politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Three reasons why I am not betting on an early general electio

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Three reasons why I am not betting on an early general election

One thing that we have learnt about Theresa May since she took over Downing Street last July is that she does endeavour to follow the statementz she makes. She has said repeatedly that there will be no election and it would appear highly opportunistic for her to go against that. It would also be out of character.

Read the full story here

Dixie

CCHQ are not running a GE campaign. They leak like a sieve. Nuthin; doing

Dixie

Oh, and first. Blimey!

TheScreamingEagles

I agree, however I can see her being forced to hold an early general election because of

1) Losing votes on Brexit in The Commons and/or Lords

2) Those election expenses ultimately wiping out her majority

williamglenn

May is untested in a high-profile role during a General Election campaign. She usually leaves the dirty business of facing the public to others.

felix

I think the ship may have sailed on the bet in the penultimate sentence - but if it hasn't I got a few 000000 to gamble

isam

'Statementz'

I quite like that! Could be an album title from the early naughties

Appears to be a typo in the last line doesn't there? 2010 should be 2020?

YBarddCwsc

"The betting favourite is for an election in 2010 or beyond. I’m sticking with that."

That is a very safe bet.

Scott_P

If May decides not to hold an early election, that landslide is what she is giving up in the hope that none of the fundamentals have changed by 2020. That means she needs to get through three tough years with the following results. Brexit happens smoothly, the economy sails along, Scotland does not vote for independence, and Labour does not find a way of ditching Corbyn and choosing a wildcard sensible person who might begin the rebuilding.

An awful lot could go wrong. Think back three years from now, to early 2014 and consider how much changed in terms of personnel and assumptions in the interim. The real gamble for May could turn out to be giving up a certain landslide this year for three more years of hard slog in government with a small majority at the mercy of the fates.

https://reaction.life/theresa-may-calls-early-election-labour-might-well-give/

tpfkar

Which happens first, Boundary Changes implemented, or Corbyn deposed? Now that's a gamble.

Mortimer

williamglenn said:

May is untested in a high-profile role during a General Election campaign. She usually leaves the dirty business of facing the public to others.

Whereas the Labour leadership are going to be grreeeat, right?

isam

'The Tories moving a vote of no confidence in themselves would look absurd'

It would, almost 'only advisory' in its absurdity!

felix

Scott_P said:

If May decides not to hold an early election, that landslide is what she is giving up in the hope that none of the fundamentals have changed by 2020. That means she needs to get through three tough years with the following results. Brexit happens smoothly, the economy sails along, Scotland does not vote for independence, and Labour does not find a way of ditching Corbyn and choosing a wildcard sensible person who might begin the rebuilding.

An awful lot could go wrong. Think back three years from now, to early 2014 and consider how much changed in terms of personnel and assumptions in the interim. The real gamble for May could turn out to be giving up a certain landslide this year for three more years of hard slog in government with a small majority at the mercy of the fates.

https://reaction.life/theresa-may-calls-early-election-labour-might-well-give/

I think she will try to stick to her word on this. And I think the public would respect her for it.

SimonStClare

OGH, agree entirely with all three points – last sentence may however, need revising.

felix

Mortimer said:

williamglenn said:

May is untested in a high-profile role during a General Election campaign. She usually leaves the dirty business of facing the public to others.

Whereas the Labour leadership are going to be grreeeat, right?

It's very hard to know how to respond to Mr Glenn's posts without being very rude.

Danny565

TheScreamingEagles said:

I agree, however I can see her being forced to hold an early general election because of

1) Losing votes on Brexit in The Commons and/or Lords

2) Those election expenses ultimately wiping out her majority

Even losing votes on Brexit wouldn't force an early election on its own. Under the FTPA, the government can lose votes on all sorts of important legislation (even Queen's Speeches and Budgets), but the government still wouldn't fall unless a separate, specific vote of no confidence is passed. Again, people seem to have forgotten that the FTPA was designed PRECISELY to make it near-impossible for a popular government to engineer an early election like this (at the Lib Dems' insistence; remember it was Nick Clegg's "department" who was in charge of this Bill).

But otherwise I agree with you. In particular, I find this idea that Labour would HAVE to vote for an early election to be quite funny - Labour MPs are hardly going to vote to annihilate themselves in an early election, just so that they're not called "frit"!

PlatoSaid

It's all very messy

Wikileaks
CIA steals other groups virus and malware facilitating false flag attacks #Vault7 https://t.co/K7wFTdlC82 https://t.co/Z0nat1Lqsv

Jointly developed CIA+MI5 malware infests Samsung smart TVs to turn them into covert microphones #Vault7 https://t.co/Ki0wRlgjPP

Scott_P

felix said:

I think she will try to stick to her word on this. And I think the public would respect her for it.

And they could respect her all the way to crushing defeat in 3 years time.

felix

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I agree, however I can see her being forced to hold an early general election because of

1) Losing votes on Brexit in The Commons and/or Lords

2) Those election expenses ultimately wiping out her majority

Even losing votes on Brexit wouldn't force an early election on its own. Under the FPTA, the government can lose votes on all sorts of important legislation (even Queen's Speeches and Budgets), but the government still wouldn't fall unless a separate, specific vote of no confidence is passed. Again, people seem to have forgotten that the FPTA was designed PRECISELY to make it near-impossible for a popular government to engineer an early election like this (at the Lib Dems' insistence; remember it was Nick Clegg's "department" who was in charge of this Bill).

The key success criteria she has to fulfil is a [half] decent Brexit. She deserves enormous kudos for accepting the challenge and for the country's sake one has to wish her well.

felix

Scott_P said:

felix said:

I think she will try to stick to her word on this. And I think the public would respect her for it.

And they could respect her all the way to crushing defeat in 3 years time.

Of course this is your dream - and sod the country.

TheScreamingEagles

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I agree, however I can see her being forced to hold an early general election because of

1) Losing votes on Brexit in The Commons and/or Lords

2) Those election expenses ultimately wiping out her majority

Even losing votes on Brexit wouldn't force an early election on its own. Under the FPTA, the government can lose votes on all sorts of important legislation (even Queen's Speeches and Budgets), but the government still wouldn't fall unless a separate, specific vote of no confidence is passed. Again, people seem to have forgotten that the FPTA was designed PRECISELY to make it near-impossible for a popular government to engineer an early election like this (at the Lib Dems' insistence; remember it was Nick Clegg's "department" who was in charge of this Bill).

Normally I would agree how Brexit was voted upon, and received the most that any side has in an election/referendum in the history of the country.

It'll be the People's Budget all over again.

david_herdson

TheScreamingEagles said:

I agree, however I can see her being forced to hold an early general election because of

1) Losing votes on Brexit in The Commons and/or Lords

2) Those election expenses ultimately wiping out her majority

On (1), yes, although no amendments have yet passed that are so fundamental as to require a general election to overturn.

On (2), given current polls, it's not impossible that the Con majority could increase if there were by-elections. The precedent from the last parliament with the MPs who left due to expenses scandals suggests that the public don't give that party too big a hit. Might be different for a governing party but I'd doubt it. Only question will be over LD/Con seats (if any).

Stark_Dawning

Sound analysis Mike. An earlier election was always for the birds given the advent of the FTPA. And quite right too - I remember the cynical shenanigans Gordon got up to when calling an election was entirely in the PM's gift. I'm saddened that some Tories want a return to that unjustifiable anachronism, just so they can play silly beggars with Corbyn's Labour.

