electoral success. Four victories, though only one a landslide (1966). He craftily neutralised Tory opposition and set up the Open University, having nicked the basic idea from the Soviet Union. Millions of mature students benefited.

So successful were some of Clem Attlee's policies that Harold Macmillan continued them. In hindsight, Attlee was one of the most successful PMs of all time, especially given that Britain was broke during the 1945-51 parliaments.

Harold Macmillan himself deserves credit for showing how to build 300,000-500,000 homes per year. People right now are claiming that 200,000 is a high figure. It's not; we need over 300,000 or even more to solve the crisis.

For next month, I'm writing my review on David Cameron, I do toy with those thoughts you mention.

David Cameron was undoubtedly the best politician of his generation, he had the chance to lead his country for a decade and shape Britain in his image for decades to come - until that day in February when he came back from the EU summit, and tried to sell his shitty little deal as the best thing since sliced bread.

Without wanting to give away spoilers, I manage to compare Dave to Stanley Baldwin* and say he's the slayer (and changer) of parties in a way that only Keir Hardie, Ramsay MacDonald, and Arthur Henderson could dream of.

You could argue that Dave changed the Tories, drove Labour mad, wiped out the Lib Dems to a near extinction level, brought the SNP and UKIP as major parties in the UK.

*They'll be saying he put party before country if Brexit turns out to be a disaster.

Casino_Royale

Fantastic thread Pulpstar!

And very well written too. An excellent read.

Stark_Dawning

stodge said:

Afternoon all

Not sure I quite see the attraction in continuing to rub HRC's nose in the fact she lost but it seems that's all people want to do at the moment. So much easier to dwell on the past rather than consider the challenges of the future. Perhaps a tenet elements of Brexit and Trump supporters share...

As this is a betting site, 2017's list of political failures would have been much more helpful but there you go.

Very true. I always remember thinking it a bit rum that the Tories were still being ridiculed and berated long after Blair had annihilated them in May 1997. Leave and the Alt-Right are still riding the wave of triumph at the moment, though with the former it's just starting to feel a bit chillier.

stodge

Richard_Nabavi said:

stodge said:

As this is a betting site, 2017's list of political failures would have been much more helpful but there you go.

You have to subscribe to the premium service for that.

Perhaps but at least Pulpstar has the good sense to acknowledge all politicians end up on the failure list sooner or later. It's a sobering thought and I wonder if, in societies where success is lauded above all things, careers which inevitably end in failure aren't viewed attractively.

Pulpstar

rkrkrk said:

Boris Johnson began the year as a bankbench MP and outgoing Mayor of London and ended it as Foreign Secretary. That's hardly failure...

I'd put Dilma Rouseff in on the list- going from first female President of Brazil to being impeached and removed is quite a fall...

Feel free to submit your own article.

All these relate directly to the Brexit or POTUS elections, the two biggest betting markets of the year. Except Owen Smith, who was so dire that even though the impact of his failure was less I felt needed to go in at a fairly high position.

Pulpstar

MaxPB said:

I think @JackW and his ARSE deserve and honourable mention in the list. He's not good at gauging insurgent campaigns, he was out by 5 points on Brexit, the US election and SIndy. His ARSE needs recalibrating!

Sort of included in the #1, Jack was not alone in the way he saw things.

MaxPB

taffys said:

''I suspect, a bit like others before him, Osborne will always be planning his comeback - but never quite achieve it. He was too wrong for too long. ''

George Osborne would make a brilliant business secretary. He was behind the UK's tech City, now said to be eclipsing silicon valley. He has backed graphene and threw money at the sabre next generation jet engine. He has a genuine feeling for and sympathy with business and all his greatest achievements will be from this sector.

Merge transport and trade into BIS and give it to Osborne.

Sandpit

SandyRentool said:

Sandpit said:

Mortimer said:

Sad to see 619 not merit an honourable mention.

Has he reappeared since Trump started winning?

Contract expired at midnight on 8th. Funny that Hillary had so much money she could spend it on paying trolls to haunt sites where pretty much no-one had a vote in the US election!

I reckon 619 is still here, back to using their normal user name...

