Politico's take on the Dutch election night. They reckon the counting could be quick (mostly before midnight) but make no mention of the counting methods which we know have changed. I reckon it's an early morning rather than a late night, being three hours ahead of Holland. http://www.politico.eu/article/how-to-watch-the-dutch-election-like-a-pro/
Very good first day thanks to UnTemps Pour Tout and Buveur D'Air, I opened an account with Paddys and got 10/1 the double Altior and Douvan, I guess I should lay some off.
Might Bite, Tombstone and Cause of Causes for me today, win singles, e/w treble.
Max bet on friday Native River, put it in a double with Dandridge in the last.
Be lucky
Have you strayed here from Nagbetting.com by mistake?
Saw others commenting on Cheltenham, this is a betting site after all
Very happy to have your contributions. PB is a come-all ye place, subject-wise and even if it wasn't we get enough about F1 and cricket on here which are, surely, among the most boring activities on the planet.
Could be an interesting one, given IIRC there was that ridiculous case last year where an estranged daughter left out of a will was awarded significant amounts by the courts despite explicit instructions from the mother.
Three animal charities have won a case at the Supreme Court against a woman cut out of her mother's will.
Thats the law. We should repeal the 75 Act if we don't like the law. The courts weren't making things up they enforced the law passed by Parliament.
I didn't say they were - I disliked the outcome in that case, but if that is the law it is what it is, I don't blame judges for following the law. I will just be curious, as a layperson, what the differences were in setting aside the wishes of the deceased in that case but not this one.
This is a travesty of a case in my opinion. The 1975 act was to stop dependant family being cut out. Healthy adult children that have no contact with their parents should not count.
I'd be interested to see how costs are awarded? Will it all come out of the estate. Or will the daughter have to pay?
It looks as if some deal was done between the parties during the course of the proceedings which will have included costs, so almost certainly I should think they would come out of the estate.
If you missed it, this was pretty funny - unless you hate Trump
Glenn Greewald Here's @andersoncooper on what Dems thought Maddow scoop would be: Trump not only got huge tax refund from US Govt but "was paid in rubles." https://t.co/BuEYvvy4bP
1. Knocking doors and delivering leaflets to build up the reputation of a local MP/councillor in between elections is a quite effective approach especially when you need to distract the electorate from the limitations of a national leader plumbing the depths of unpopularity.
2. In terms of "The search for the answers to Labour's woes", Yougov have another poll out of Labour party members: "Would X make a good or poor leader of the Labour Party if Jeremy Corbyn were to stand down" Net scores: Starmer +32 Lewis +24 Rayner +9 Jarvis +6 McDonnell +5 Umunna +4 Long Bailey +1 Nandy -2 Ashworth -6 Watson -22 Abbott -43
I reckon she is the one off that list that CCHQ would be most worried about facing. Talks sense, comes across well, young, female...what am I saying? This is the Labour membership we are talking about!
Nandy, Jarvis, Rayner, Long-Bailey and Ashworth have huge "don't know" scores in the poll if you follow the link. McDonnell and Umunna get polarised results - lots of fans, lots of opponents - while Watson and Abbott seem really not fancied as leaders by the membership. Starmer and Lewis both have lots of fans and not many opponents. In an actual context, I'd expect some of the "don't know" pack to become better known with a more marked result, but at present I think Lewis is probably the favourite - more left of centre than Starmer (right back to Harold Wilson it was said that the party is most effectivley led from the centre-left) but doesn't have the entrenched opposition that McDonnell and Umunna seem to have.
As an example, I suspect that both Southam Observer and I could live comfortably with Starmer or Lewis, though I remain a supporter of Corbyn and SO...not so much.
1. Knocking doors and delivering leaflets to build up the reputation of a local MP/councillor in between elections is a quite effective approach especially when you need to distract the electorate from the limitations of a national leader plumbing the depths of unpopularity.
2. In terms of "The search for the answers to Labour's woes", Yougov have another poll out of Labour party members: "Would X make a good or poor leader of the Labour Party if Jeremy Corbyn were to stand down" Net scores: Starmer +32 Lewis +24 Rayner +9 Jarvis +6 McDonnell +5 Umunna +4 Long Bailey +1 Nandy -2 Ashworth -6 Watson -22 Abbott -43
I reckon she is the one off that list that CCHQ would be most worried about facing. Talks sense, comes across well, young, female...what am I saying? This is the Labour membership we are talking about!
Nandy, Jarvis, Rayner, Long-Bailey and Ashworth have huge "don't know" scores in the poll if you follow the link. McDonnell and Umunna get polarised results - lots of fans, lots of opponents - while Watson and Abbott seem really not fancied as leaders by the membership. Starmer and Lewis both have lots of fans and not many opponents. In an actual context, I'd expect some of the "don't know" pack to become better known with a more marked result, but at present I think Lewis is probably the favourite - more left of centre than Starmer (right back to Harold Wilson it was said that the party is most effectivley led from the centre-left) but doesn't have the entrenched opposition that McDonnell and Umunna seem to have.