Scott_P

How can we tell an early election would be a good idea?

William Hague says it would.

IDS says no...

Mortimer

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I agree, however I can see her being forced to hold an early general election because of

1) Losing votes on Brexit in The Commons and/or Lords

2) Those election expenses ultimately wiping out her majority

Even losing votes on Brexit wouldn't force an early election on its own. Under the FTPA, the government can lose votes on all sorts of important legislation (even Queen's Speeches and Budgets), but the government still wouldn't fall unless a separate, specific vote of no confidence is passed. Again, people seem to have forgotten that the FTPA was designed PRECISELY to make it near-impossible for a popular government to engineer an early election like this (at the Lib Dems' insistence; remember it was Nick Clegg's "department" who was in charge of this Bill).

But otherwise I agree with you. In particular, I find this idea that Labour would HAVE to vote for an early election to be quite funny - Labour MPs are hardly going to vote to annihilate themselves in an early election, just so that they're not called "frit"!

Oppositions cannot reject elections without expecting a drop in credibility....

Your position sounds sensible on paper - it is ridiculous in the house...

Richard_Nabavi

Reason 1: Yes, and that one's the clincher

Reason 2: No, Labour turkeys would have no choice but to vote for Xmas, especially since they go on and on about how the PM doesn't have a mandate for the particular flavour of Brexit which (they seem to think) she can unilaterally impose on our EU friends. So how could they possibly demur if she says she wants an election to see whether the great British public support her approach? And what would be the message if somehow they didn't support an election - an explicit vote of confidence in her Brexit approach?

Reason 3: Conservative MPs wouldn't have to vote against themselves, they could just abstain. That could be spun as saying they want voters to have the opportunity of approving their general approach - which is what Labour and the LibDems have been asking for, right? It would be a bit cheeky, but they could get away with it.

Of course, none of this would be without risks for the PM, but so is the option of doing nothing. She may indeed be forced into a GE by events.

Still, I agree with Mike that she's unlikely to go for it unless forced. It's just not her style.

MikeL

I started reading this website after the 2005 GE.

Ever since then, there are two things that lots of people love to predict at regular intervals - early GEs and leadership challenges resulting in leadership elections.

Almost every single time these predictions turn out to be wrong - the only exception being the challenge to Corbyn which was a bit different.

So why do people predict them?

People think an early GE would be a clever move and people think they are being clever predicting one.

Danny565

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I agree, however I can see her being forced to hold an early general election because of

1) Losing votes on Brexit in The Commons and/or Lords

2) Those election expenses ultimately wiping out her majority

Even losing votes on Brexit wouldn't force an early election on its own. Under the FPTA, the government can lose votes on all sorts of important legislation (even Queen's Speeches and Budgets), but the government still wouldn't fall unless a separate, specific vote of no confidence is passed. Again, people seem to have forgotten that the FPTA was designed PRECISELY to make it near-impossible for a popular government to engineer an early election like this (at the Lib Dems' insistence; remember it was Nick Clegg's "department" who was in charge of this Bill).

Normally I would agree how Brexit was voted upon, and received the most that any side has in an election/referendum in the history of the country.

It'll be the People's Budget all over again.

But at the time of the People's Budget, an election could be called at the time of the PM's choosing.

Even if it's felt that Parliament is frustrating "the will of the people" on Brexit, the mechanisms to actually call an early election still probably won't be there. No matter how many crucial votes May were to lose on Brexit matters, that doesn't automatically trigger an election. (This is why some constitutional experts at the time of the FTPA were talking about the risk of "zombie parliaments", where a government has no majority to actually get any business done but is still kept in office by default.)

TheScreamingEagles

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I agree, however I can see her being forced to hold an early general election because of

1) Losing votes on Brexit in The Commons and/or Lords

2) Those election expenses ultimately wiping out her majority

Even losing votes on Brexit wouldn't force an early election on its own. Under the FPTA, the government can lose votes on all sorts of important legislation (even Queen's Speeches and Budgets), but the government still wouldn't fall unless a separate, specific vote of no confidence is passed. Again, people seem to have forgotten that the FPTA was designed PRECISELY to make it near-impossible for a popular government to engineer an early election like this (at the Lib Dems' insistence; remember it was Nick Clegg's "department" who was in charge of this Bill).

Normally I would agree how Brexit was voted upon, and received the most that any side has in an election/referendum in the history of the country.

It'll be the People's Budget all over again.

But at the time of the People's Budget, an election could be called at the time of the PM's choosing.

Even if it's felt that Parliament is frustrating "the will of the people" on Brexit, the mechanisms to actually call an early election still probably won't be there. No matter how many crucial votes May were to lose on Brexit matters, that doesn't automatically trigger an election. (This is why some constitutional experts at the time of the FTPA were talking about the risk of "zombie parliaments", where a government has no majority to actually get any business done but is still kept in office by default.)

I've been two seminars in the past few years on the FTPA, it is interesting, it was geared for hung parliaments between 2010 and 2020, hence the sunset clause.

It is also why I disagree with David Herdson on Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM in those circumstances.

david_herdson

williamglenn said:

May is untested in a high-profile role during a General Election campaign. She usually leaves the dirty business of facing the public to others.

How many leaders have been tested in a high-profile role during a GE campaign? It's rare for *any* leader to fight their first one having already gained that kind of experience.

Danny565

Mortimer said:

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I agree, however I can see her being forced to hold an early general election because of

1) Losing votes on Brexit in The Commons and/or Lords

2) Those election expenses ultimately wiping out her majority

Even losing votes on Brexit wouldn't force an early election on its own. Under the FTPA, the government can lose votes on all sorts of important legislation (even Queen's Speeches and Budgets), but the government still wouldn't fall unless a separate, specific vote of no confidence is passed. Again, people seem to have forgotten that the FTPA was designed PRECISELY to make it near-impossible for a popular government to engineer an early election like this (at the Lib Dems' insistence; remember it was Nick Clegg's "department" who was in charge of this Bill).

But otherwise I agree with you. In particular, I find this idea that Labour would HAVE to vote for an early election to be quite funny - Labour MPs are hardly going to vote to annihilate themselves in an early election, just so that they're not called "frit"!

Oppositions cannot reject elections without expecting a drop in credibility....

Your position sounds sensible on paper - it is ridiculous in the house...

This relies on Labour's credibility not already being at rock bottom already! Frankly, they would have nothing left to lose by stopping an early election (whereas they'd have their jobs to lose if they did vote for one)...

In any case, they could easily dress it up as a point of principle ("we've already got enough uncertainty, the last thing we need is another election and more division when we need to get on and negotiate Brexit"), even though obviously the reality would be that they WERE frit.

MikeL

It's going to need 25 Con rebels to lose a Brexit vote in the Commons - which is a big number.

8 to wipe out notional majority
8 DUP
2 UUP
1 UKIP
6 Lab (approx)

Total = 25

On a crunch vote will 25 really rebel? I doubt it.

NB. Make that 26 for next week's votes as Kaufman seat vacant.

AndreaParma_82

Labour shortlisting panel for Gorton:

Glenis Willmott
Shahbana Mahmhood
Keith Vaz
Claudia Webbe
Andi Fox

CarlottaVance

surbiton said:

kle4 said:

Bojabob said:

RobD said:

Bojabob said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Bojabob said:

CarlottaVance said:

MarkHopkins said:

CarlottaVance said:

Shall I put you down as "undecided"?