I was around a few time zones and work shifts in the last couple of weeks before the election, they were on here 24/7 - probably two people working the account. It's been pretty much imposssible - until this week - to read all the PB comments and work a job, for the past few months!

taffys

''Merge transport and trade into BIS and give it to Osborne. ''

Quite. He is a very talented guy.

Ironically, he would have a much better chance at the top job if he ditched the machinations. They did more harm than good. Something tells me he can't, though.

DavidL

Pro_Rata said:

Regarding lawyers and their rulesets: I posed a question to the PB lawyers in an indirect way the other evening, but got no bites.

It is around how contradictory the Divisional Court arguments can be from the Supreme Court arguments.

For instance, after the Divisional Court case one poster here noted that the constitutional relationship between a referendum and parliament formed little part of the argument in the Divisional Court, and that a fuller exploration of this should be made central to the Supreme Court case. This assumed the lawyers could change tack and something peripheral to the original case could be central to the appeal. The thought occurs that maybe this has to do with additional areas that the Supreme Court can consider but which the Divisional Court could not, but I'm not sure.

However, more obviously contradictory is that everyone accepted arguments in Divisional Court that A50 trigger was not reversible. I now see a debate around Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties that A50 trigger IS reversible (thus does not of itself revoke EC Act 1972) and that government lawyers should contend that it is. Whether that helpful to HMG is moot - surely that then moves the parliamentary part of the vote to the deal that is (or is not) ultimately obtained?

I imagine how far a defendant would get going totally about face between one hearing and the next or the consistency an appelant in a school's admission appeal is instructed to keep (both of which follow 'anything that you later rely on &c' principles).

My question is why government lawyers are not bound by 'anything that you later rely on' and seem able to reverse their arguments without damaging their case? After all these should be people who should be far more capable of tying up the consistency of their arguments than ordinary laymen.

Answers please. This one has been bugging me greatly.

At the risk of oversimplifying a concession on a matter of fact is binding on the parties because the other party relies upon it and does not have to prove the fact. A concession on a point of pure law is not binding on a party and it is open on an appeal to at least seek leave of the court to make an inconsistent argument. Even if that argument succeeds there may be implications in costs if the erroneous concession has caused unnecessary procedure.

The Court may not be minded to allow the withdrawal of the concession if it completely changes the basis of the case on the basis that the appellate court is then being asked to act as a court of first instance rather than a court of appeal. In theory that might apply here but I suspect not because we clearly need an answer one way or another.

Tissue_Price

Very well written, Pulpstar. But no Merkel / the EU? This site's dripping wet Remain bias shows through again

Whatever it may mean for us, Brexit is an existential threat to the EU. They didn't get that at the renegotiation; I wonder whether they do now?

Stark_Dawning

Does Douglas Carswell deserve a mention? All those Utopian visions of free trade and free movement now in tatters - and his best mate Nige helped elect the man who's going to rip it all up.

Charles

@TheScreamingEagles

Posted a response to your comments about Mexican judges last thread but just on my way to Tennessee so can't repost here

GarethoftheVale2

MaxPB said:

@Pulpstar on point two, this is the Clinton campaign stops for six weeks leading up to the end of September:

Clinton campaign schedule:
http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clintoncal0816.html
August 18 - New York, NY
August 19 - Martha's Vineyard, MA
August 20 - Nantucket, MA, Martha's Vineyard, MA
August 21 - Provincetown, MA, Osterville, MA
August 22 - Beverly Hills, CA
August 23 - Los Angeles, CA, Laguna Beach, CA, Piedmont, CA
August 24 - Redwood City, CA, Los Altos, CA, Woodside, CA
August 25 - Reno, NV
August 26 - None
August 27 - White Plains, NY
August 28 - Sag Harbor, NY, Southampton, NY, Bridgehampton, NY
August 29 - East Hampton, NY, Quogue, NY
August 30 - Sagaponack, NY, North Haven, NY
August 31 - Cincinnati, OH
September 1 - None
September 2 - None
September 3 - None
September 4 - None
September 5 - Cleveland, OH, Hampton, IL
September 6 - Tampa, FL
September 7 - New York, NY
September 8 - Charlotte, NC, Kansas City, MO
September 9 - New York, NY
September 10 - None
September 11 - New York, NY, Chappaqua, NY
September 12 - Chappaqua, NY
September 13 - Chappaqua, NY
September 14 - Chappaqua, NY
September 15 - Greensboro, NC, Washington, DC
September 16 - Washington, DC, New York, NY
September 17 - Washington, DC
September 18 - None
September 19 - Philadelphia, PA, New York, NY
September 20 - None
September 21 - Orlando, FL
September 22 - Chappaqua, NY
September 23 - Rye Brook, NY
September 24 - Rye Brook, NY
September 25 - New York, NY, Rye Brook, NY
September 26 - Hempstead, NY
September 27 - Raleigh, NC
September 28 - Durham, NH, Boston, MA
September 29 - Des Moines, IA, Chicago, IL
September 30 - Fort Pierce, FL, Coral Springs, FL, Miami Beach, FL