George's ticking time-bomb legacy: Insidious steal taxes. Deeply flawed gimmicks. Failed saving schemes. George Osborne was fired months ago - but on the eve of the Budget, a damning analysis exposes the poisonous inheritance he left Britain

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4288242/George-Osborne-s-poisonous-legacy-failed-gimmicks.html

I grew steadily less impressed with Osborne over time.

He would have made a decent Labour chancellor I suppose.

I thought the most cutting obssrvation:e
Tellingly, when Theresa May dumped him from her Cabinet last summer after the failure of his misguided Project Fear during the EU referendum campaign, she suggested he might like to spend some time ‘getting to know your party’.
Instead, Osborne has spent more time boosting his bank balance. Last year, his extra-parliamentary earnings — mostly thanks to speeches to financial fat cats across the world — were £628,000.
Meanwhile, his successors have to defuse all the explosive devices he planted and fight the fires he started.

In fact, are you Theresa?

You do seem to obsess about posters' identities.....we've discussed this before....have you sought help?

Quite ironic given Bojabob has trouble remembering their own identity

I don't think I am obsessed by anyone's identity – I couldn't care less who you or anyone else is – I just wonder if Carlotta is in fact Theresa May, given her views are identical to those of Theresa May. What are the chances of such a coincidence in a finite universe?

You say you couldn't care less about it, but then proceed to ask the same question again.

I haven't asked you who you are, ever, as far as I recall. I'm merely interested as to whether Carlotta is in fact Theresa May. Wouldn't having the PM on here be interesting to most PBers?

I'd be concerned about her judgement both in spending time on here she could be spending more usefully in other areas, but also for venturing below the line on a political article, in itself a sure sign of skewed judgement.

Carlotta said here that Theresa has a good sex life with her hubby.

Citation required.

Don't bother - liar.

I would never comment in such a manner.

david_herdson

Danny565 said:

Mortimer said:

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I agree, however I can see her being forced to hold an early general election because of

1) Losing votes on Brexit in The Commons and/or Lords

2) Those election expenses ultimately wiping out her majority

Even losing votes on Brexit wouldn't force an early election on its own. Under the FTPA, the government can lose votes on all sorts of important legislation (even Queen's Speeches and Budgets), but the government still wouldn't fall unless a separate, specific vote of no confidence is passed. Again, people seem to have forgotten that the FTPA was designed PRECISELY to make it near-impossible for a popular government to engineer an early election like this (at the Lib Dems' insistence; remember it was Nick Clegg's "department" who was in charge of this Bill).

But otherwise I agree with you. In particular, I find this idea that Labour would HAVE to vote for an early election to be quite funny - Labour MPs are hardly going to vote to annihilate themselves in an early election, just so that they're not called "frit"!

Oppositions cannot reject elections without expecting a drop in credibility....

Your position sounds sensible on paper - it is ridiculous in the house...

This relies on Labour's credibility not already being at rock bottom already! Frankly, they would have nothing left to lose by stopping an early election (whereas they'd have their jobs to lose if they did vote for one)...

About a quarter would face that realistic outcome at present.

Against which, the boundary review won't happen (or would be delayed), which saves quite a few, and Corbyn is prevented from making things even worse.

On the other hand, of that quarter, some will be thinking of retirement or a career change anyway. The number that might be affected could actually be lower than the number who fear the consequences of going to 2020.

Scott_P

Will she rue the day?

https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/839122053370417157

isam

https://twitter.com/antonrubaclini/status/837374673440522240

SquareRoot

MikeL said:

I started reading this website after the 2005 GE.

Ever since then, there are two things that lots of people love to predict at regular intervals - early GEs and leadership challenges resulting in leadership elections.

Almost every single time these predictions turn out to be wrong - the only exception being the challenge to Corbyn which was a bit different.

So why do people predict them?

People think an early GE would be a clever move and people think they are being clever predicting one.

People predict them to wind up people. I predicted Gordon Brown's demise after all the bullying stories, sure he got stiffed at the GE but not before. One of the greatest days ever was the day Gordon Brown ceded power and had to go to the Palace. Probably the worst PM in history, certainly of the last 100 yrs.

david_herdson

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I agree, however I can see her being forced to hold an early general election because of

1) Losing votes on Brexit in The Commons and/or Lords

2) Those election expenses ultimately wiping out her majority

Even losing votes on Brexit wouldn't force an early election on its own. Under the FPTA, the government can lose votes on all sorts of important legislation (even Queen's Speeches and Budgets), but the government still wouldn't fall unless a separate, specific vote of no confidence is passed. Again, people seem to have forgotten that the FPTA was designed PRECISELY to make it near-impossible for a popular government to engineer an early election like this (at the Lib Dems' insistence; remember it was Nick Clegg's "department" who was in charge of this Bill).

Normally I would agree how Brexit was voted upon, and received the most that any side has in an election/referendum in the history of the country.

It'll be the People's Budget all over again.

But at the time of the People's Budget, an election could be called at the time of the PM's choosing.

Even if it's felt that Parliament is frustrating "the will of the people" on Brexit, the mechanisms to actually call an early election still probably won't be there. No matter how many crucial votes May were to lose on Brexit matters, that doesn't automatically trigger an election. (This is why some constitutional experts at the time of the FTPA were talking about the risk of "zombie parliaments", where a government has no majority to actually get any business done but is still kept in office by default.)

If parliament - the Lords in particular - did keep refusing May's Brexit legislation then it would become a lot easier to explain the hoops to be jumped through to trigger a poll, even if it looks daft in the abstract. But it doesn't look as if the Lords are in much of a fighting mood.

Tissue_Price

"The optics the Tories doing this on themselves would be simply appalling and would be very hard to explain."

Well, this would immediately follow Labour having vetoed the election. I think it would be pretty manageable myself. And, if it's going to happen anyway, perhaps Labour wouldn't veto the election after all?

Scott_P

Tissue_Price said:

And, if it's going to happen anyway, perhaps Labour wouldn't veto the election after all?

Jezza has been out and about again claiming he would win the next GE

Hard to square that with not voting for one

PlatoSaid

Wikileaks
CIA's secret hacking division produced a huge amount of weaponized malware to infest iPhone. Android phones--and lost control of it. #Vault7 https://t.co/KmFLEVmbnE

This is an epic clustereff by CIA

TheScreamingEagles

Betting post.

Arsenal are 100s to qualify for the quarter final tonight.

They've done this before, got walloped in the first leg, but done well in the second leg, but failed to qualify.

I reckon if Arsenal go one or two goals up, that price will tumble.

The traditional bookies have Arsenal to qualify around to 25-1 to 33/1

glw

PlatoSaid said:

It's all very messy

Wikileaks
CIA steals other groups virus and malware facilitating false flag attacks #Vault7 https://t.co/K7wFTdlC82 https://t.co/Z0nat1Lqsv

The "great" thing about such action is it makes US claims that "Russia did it" or "China did it" unverifiable, if the NSA are hijacking foreign servers used for intelligence operations, or as it now seems the CIA's own in-house mini-NSA* are stealing foreign malware, then why should we believe any proof given by the US? From an outsider's point of view a genuine Russian attack would look just the same as a US attack using Russian systems and software.

* Mini only relative to the NSA, it seems it might already be as large as GCHQ.

TheScreamingEagles

PlatoSaid said:

Wikileaks
CIA's secret hacking division produced a huge amount of weaponized malware to infest iPhone. Android phones--and lost control of it. #Vault7 https://t.co/KmFLEVmbnE

This is an epic clustereff by CIA

Almost like Wikileaks have never heard of the Stuxnet virus attack.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

CarlottaVance said:

surbiton said:

kle4 said:

Bojabob said:

RobD said:

Bojabob said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Bojabob said:

CarlottaVance said:

MarkHopkins said:

CarlottaVance said:

Shall I put you down as "undecided"?

George's ticking time-bomb legacy: Insidious steal taxes. Deeply flawed gimmicks. Failed saving schemes. George Osborne was fired months ago - but on the eve of the Budget, a damning analysis exposes the poisonous inheritance he left Britain

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4288242/George-Osborne-s-poisonous-legacy-failed-gimmicks.html

I grew steadily less impressed with Osborne over time.

He would have made a decent Labour chancellor I suppose.

I thought the most cutting obssrvation:e
Tellingly, when Theresa May dumped him from her Cabinet last summer after the failure of his misguided Project Fear during the EU referendum campaign, she suggested he might like to spend some time ‘getting to know your party’.
Instead, Osborne has spent more time boosting his bank balance. Last year, his extra-parliamentary earnings — mostly thanks to speeches to financial fat cats across the world — were £628,000.
Meanwhile, his successors have to defuse all the explosive devices he planted and fight the fires he started.

In fact, are you Theresa?

You do seem to obsess about posters' identities.....we've discussed this before....have you sought help?

Quite ironic given Bojabob has trouble remembering their own identity

.

I haven't asked you who you are, ever, as far as I recall. I'm merely interested as to whether Carlotta is in fact Theresa May. Wouldn't having the PM on here be interesting to most PBers?

I'd be concerned about her judgement both in spending time on here she could be spending more usefully in other areas, but also for venturing below the line on a political article, in itself a sure sign of skewed judgement.

Carlotta said here that Theresa has a good sex life with her hubby.

Citation required.

Don't bother - liar.

I would never comment in such a manner.

It's the sort of thing that I could never imagine TM sharing that snippet with anyone.

Tissue_Price

TheScreamingEagles said:

I reckon if Arsenal go one or two goals up, that price will tumble.

Well, yes.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/839124734746845185

Richard_Nabavi

It does occur to me that speculation about an early GE might not be entirely unwelcome inasmuch as it will no doubt focus the minds of our noble Lords and also Labour MPs when they come to consider their votes on the Brexit amendments.

TheScreamingEagles

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I reckon if Arsenal go one or two goals up, that price will tumble.

Well, yes.

My next betting post will be about the odds on the sun rising in the east, or water being wet.

TheScreamingEagles

Yesterday Steps were reforming, now this

https://twitter.com/RobbieTimes/status/839117915723087872

FrancisUrquhart

Scott_P said:

twitter.com/politicshome/status/839124734746845185

He seems to be making a habit of losing his temper in interviews....a month long GE is going to be a right old hoot.

BudG

FPT

BudG said:

Danny565 said:

Incidentally, now that the Republicans are clear that they won't be dumping Fillon, am I the only one who now thinks he's the favourite to win? For me, as flawed as he is, he seems the least implausible.



By process of elimination, Fillon is the one who I have the easiest time imagining getting over the line.

I certainly don't think he is favourite or likeliest to win. However, I do have this conspiracy theory going round in my head that these charges that were brought against him were part of a plot by the establishment to ensure that Le Pen did not win.

How does that work?

Well at the time the scandal first broke, Macron was not really in the picture. He was around 18-20% and Fillon and Le Pen were 25-27%. There was a possibility, albeit a small one, that Le Pen could beat Fillon in the final round.

So, the conspiracy goes that Fillon agreed to have the scandal break and have himself investigated. Throughout this time, although his poll ratings would take a hit, he would maintain his innocence and vow to fight on, against seemingly impossible odds. As he has said all along, nobody but himself could remove him as a candidate and he courageously battled on, digging his heels in against all attempts to oust him.

So we move on to the meeting with the Magistrate next wednesday, two days before the final cut-off date for candidates.

At that meeting, the Magistrate decides that there is not enough evidence against him to indict him, that the investigators did not properly consider the evience he produced in his defence, or maybe he produces some late evidence that the Magistrate can consider which was not available to the investigators.

All charges are dropped. Fillon's defiance is vindicated and the brave, courageous and innocent Mr Fillon goes from zero to hero in a matter of minutes. He would romp home a very easy winner indeed in those circumstances.

Sometimes I spend too much time thinking about these matters!!

FrancisUrquhart

Its strange the Guardian and BBC seem totally uninterested in these latest wikileaks about American hacking...what have wikileaks done to go from heroes to in their bad books...innocent face.

JackW

Scott_P said:

Tissue_Price said:

And, if it's going to happen anyway, perhaps Labour wouldn't veto the election after all?

Jezza has been out and about again claiming he would win the next GE

Hard to square that with not voting for one

The LotO is hardly likely to say he wouldn't win the next general election and would look pretty limp to refuse one. However that pails compared to the shabby manoeuvring of the Conservatives in trying to engineer one for narrow party interest.

PlatoSaid

glw said:

PlatoSaid said:

It's all very messy

Wikileaks
CIA steals other groups virus and malware facilitating false flag attacks #Vault7 https://t.co/K7wFTdlC82 https://t.co/Z0nat1Lqsv

The "great" thing about such action is it makes US claims that "Russia did it" or "China did it" unverifiable, if the NSA are hijacking foreign servers used for intelligence operations, or as it now seems the CIA's own in-house mini-NSA* are stealing foreign malware, then why should we believe any proof given by the US? From an outsider's point of view a genuine Russian attack would look just the same as a US attack using Russian systems and software.

* Mini only relative to the NSA, it seems it might already be as large as GCHQ.

Quite. The scale of this is mind boggling. I'm beginning to think that even Alex Jones wasn't a total conspiracy nut now. The stuff pouring out is beyond WTF.

I noticed Wikileaks deliberately mentioned journalists being hacked - that got the MSM's attention in minutes on Twitter. All of a sudden, it's real for them as they ridiculed Trump for saying it.

glw

TheScreamingEagles said:

PlatoSaid said:

Wikileaks
CIA's secret hacking division produced a huge amount of weaponized malware to infest iPhone. Android phones--and lost control of it. #Vault7 https://t.co/KmFLEVmbnE

This is an epic clustereff by CIA

Almost like Wikileaks have never heard of the Stuxnet virus attack.

Of course they have heard of it, but that was one intelligence operation. For this leak Wikileaks has apparently obtained a whole suite of CIA malware and tools, a bit like the recent NSA TAO tools leak. It seems contractors were keeping private copies of the tools and one of those has been leaked.

FrancisUrquhart

PlatoSaid said:

glw said:

PlatoSaid said:

It's all very messy

Wikileaks
CIA steals other groups virus and malware facilitating false flag attacks #Vault7 https://t.co/K7wFTdlC82 https://t.co/Z0nat1Lqsv

The "great" thing about such action is it makes US claims that "Russia did it" or "China did it" unverifiable, if the NSA are hijacking foreign servers used for intelligence operations, or as it now seems the CIA's own in-house mini-NSA* are stealing foreign malware, then why should we believe any proof given by the US? From an outsider's point of view a genuine Russian attack would look just the same as a US attack using Russian systems and software.