She seems to have spent a ridiculous amount of time in safe Democratic states. Fundraising I guess?

Pong

lol.

Great read @pulpstar

Thanks.

Slackbladder

GarethoftheVale2 said:

MaxPB said:

@Pulpstar on point two, this is the Clinton campaign stops for six weeks leading up to the end of September:

Clinton campaign schedule:
http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clintoncal0816.html
August 18 - New York, NY
August 19 - Martha's Vineyard, MA
August 20 - Nantucket, MA, Martha's Vineyard, MA
August 21 - Provincetown, MA, Osterville, MA
August 22 - Beverly Hills, CA
August 23 - Los Angeles, CA, Laguna Beach, CA, Piedmont, CA
August 24 - Redwood City, CA, Los Altos, CA, Woodside, CA
August 25 - Reno, NV
August 26 - None
August 27 - White Plains, NY
August 28 - Sag Harbor, NY, Southampton, NY, Bridgehampton, NY
August 29 - East Hampton, NY, Quogue, NY
August 30 - Sagaponack, NY, North Haven, NY
August 31 - Cincinnati, OH
September 1 - None
September 2 - None
September 3 - None
September 4 - None
September 5 - Cleveland, OH, Hampton, IL
September 6 - Tampa, FL
September 7 - New York, NY
September 8 - Charlotte, NC, Kansas City, MO
September 9 - New York, NY
September 10 - None
September 11 - New York, NY, Chappaqua, NY
September 12 - Chappaqua, NY
September 13 - Chappaqua, NY
September 14 - Chappaqua, NY
September 15 - Greensboro, NC, Washington, DC
September 16 - Washington, DC, New York, NY
September 17 - Washington, DC
September 18 - None
September 19 - Philadelphia, PA, New York, NY
September 20 - None
September 21 - Orlando, FL
September 22 - Chappaqua, NY
September 23 - Rye Brook, NY
September 24 - Rye Brook, NY
September 25 - New York, NY, Rye Brook, NY
September 26 - Hempstead, NY
September 27 - Raleigh, NC
September 28 - Durham, NH, Boston, MA
September 29 - Des Moines, IA, Chicago, IL
September 30 - Fort Pierce, FL, Coral Springs, FL, Miami Beach, FL

She seems to have spent a ridiculous amount of time in safe Democratic states. Fundraising I guess?

That ground game doesn't fund itself you know.

Pulpstar

Charles said:

@TheScreamingEagles

Posted a response to your comments about Mexican judges last thread but just on my way to Tennessee so can't repost here

"Virgil, quick, come see, there goes Robert E. Lee!"

glw

Most entertaining. If you are a "a plague on both your houses" sort of guy, as I am, 2016 has been a truly great year.

Tissue_Price

Slackbladder said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

MaxPB said:

@Pulpstar on point two, this is the Clinton campaign stops for six weeks leading up to the end of September:

Clinton campaign schedule:
http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clintoncal0816.html
August 18 - New York, NY
August 19 - Martha's Vineyard, MA
August 20 - Nantucket, MA, Martha's Vineyard, MA
August 21 - Provincetown, MA, Osterville, MA
August 22 - Beverly Hills, CA
August 23 - Los Angeles, CA, Laguna Beach, CA, Piedmont, CA
August 24 - Redwood City, CA, Los Altos, CA, Woodside, CA
August 25 - Reno, NV
August 26 - None
August 27 - White Plains, NY
August 28 - Sag Harbor, NY, Southampton, NY, Bridgehampton, NY
August 29 - East Hampton, NY, Quogue, NY
August 30 - Sagaponack, NY, North Haven, NY
August 31 - Cincinnati, OH
September 1 - None
September 2 - None
September 3 - None
September 4 - None
September 5 - Cleveland, OH, Hampton, IL
September 6 - Tampa, FL
September 7 - New York, NY
September 8 - Charlotte, NC, Kansas City, MO
September 9 - New York, NY
September 10 - None
September 11 - New York, NY, Chappaqua, NY
September 12 - Chappaqua, NY
September 13 - Chappaqua, NY
September 14 - Chappaqua, NY
September 15 - Greensboro, NC, Washington, DC
September 16 - Washington, DC, New York, NY
September 17 - Washington, DC
September 18 - None
September 19 - Philadelphia, PA, New York, NY
September 20 - None
September 21 - Orlando, FL
September 22 - Chappaqua, NY
September 23 - Rye Brook, NY
September 24 - Rye Brook, NY
September 25 - New York, NY, Rye Brook, NY
September 26 - Hempstead, NY
September 27 - Raleigh, NC
September 28 - Durham, NH, Boston, MA
September 29 - Des Moines, IA, Chicago, IL
September 30 - Fort Pierce, FL, Coral Springs, FL, Miami Beach, FL

She seems to have spent a ridiculous amount of time in safe Democratic states. Fundraising I guess?

That ground game doesn't fund itself you know.

Nor all those television ads in Wisconsin Arizona.

TheScreamingEagles

Charles said:

@TheScreamingEagles

Posted a response to your comments about Mexican judges last thread but just on my way to Tennessee so can't repost here

I'll have a gander now.

rkrkrk

Pulpstar said:

rkrkrk said:

Boris Johnson began the year as a bankbench MP and outgoing Mayor of London and ended it as Foreign Secretary. That's hardly failure...

I'd put Dilma Rouseff in on the list- going from first female President of Brazil to being impeached and removed is quite a fall...

Feel free to submit your own article.

All these relate directly to the Brexit or POTUS elections, the two biggest betting markets of the year. Except Owen Smith, who was so dire that even though the impact of his failure was less I felt needed to go in at a fairly high position.

Fair enough.
Enjoyed the article by the way- didn't mean that to come across as being too critical.

Charles

Re: Jeb Bush. Never met him but just read an interview with Dana Bash the CNN head of politics where she says he is incredibly charismatic and personable when you meet him - it's just there are "little gremlins in the camera lenses" that kill him on screen (he also hated it, which is why he comes across as nervous)

rural_voter

TheScreamingEagles said:

rural_voter said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

A great read, Pulpstar!

Still, I'm worried about one thing. You watched two Owen Smith/Jeremy Corbyn debates? 'Obsessive' hardly covers it!

Pulpstar is very thorough when it comes to his bets.

Hello all, few recent posts from me because finishing some outside building work before winter arrives is top priority. But I took a break and found this famous quote with which I tend to disagree - I think some political careers were on balance quite successful.

Harold Wilson combined a moral crusade with electoral success. Four victories, though only one a landslide (1966). He craftily neutralised Tory opposition and set up the Open University, having nicked the basic idea from the Soviet Union. Millions of mature students benefited.

So successful were some of Clem Attlee's policies that Harold Macmillan continued them. In hindsight, Attlee was one of the most successful PMs of all time, especially given that Britain was broke during the 1945-51 parliaments.

Harold Macmillan himself deserves credit for showing how to build 300,000-500,000 homes per year. People right now are claiming that 200,000 is a high figure. It's not; we need over 300,000 or even more to solve the crisis.

For next month, I'm writing my review on David Cameron, I do toy with those thoughts you mention.

Cameron claimed to admire Macmillan but possibly he wasn't prepared to think the unthinkable; e.g.: 'sod the government borrowing requirement'. It's hard to construct capital assets without spending money now. Attempts to do otherwise lead to the negative consequences seen with PFI.

AlastairMeeks

It depends what you mean by failures. Some of these, George Osborne and Michael Gove for example, may yet have further and greater successes in the future. Two of those named are current Cabinet ministers. And the commentariat (and yes, to the extent that includes me, me) will continue completely unabashed. Cockroaches have nothing on them.

David_Evershed

A great post by Pulpstar - who is a star.

TheScreamingEagles

Charles said:

Re: Jeb Bush. Never met him but just read an interview with Dana Bash the CNN head of politics where he says he is incredibly charismatic and personable when you meet him - it's just there are "little gremlins in the camera lenses" that kill him on screen (he also hated it, which is why he comes across as nervous)

I reckon when both your father and brother have been President there's an awful lot of pressure on Jeb to succeed.

Back in 2008 I read a piece that had Jeb won Florida in 1994 and George W Bush lost Texas in 1994, then Jeb would have been the GOP nominee in 2000, won, and the world would have been very different.

stodge

Stark_Dawning said:

Very true. I always remember thinking it a bit rum that the Tories were still being ridiculed and berated long after Blair had annihilated them in May 1997. Leave and the Alt-Right are still riding the wave of triumph at the moment, though with the former it's just starting to feel a bit chillier.

None of this is new - Trump's victory has echoes of the 1979 Conservative victory here - the notion the system was broken and we couldn't go on as we were.

At least Thatcher came in with a coherent if untried programme - Trump seems only to have the anger.

Those who are rejoicing will presumably not be the people who will be in states like Michigan and Wisconsin in 2020 trying to explain why things have got worse not better.

glw

taffys said:

He was behind the UK's tech City, now said to be eclipsing silicon valley.

Who is saying that?

Pro_Rata

DavidL said:

Pro_Rata said:

Regarding lawyers and their rulesets: I posed a question to the PB lawyers in an indirect way the other evening, but got no bites.

It is around how contradictory the Divisional Court arguments can be from the Supreme Court arguments.

For instance, after the Divisional Court case one poster here noted that the constitutional relationship between a referendum and parliament formed little part of the argument in the Divisional Court, and that a fuller exploration of this should be made central to the Supreme Court case. This assumed the lawyers could change tack and something peripheral to the original case could be central to the appeal. The thought occurs that maybe this has to do with additional areas that the Supreme Court can consider but which the Divisional Court could not, but I'm not sure.

However, more obviously contradictory is that everyone accepted arguments in Divisional Court that A50 trigger was not reversible. I now see a debate around Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties that A50 trigger IS reversible (thus does not of itself revoke EC Act 1972) and that government lawyers should contend that it is.

Snip

My question is why government lawyers are not bound by 'anything that you later rely on' and seem able to reverse their arguments without damaging their case? After all these should be people who should be far more capable of tying up the consistency of their arguments than ordinary laymen.

Answers please. This one has been bugging me greatly.

At the risk of oversimplifying a concession on a matter of fact is binding on the parties because the other party relies upon it and does not have to prove the fact. A concession on a point of pure law is not binding on a party and it is open on an appeal to at least seek leave of the court to make an inconsistent argument. Even if that argument succeeds there may be implications in costs if the erroneous concession has caused unnecessary procedure.

The Court may not be minded to allow the withdrawal of the concession if it completely changes the basis of the case on the basis that the appellate court is then being asked to act as a court of first instance rather than a court of appeal. In theory that might apply here but I suspect not because we clearly need an answer one way or another.

Thanks for that - so more flexibility in evolving argument on a point of law, but it is not consequenceless. Presumably the same flexibility applies to criminal trials where the question is not on what happened, but on whether any law has been broken.

WIll be interesting to see whether Remainers get a turn to take up pitchforks and torches against the legal profession if A50 decision get overturned on the basis of the government reversing its stance on points of law.

williamglenn

MaxPB said:

@Pulpstar on point two, this is the Clinton campaign stops for six weeks leading up to the end of September:

Is there a difference between 'none' and 'Chappaqua'? Perhaps she was campaigning over Skype like in the 'why aren't I 50 points ahead' video.

Pulpstar

Trump's win reminds me a bit of a high jump.

Their centre of gravity never actually clears the bar, yet they head over it.

Pulpstar

AlastairMeeks said:

It depends what you mean by failures. Some of these, George Osborne and Michael Gove for example, may yet have further and greater successes in the future. Two of those named are current Cabinet ministers. And the commentariat (and yes, to the extent that includes me, me) will continue completely unabashed. Cockroaches have nothing on them.