* Mini only relative to the NSA, it seems it might already be as large as GCHQ.

Quite. The scale of this is mind boggling. I'm beginning to think that even Alex Jones wasn't a total conspiracy nut now. The stuff pouring out is beyond WTF.

I noticed Wikileaks deliberately mentioned journalists being hacked - that got the MSM's attention in minutes on Twitter. All off a sudden, it's real for them as they ridiculed Trump for saying it.

Well we already know the Germans were hacking BBC and other journos. Shouldn't really come as a huge surprise to journos if others are too.

RobC

TheScreamingEagles said:

Betting post.

Arsenal are 100s to qualify for the quarter final tonight.

They've done this before, got walloped in the first leg, but done well in the second leg, but failed to qualify.

I reckon if Arsenal go one or two goals up, that price will tumble.

The traditional bookies have Arsenal to qualify around to 25-1 to 33/1

If Arsenal had contained it to a 3-1 defeat rather than a 5-1 hammering they'd have a chance. As it is it is hardly worth them turning up. The past-it Wenger should apply to the Chiltern Hundreds.

williamglenn

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

May is untested in a high-profile role during a General Election campaign. She usually leaves the dirty business of facing the public to others.

How many leaders have been tested in a high-profile role during a GE campaign? It's rare for *any* leader to fight their first one having already gained that kind of experience.

Gordon Brown played a key role in turning around the 2005 campaign for Labour. That's why in 2010 he was... oh...

CarlottaVance

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

CarlottaVance said:

surbiton said:

kle4 said:

Bojabob said:

RobD said:

Bojabob said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Bojabob said:

CarlottaVance said:

MarkHopkins said:

CarlottaVance said:

Shall I put you down as "undecided"?

George's ticking time-bomb legacy: Insidious steal taxes. Deeply flawed gimmicks. Failed saving schemes. George Osborne was fired months ago - but on the eve of the Budget, a damning analysis exposes the poisonous inheritance he left Britain

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4288242/George-Osborne-s-poisonous-legacy-failed-gimmicks.html

I grew steadily less impressed with Osborne over time.

He would have made a decent Labour chancellor I suppose.

I thought the most cutting obssrvation:e
Tellingly, when Theresa May dumped him from her Cabinet last summer after the failure of his misguided Project Fear during the EU referendum campaign, she suggested he might like to spend some time ‘getting to know your party’.
Instead, Osborne has spent more time boosting his bank balance. Last year, his extra-parliamentary earnings — mostly thanks to speeches to financial fat cats across the world — were £628,000.
Meanwhile, his successors have to defuse all the explosive devices he planted and fight the fires he started.

In fact, are you Theresa?

You do seem to obsess about posters' identities.....we've discussed this before....have you sought help?

Quite ironic given Bojabob has trouble remembering their own identity

.

I haven't asked you who you are, ever, as far as I recall. I'm merely interested as to whether Carlotta is in fact Theresa May. Wouldn't having the PM on here be interesting to most PBers?

I'd be concerned about her judgement both in spending time on here she could be spending more usefully in other areas, but also for venturing below the line on a political article, in itself a sure sign of skewed judgement.

Carlotta said here that Theresa has a good sex life with her hubby.

Citation required.

Don't bother - liar.

I would never comment in such a manner.
It's the sort of thing that I could never imagine TM sharing that snippet with anyone.

Quite. If someone did offer such a confidence I would never share it and I can't imagine TM doing so with anyone in any case.

Surbiton is a pathetic malevolent mendacious minge

glw

Richard_Nabavi said:

It does occur to me that speculation about an early GE might not be entirely unwelcome inasmuch as it will no doubt focus the minds of our noble Lords and also Labour MPs when they come to consider their votes on the Brexit amendments.

Also you wouldn't want a leadership election if a general election is imminent. A bit of speculation about a snap general election makes it slightly less likely Corbyn will be replaced.

[Deleted User]

This is a fairly detailed summary of the Year Zero leak:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-07/wikileaks-hold-press-conference-vault-7-release-8am-eastern

Seems MI5 were working with the CIA to infect Samsung TVs!

rkrkrk

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/839124734746845185

Is it me or does his answer basically mean yes to her question?
If so... Why not just say yes?

I absolutely love it when a politician gets asked a yes or no question and they give a yes or no answer. I understand it's not always possible .. but wherever it is they should at least start with yes or no.

Philip_Thompson

Of the three points only the first is right and it is critical. If the PM doesn't want one there won't be one and that is the end of discussion for as long as the PM (or her party) holds the confidence of the House.

The second points are easily squared if the PM suddenly wanted an election. The optics of opposition parties voting against an election would be atrocious. The optics of Tory MPs voting for an early election by proxy is much simpler. All a Con MP would need to say to Andrew Neil is "yes I have confidence in the government but we believe the public should have a say at this critical time and since Labour won't let the public have a say this vote is necessary to allow the people to decide".

rcs1000

isam said:

https://twitter.com/antonrubaclini/status/837374673440522240

Brilliant

Philip_Thompson

rkrkrk said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/839124734746845185

Is it me or does his answer basically mean yes to her question?
If so... Why not just say yes?

I absolutely love it when a politician gets asked a yes or no question and they give a yes or no answer. I understand it's not always possible .. but wherever it is they should at least start with yes or no.

Like Ed Miliband?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IldMnsymDo0

FrancisUrquhart

Wait until Donny hears about this on Fox News....

Umbrage: The CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-07/wikileaks-hold-press-conference-vault-7-release-8am-eastern

And my god Alex Jones is going to have a heart attack ranting about this.

david_herdson

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I agree, however I can see her being forced to hold an early general election because of

1) Losing votes on Brexit in The Commons and/or Lords

2) Those election expenses ultimately wiping out her majority

Even losing votes on Brexit wouldn't force an early election on its own. Under the FPTA, the government can lose votes on all sorts of important legislation (even Queen's Speeches and Budgets), but the government still wouldn't fall unless a separate, specific vote of no confidence is passed. Again, people seem to have forgotten that the FPTA was designed PRECISELY to make it near-impossible for a popular government to engineer an early election like this (at the Lib Dems' insistence; remember it was Nick Clegg's "department" who was in charge of this Bill).

Normally I would agree how Brexit was voted upon, and received the most that any side has in an election/referendum in the history of the country.

It'll be the People's Budget all over again.

But at the time of the People's Budget, an election could be called at the time of the PM's choosing.

Even if it's felt that Parliament is frustrating "the will of the people" on Brexit, the mechanisms to actually call an early election still probably won't be there. No matter how many crucial votes May were to lose on Brexit matters, that doesn't automatically trigger an election. (This is why some constitutional experts at the time of the FTPA were talking about the risk of "zombie parliaments", where a government has no majority to actually get any business done but is still kept in office by default.)

I've been two seminars in the past few years on the FTPA, it is interesting, it was geared for hung parliaments between 2010 and 2020, hence the sunset clause.

It is also why I disagree with David Herdson on Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM in those circumstances.

It's not really a sunset clause though; it's more an afternoon-tea clause. Nothing will change without further primary legislation.

As an aside, if you think Corbyn becoming PM is unlikely, wait till you see my next off-the-wall tip.

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

rkrkrk said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/839124734746845185

Is it me or does his answer basically mean yes to her question?
If so... Why not just say yes?

I absolutely love it when a politician gets asked a yes or no question and they give a yes or no answer. I understand it's not always possible .. but wherever it is they should at least start with yes or no.

Like Ed Miliband?

Hell yes!

PlatoSaid

Patrick said:

This is a fairly detailed summary of the Year Zero leak:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-07/wikileaks-hold-press-conference-vault-7-release-8am-eastern

Seems MI5 were working with the CIA to infect Samsung TVs!

Their PR team is busy today...

Cyan

BudG said:

Danny565 said:

Incidentally, now that the Republicans are clear that they won't be dumping Fillon, am I the only one who now thinks he's the favourite to win? For me, as flawed as he is, he seems the least implausible.

By process of elimination, Fillon is the one who I have the easiest time imagining getting over the line.

I certainly don't think he is favourite or likeliest to win. However, I do have this conspiracy theory going round in my head that these charges that were brought against him were part of a plot by the establishment to ensure that Le Pen did not win.

How does that work?

Well at the time the scandal first broke, Macron was not really in the picture. He was around 18-20% and Fillon and Le Pen were 25-27%. There was a possibility, albeit a small one, that Le Pen could beat Fillon in the final round.

So, the conspiracy goes that Fillon agreed to have the scandal break and have himself investigated. Throughout this time, although his poll ratings would take a hit, he would maintain his innocence and vow to fight on, against seemingly impossible odds. As he has said all along, nobody but himself could remove him as a candidate and he courageously battled on, digging his heels in against all attempts to oust him.

So we move on to the meeting with the Magistrate next wednesday, two days before the final cut-off date for candidates.

At that meeting, the Magistrate decides that there is not enough evidence against him to indict him, that the investigators did not properly consider the evience he produced in his defence, or maybe he produces some late evidence that the Magistrate can consider which was not available to the investigators.

All charges are dropped. Fillon's defiance is vindicated and the brave, courageous and innocent Mr Fillon goes from zero to hero in a matter of minutes. He would romp home a very easy winner indeed in those circumstances.

Sometimes I spend too much time thinking about these matters!!

I don't buy what Fillon has said, which is that it's the left that's behind it. Dupont-Aignan has pointed the finger at Hollande. BS to that.

Fillon has got little chance, even if he's pronounced as clean as a whistle on Wednesday. Similarly it didn't do Clinton much good when the head of the FBI exonerated her shortly after saying he wanted to feel her collar. This is like the US Republican primaries, when the Trump campaign systematically took out the opposition one at a time. Macron has been accused of misusing public money too. But the focus is on Fillon. Macron will be next to face big flak.

A lot of the souverainism versus globalism show is very arse about tits. It's the cosseted énarque elite resisting Le Pen, and currently backing Macron - an absurd candidate in some ways - who in a sense are standing up for (their) France, and Le Pen who represents some kind of globalism.

glw

PlatoSaid said:

Quite. The scale of this is mind boggling. I'm beginning to think that even Alex Jones wasn't a total conspiracy nut now. The stuff pouring out is beyond WTF.

I noticed Wikileaks deliberately mentioned journalists being hacked - that got the MSM's attention in minutes on Twitter. All of a sudden, it's real for them as they ridiculed Trump for saying it.

It certainly makes blaming Russian hacking, or election interference, pointless if the CIA is using the same tools and techniques. Attribution becomes impossible, real and false attacks would look the same.

In warfare uniforms, identification, and marking are all regulated by treaty, even if they aren't always adhered to. There is no such agreement on the internet. You simply can not say for certain who is responsible for an attack unless you catch them in the act, looking for "fingerprints" afterwards doesn't work.

FrancisUrquhart

Momentum’s treasurer Michael Chessum, who sits on the Corbynista campaign group’s steering committee, writes:

“The problem is that what Corbyn had to do to win Labour is almost antithetical to what can win the country. “Kinder, gentler politics” is motherhood and apple pie to many Labour members, who disdain infighting and aggression. But in an era of hardship, resentment and populism, what the public wants is not “kinder, gentler politics” but “heads on sticks”.

https://order-order.com/2017/03/07/momentum-ditch-kinder-gentler-politics-we-want-heads-on-sticks/

If the name isn't familiar...he is a posho behind the student fees riots peaceful demonstrations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8877044/Student-fees-protest-who-is-behind-latest-London-demonstrations.html

TheScreamingEagles

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I agree, however I can see her being forced to hold an early general election because of

1) Losing votes on Brexit in The Commons and/or Lords

2) Those election expenses ultimately wiping out her majority

Even losing votes on Brexit wouldn't force an early election on its own. Under the FPTA, the government can lose votes on all sorts of important legislation (even Queen's Speeches and Budgets), but the government still wouldn't fall unless a separate, specific vote of no confidence is passed. Again, people seem to have forgotten that the FPTA was designed PRECISELY to make it near-impossible for a popular government to engineer an early election like this (at the Lib Dems' insistence; remember it was Nick Clegg's "department" who was in charge of this Bill).

Normally I would agree how Brexit was voted upon, and received the most that any side has in an election/referendum in the history of the country.

It'll be the People's Budget all over again.

But at the time of the People's Budget, an election could be called at the time of the PM's choosing.

Even if it's felt that Parliament is frustrating "the will of the people" on Brexit, the mechanisms to actually call an early election still probably won't be there. No matter how many crucial votes May were to lose on Brexit matters, that doesn't automatically trigger an election. (This is why some constitutional experts at the time of the FTPA were talking about the risk of "zombie parliaments", where a government has no majority to actually get any business done but is still kept in office by default.)

I've been two seminars in the past few years on the FTPA, it is interesting, it was geared for hung parliaments between 2010 and 2020, hence the sunset clause.

It is also why I disagree with David Herdson on Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM in those circumstances.

It's not really a sunset clause though; it's more an afternoon-tea clause. Nothing will change without further primary legislation.

As an aside, if you think Corbyn becoming PM is unlikely, wait till you see my next off-the-wall tip.

I'm busy this week/weekend, but the following weekend, I plan to offer a sensational tip.

Next PM - Sion Simon.

No really.

Is my piece on British Parties should follow the US model and choose their nominees/leaders via primaries outside of Parliament, but look to the devolved assemblies/mayors.

Tissue_Price

This is superb. Without Brexit 8% would be a pipedream...

https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/839108035796590592
https://twitter.com/MicksandersMick/status/839114163490340864

Cyan

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

https://twitter.com/antonrubaclini/status/837374673440522240

Brilliant

I wish the UKBA would deport my Norwegian ex-wife. I don't care that she's got a good job here. Let a British person take it. Or a Pole. Anyone. Allow EU citizens to stay but kick citizens of EEA countries with lots of oil out. Deal?

PlatoSaid

Holy Cats - it's all unclassified, so no one can be prosecuted here or accused of piracy using it as it's not copyright either

Wikileaks
WikiLeaks #Vault7 reveals "one of the most astounding intelligence own goals in living memory," according to editor @JulianAssange https://t.co/GyzNXaS13d

WikiLeaks' #Vault7 reveals gaping holes in all popular operating systems + anti-viruses programs https://t.co/K7wFTdlC82 https://t.co/QHs8JYF0FR

Mortimer

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I agree, however I can see her being forced to hold an early general election because of

1) Losing votes on Brexit in The Commons and/or Lords

2) Those election expenses ultimately wiping out her majority

Even losing votes on Brexit wouldn't force an early election on its own. Under the FPTA, the government can lose votes on all sorts of important legislation (even Queen's Speeches and Budgets), but the government still wouldn't fall unless a separate, specific vote of no confidence is passed. Again, people seem to have forgotten that the FPTA was designed PRECISELY to make it near-impossible for a popular government to engineer an early election like this (at the Lib Dems' insistence; remember it was Nick Clegg's "department" who was in charge of this Bill).