The manner in which Gove, Johnson and Leadsom blew their chances at the big prize is what got them included. Leadsom was always a longshot, but she was a brexiteer against a remainer in the final two. That was fundamentally a strong position given the Tory membership.

Casino_Royale

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rural_voter said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

A great read, Pulpstar!

Still, I'm worried about one thing. You watched two Owen Smith/Jeremy Corbyn debates? 'Obsessive' hardly covers it!

Pulpstar is very thorough when it comes to his bets.

Hello all, few recent posts from me because finishing some outside building work before winter arrives is top priority. But I took a break and found this famous quote with which I tend to disagree - I think some political careers were on balance quite successful.

Harold Wilson combined a moral crusade with electoral success. Four victories, though only one a landslide (1966). He craftily neutralised Tory opposition and set up the Open University, having nicked the basic idea from the Soviet Union. Millions of mature students benefited.

So successful were some of Clem Attlee's policies that Harold Macmillan continued them. In hindsight, Attlee was one of the most successful PMs of all time, especially given that Britain was broke during the 1945-51 parliaments.

Harold Macmillan himself deserves credit for showing how to build 300,000-500,000 homes per year. People right now are claiming that 200,000 is a high figure. It's not; we need over 300,000 or even more to solve the crisis.

For next month, I'm writing my review on David Cameron, I do toy with those thoughts you mention.

David Cameron was undoubtedly the best politician of his generation, he had the chance to lead his country for a decade and shape Britain in his image for decades to come - until that day in February when he came back from the EU summit, and tried to sell his shitty little deal as the best thing since sliced bread.

Without wanting to give away spoilers, I manage to compare Dave to Stanley Baldwin* and say he's the slayer (and changer) of parties in a way that only Keir Hardie, Ramsay MacDonald, and Arthur Henderson could dream of.

You could argue that Dave changed the Tories, drove Labour mad, wiped out the Lib Dems to a near extinction level, brought the SNP and UKIP as major parties in the UK.

*They'll be saying he put party before country if Brexit turns out to be a disaster.

I was talking to a fellow Brexit Tory who was for Davis in 2005 (I was for Cameron) but was won round by Cameron in the end. He was particularly impressed with his 2015GE campaign.

We both agreed he did a bloody good job in the circumstances, and then quit in his finest hour.

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/799229367507267588

taffys

Who is saying that?

Well for example....

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-backs-entrepreneurs-and-investors-at-tech-city

Tissue_Price

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It depends what you mean by failures. Some of these, George Osborne and Michael Gove for example, may yet have further and greater successes in the future. Two of those named are current Cabinet ministers. And the commentariat (and yes, to the extent that includes me, me) will continue completely unabashed. Cockroaches have nothing on them.

The manner in which Gove, Johnson and Leadsom blew their chances at the big prize is what got them included. Leadsom was always a longshot, but she was a brexiteer against a remainer in the final two. That was fundamentally a strong position given the Tory membership.

You don't subscribe to the Gove-as-suicide-bomber view, then? I think it's fairly plausible myself.

Charles

Pulpstar said:

Charles said:

@TheScreamingEagles

Posted a response to your comments about Mexican judges last thread but just on my way to Tennessee so can't repost here

"Virgil, quick, come see, there goes Robert E. Lee!"

Burying a load of soldiers in Robert E Lee's front lawn is still one of the shittiest bits of vindictive behaviour ever. Almost as bad as Manny Shinwell digging up Rockingham's garden.

williamglenn

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It depends what you mean by failures. Some of these, George Osborne and Michael Gove for example, may yet have further and greater successes in the future. Two of those named are current Cabinet ministers. And the commentariat (and yes, to the extent that includes me, me) will continue completely unabashed. Cockroaches have nothing on them.

The manner in which Gove, Johnson and Leadsom blew their chances at the big prize is what got them included. Leadsom was always a longshot, but she was a brexiteer against a remainer in the final two. That was fundamentally a strong position given the Tory membership.

It's interesting to ponder what would have happened if she had taken Trump's shameless approach to the outrage over her interview. Maybe the 'as a mother' comments weren't fatal to her chances after all.