Normally I would agree how Brexit was voted upon, and received the most that any side has in an election/referendum in the history of the country.

It'll be the People's Budget all over again.

But at the time of the People's Budget, an election could be called at the time of the PM's choosing.

Even if it's felt that Parliament is frustrating "the will of the people" on Brexit, the mechanisms to actually call an early election still probably won't be there. No matter how many crucial votes May were to lose on Brexit matters, that doesn't automatically trigger an election. (This is why some constitutional experts at the time of the FTPA were talking about the risk of "zombie parliaments", where a government has no majority to actually get any business done but is still kept in office by default.)

I've been two seminars in the past few years on the FTPA, it is interesting, it was geared for hung parliaments between 2010 and 2020, hence the sunset clause.

It is also why I disagree with David Herdson on Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM in those circumstances.

It's not really a sunset clause though; it's more an afternoon-tea clause. Nothing will change without further primary legislation.

As an aside, if you think Corbyn becoming PM is unlikely, wait till you see my next off-the-wall tip.

I'm busy this week/weekend, but the following weekend, I plan to offer a sensational tip.

Next PM - Sion Simon.

No really.

Is my piece on British Parties should follow the US model and choose their nominees/leaders via primaries outside of Parliament, but look to the devolved assemblies/mayors.

'cept he is going to lose to Andy Street.

rkrkrk

PlatoSaid said:

glw said:

PlatoSaid said:

It's all very messy

Wikileaks
CIA steals other groups virus and malware facilitating false flag attacks #Vault7 https://t.co/K7wFTdlC82 https://t.co/Z0nat1Lqsv

The "great" thing about such action is it makes US claims that "Russia did it" or "China did it" unverifiable, if the NSA are hijacking foreign servers used for intelligence operations, or as it now seems the CIA's own in-house mini-NSA* are stealing foreign malware, then why should we believe any proof given by the US? From an outsider's point of view a genuine Russian attack would look just the same as a US attack using Russian systems and software.

* Mini only relative to the NSA, it seems it might already be as large as GCHQ.

Quite. The scale of this is mind boggling. I'm beginning to think that even Alex Jones wasn't a total conspiracy nut now. The stuff pouring out is beyond WTF.

I noticed Wikileaks deliberately mentioned journalists being hacked - that got the MSM's attention in minutes on Twitter. All of a sudden, it's real for them as they ridiculed Trump for saying it.

Alex Jones being the guy who said Sandy Hook shooting was fake and no one actually died?

Look you must have noticed that an awful lot of the links you share get debunked by the various people on this website who can be bothered to read them? Maybe it's time to accept that your conspiracy theory radar isn't all that great?

TheScreamingEagles

Mortimer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I agree, however I can see her being forced to hold an early general election because of

1) Losing votes on Brexit in The Commons and/or Lords

2) Those election expenses ultimately wiping out her majority

Even losing votes on Brexit wouldn't force an early election on its own. Under the FPTA, the government can lose votes on all sorts of important legislation (even Queen's Speeches and Budgets), but the government still wouldn't fall unless a separate, specific vote of no confidence is passed. Again, people seem to have forgotten that the FPTA was designed PRECISELY to make it near-impossible for a popular government to engineer an early election like this (at the Lib Dems' insistence; remember it was Nick Clegg's "department" who was in charge of this Bill).

Normally I would agree how Brexit was voted upon, and received the most that any side has in an election/referendum in the history of the country.

It'll be the People's Budget all over again.

But at the time of the People's Budget, an election could be called at the time of the PM's choosing.

Even if it's felt that Parliament is frustrating "the will of the people" on Brexit, the mechanisms to actually call an early election still probably won't be there. No matter how many crucial votes May were to lose on Brexit matters, that doesn't automatically trigger an election. (This is why some constitutional experts at the time of the FTPA were talking about the risk of "zombie parliaments", where a government has no majority to actually get any business done but is still kept in office by default.)

I've been two seminars in the past few years on the FTPA, it is interesting, it was geared for hung parliaments between 2010 and 2020, hence the sunset clause.

It is also why I disagree with David Herdson on Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM in those circumstances.

It's not really a sunset clause though; it's more an afternoon-tea clause. Nothing will change without further primary legislation.

As an aside, if you think Corbyn becoming PM is unlikely, wait till you see my next off-the-wall tip.

I'm busy this week/weekend, but the following weekend, I plan to offer a sensational tip.

Next PM - Sion Simon.

No really.

Is my piece on British Parties should follow the US model and choose their nominees/leaders via primaries outside of Parliament, but look to the devolved assemblies/mayors.

'cept he is going to lose to Andy Street.

Hubris. Very shortly there will be an election...

Tissue_Price

https://twitter.com/fxmacro/status/839132874192322560

FrancisUrquhart

Donny spreading fake news again with his early morning tweets...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/donald-trump-resumes-attacks-barack-obama-mistakenly-accuses/

isam

Boo hoo it's not fair, white males aren't all tube gropers etc etc

https://twitter.com/dombelina/status/838676251711766528

PlatoSaid

This is so true

" I don’t have an opinion about what happened, or didn’t happen, with the wiretapping. But this story did make me laugh when I realized we find ourselves in the following fun situation:

1. President Trump is the world’s biggest liar (according to his foes).
And…
2. President Trump now has direct access to more national secrets than any other living human being.

And that means fun.

This wiretapping situation shows us how much fun it will be. Six months ago, if Trump made a hard-to-believe claim about something that is also hard to verify, the country would assume he was lying, incorrect, or negotiating. Now, if he says something hard-to-believe, such as the recent wiretapping claim, you have to wonder if the President knows something you don’t. Because he knows a lot of somethings you don’t..."

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158110404781/wiretapping-word-thinking

DecrepitJohnL

FrancisUrquhart said:

Its strange the Guardian and BBC seem totally uninterested in these latest wikileaks about American hacking...what have wikileaks done to go from heroes to in their bad books...innocent face.

D-notice?

[Deleted User]

This also means every 'Russian hack' could just as likely be a false flag CIA hack.

Wikileaks chose the right bloody password (JFK's comments on the CIA): SplinterItIntoAThousandPiecesAndScatterItToTheWinds

isam

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/839121702185492481

williamglenn

Tissue_Price said:

https://twitter.com/fxmacro/status/839132874192322560

He really should have got his canards ducks in a row before running for the Presidency...

PlatoSaid

This has been going on for a while. And now

National Rail
#LondonBridge - Metropolitan Police have requested that NO trains run through London Bridge until further notice.

williamglenn

isam said:

Boo hoo it's not fair, white males aren't all tube gropers etc etc

Couldn't that be read not as anti-white propaganda, but as giving people implicit permission to refer to racial characteristics when making reports?

TheScreamingEagles

williamglenn said:

Tissue_Price said:

https://twitter.com/fxmacro/status/839132874192322560

He really should have got his canards ducks in a row before running for the Presidency...

Bravo!

rottenborough

Tissue_Price said:

https://twitter.com/fxmacro/status/839132874192322560

Nice timing.

rcs1000

Cyan said:

I don't buy what Fillon has said, which is that it's the left that's behind it. Dupont-Aignan has pointed the finger at Hollande. BS to that.

Fillon has got little chance, even if he's pronounced as clean as a whistle on Wednesday. Similarly it didn't do Clinton much good when the head of the FBI exonerated her shortly after saying he wanted to feel her collar. This is like the US Republican primaries, when the Trump campaign systematically took out the opposition one at a time. Macron has been accused of misusing public money too. But the focus is on Fillon. Macron will be next to face big flak.

A lot of the souverainism versus globalism show is very arse about tits. It's the cosseted énarque elite resisting Le Pen, and currently backing Macron - an absurd candidate in some ways - who in a sense are standing up for (their) France, and Le Pen who represents some kind of globalism.

I have a theory. People want more nationalistic, less globalist policies, but aren't convinced by - with some exceptions - the people selling those visions.

This leads to people telling pollsters that they support - for example - the PVV in Holland, because they support many PVV policies. But they are deeply sceptical about Geert Wilder's ability to manage the economy. This is seen in the current PVV polling, which is barely above half the level it was at six months ago*. I.e., the voters were sending a message that they supported PVV policies when it was in the abstract, but now polling is just around the corner seem to be backing away.

I think this is a problem that a lot of right wing (generally) parties have, where people like the policies when they are told about them in the abstract, but when they are told the policy is a Conservative one, they suddenly don't like it.

Marine Le Pen has tried to get away from this by barely mentioning the FN in her campaign. But she is still saddled with the fact that her father - who was until recently the President of the FN - called the Holocaust "a detail", and who explicitly blamed France's problems on the Jews. The fact that the FN has repeatedly underperformed its poll shares also reinforces this point: French voters want many of the FN's policies, but aren't keen enough yet on giving them the keys to the Elysee.

For that reason, I suspect that - if Macron makes it to the final two - that he will comfortably beat MLP this time around. Of course, if France continues to stagnate, then 2022 will be the FN's to lose. But if France enjoys a cyclical economic upturn in the next five years (and you should never underestimate the power of the economic cycle), then she may have missed her best chance.

* In the case of the Netherlands there was also a big disconnect over issues like the Euro, where more than half of PVV supporters agreed with the statement "The Euro has been good for the Netherlands", despite a return to the Guilder being PVV policy.

SandyRentool

Mortimer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I agree, however I can see her being forced to hold an early general election because of

1) Losing votes on Brexit in The Commons and/or Lords

2) Those election expenses ultimately wiping out her majority

(at the Lib Dems' insistence; remember it was Nick Clegg's "department" who was in charge of this Bill).

Normally I would agree how Brexit was voted upon, and received the most that any side has in an election/referendum in the history of the country.

It'll be the People's Budget all over again.

But at the time of the People's Budget, an election could be called at the time of the PM's choosing.

Even if it's felt that Parliament is frustrating "the will of the people" on Brexit, the mechanisms to actually call an early election still probably won't be there. No matter how many crucial votes May were to lose on Brexit matters, that doesn't automatically trigger an election. (This is why some constitutional experts at the time of the FTPA were talking about the risk of "zombie parliaments", where a government has no majority to actually get any business done but is still kept in office by default.)

I've been two seminars in the past few years on the FTPA, it is interesting, it was geared for hung parliaments between 2010 and 2020, hence the sunset clause.

It is also why I disagree with David Herdson on Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM in those circumstances.

It's not really a sunset clause though; it's more an afternoon-tea clause. Nothing will change without further primary legislation.

As an aside, if you think Corbyn becoming PM is unlikely, wait till you see my next off-the-wall tip.

I'm busy this week/weekend, but the following weekend, I plan to offer a sensational tip.

Next PM - Sion Simon.

No really.

Is my piece on British Parties should follow the US model and choose their nominees/leaders via primaries outside of Parliament, but look to the devolved assemblies/mayors.

'cept he is going to lose to Andy Street.

"Vote Street - the Quality candidate"

I'll get my coat.

Other brands of sickly sweet 'chocolates' are also available. But not at Waitrose.

isam

williamglenn said:

isam said:

Boo hoo it's not fair, white males aren't all tube gropers etc etc

Couldn't that be read not as anti-white propaganda, but as giving people implicit permission to refer to racial characteristics when making reports?

Yes could be. Hope so. I didn't really think it was anti white propaganda, I just imagined the outcry if it were any other colour

Bit harsh on EU immigrants I thought!

rottenborough

PlatoSaid said:

This has been going on for a while. And now

National Rail
#LondonBridge - Metropolitan Police have requested that NO trains run through London Bridge until further notice.

Eh?

BudG

Cyan said:

BudG said:

Danny565 said:

Incidentally, now that the Republicans are clear that they won't be dumping Fillon, am I the only one who now thinks he's the favourite to win? For me, as flawed as he is, he seems the least implausible.

By process of elimination, Fillon is the one who I have the easiest time imagining getting over the line.

So, the conspiracy goes that Fillon agreed to have the scandal break and have himself investigated. Throughout this time, although his poll ratings would take a hit, he would maintain his innocence and vow to fight on, against seemingly impossible odds. As he has said all along, nobody but himself could remove him as a candidate and he courageously battled on, digging his heels in against all attempts to oust him.

So we move on to the meeting with the Magistrate next wednesday, two days before the final cut-off date for candidates.

At that meeting, the Magistrate decides that there is not enough evidence against him to indict him, that the investigators did not properly consider the evience he produced in his defence, or maybe he produces some late evidence that the Magistrate can consider which was not available to the investigators.

All charges are dropped. Fillon's defiance is vindicated and the brave, courageous and innocent Mr Fillon goes from zero to hero in a matter of minutes. He would romp home a very easy winner indeed in those circumstances.

Sometimes I spend too much time thinking about these matters!!

I don't buy what Fillon has said, which is that it's the left that's behind it. Dupont-Aignan has pointed the finger at Hollande. BS to that.

Fillon has got little chance, even if he's pronounced as clean as a whistle on Wednesday. Similarly it didn't do Clinton much good when the head of the FBI exonerated her shortly after saying he wanted to feel her collar. This is like the US Republican primaries, when the Trump campaign systematically took out the opposition one at a time. Macron has been accused of misusing public money too. But the focus is on Fillon. Macron will be next to face big flak.

A lot of the souverainism versus globalism show is very arse about tits. It's the cosseted énarque elite resisting Le Pen, and currently backing Macron - an absurd candidate in some ways - who in a sense are standing up for (their) France, and Le Pen who represents some kind of globalism.



Really?

I disagree. Fillon was favourite before the scandal broke and in my opinion would be favourite again within a short time, in the unlikely event of being totally cleared.

FrancisUrquhart

Suspicious vehicle apparently....lets hope it is just an amazon freelance delivery driver who took too long making a drop.

FrancisUrquhart

I notice tw@tter has added a periscope tab which is quite useful for live breaking events.

PlatoSaid

rottenborough said:

PlatoSaid said:

This has been going on for a while. And now

National Rail
#LondonBridge - Metropolitan Police have requested that NO trains run through London Bridge until further notice.

Eh?

Bomb robot now