As an example, I suspect that both Southam Observer and I could live comfortably with Starmer or Lewis, though I remain a supporter of Corbyn and SO...not so much.
Lewis also has the correct chromosomes for a Labour Leadership Election unlike Nandy, Long-Bailey etc
1. Knocking doors and delivering leaflets to build up the reputation of a local MP/councillor in between elections is a quite effective approach especially when you need to distract the electorate from the limitations of a national leader plumbing the depths of unpopularity.
2. In terms of "The search for the answers to Labour's woes", Yougov have another poll out of Labour party members: "Would X make a good or poor leader of the Labour Party if Jeremy Corbyn were to stand down" Net scores: Starmer +32 Lewis +24 Rayner +9 Jarvis +6 McDonnell +5 Umunna +4 Long Bailey +1 Nandy -2 Ashworth -6 Watson -22 Abbott -43
I reckon she is the one off that list that CCHQ would be most worried about facing. Talks sense, comes across well, young, female...what am I saying? This is the Labour membership we are talking about!
Nandy, Jarvis, Rayner, Long-Bailey and Ashworth have huge "don't know" scores in the poll if you follow the link. McDonnell and Umunna get polarised results - lots of fans, lots of opponents - while Watson and Abbott seem really not fancied as leaders by the membership. Starmer and Lewis both have lots of fans and not many opponents. In an actual context, I'd expect some of the "don't know" pack to become better known with a more marked result, but at present I think Lewis is probably the favourite - more left of centre than Starmer (right back to Harold Wilson it was said that the party is most effectivley led from the centre-left) but doesn't have the entrenched opposition that McDonnell and Umunna seem to have.
If the contest was Nandy v Lewis v Starmer I think Nandy would win.
Could be an interesting one, given IIRC there was that ridiculous case last year where an estranged daughter left out of a will was awarded significant amounts by the courts despite explicit instructions from the mother.
Three animal charities have won a case at the Supreme Court against a woman cut out of her mother's will.
Thats the law. We should repeal the 75 Act if we don't like the law. The courts weren't making things up they enforced the law passed by Parliament.
I didn't say they were - I disliked the outcome in that case, but if that is the law it is what it is, I don't blame judges for following the law. I will just be curious, as a layperson, what the differences were in setting aside the wishes of the deceased in that case but not this one.
This is a travesty of a case in my opinion. The 1975 act was to stop dependant family being cut out. Healthy adult children that have no contact with their parents should not count.
I'd be interested to see how costs are awarded? Will it all come out of the estate. Or will the daughter have to pay?
The "ridiculous case" last year and the Supreme Court case this year are the same case.
The original judge decided that Mrs Ilott (the estranged daughter cut out of her mother's will) was entitled to reasonable provision from her mother's estate and awarded her £50,000 - a little over 10% of the estate. The Court of Appeal increased the award to £163,000. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the original judge could have awarded nothing at all and that, if he had, it is unlikely that an appeal would have succeeded. As his decision that Mrs Ilott was entitled to some provision was not legally flawed it has been upheld. However, their judgement today is very critical of the Court of Appeal. They find:
- the original judge did not make either of the errors attributed to him - the Court of Appeal attached too little weight to the deceased's wishes - the original judge was correct regarding the effect of his award on Mrs Ilott's benefits and the Court of Appeal was completely wrong in this regard - the process followed by the Court of Appeal in determining the award was contrary to the law - the original judge was correct to consider only Mrs Ilott's maintenance needs and the Court of Appeal's award of a lump sum to allow her to buy her house from the Housing Association was contrary to the law
As a result they have restored the original judgement, so Mrs Ilott is entitled to £50,000.
I understand there was an arrangement between the charities involved and Mrs Ilott regarding what would happen if the charities won the appeal. The details of this arrangement have not been made public.
Murdo Fraser 100,000 signatures in 1 day. The map is fascinating too... https://t.co/MZslNTbKly
"Another Scottish independence referendum should not be allowed to happen We in Scotland are fed up of persecution by the SNP leader who is solely intent on getting independence at any cost. As a result, Scotland is suffering hugely
My wife and I have just signed it . The response within Scotland is quite surprising and may be another indicator that Nicola has made her first big mistake, probably pushed into it by Salmond
"We in Scotland are fed up of persecution by the SNP leader" says Big_G_NorthWales and his wife.
Lol
Why lol - you do show a remarkable ignorance. My wife is a Scot with a lineage of generations so probably more so than you
Humourless, prickly yoons, always with the blood and soil stuff.
If you insult my wife with an ignorant comment you can expect to get it back in spades
Lol again.
Haven't a clue who you or your wife are. Pompous diddies who use the word lineage deserve getting the piss ripped out of them every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
And so you insult the ordinary fisher folk of North East Scotland - it is not me who is pompous
1. Knocking doors and delivering leaflets to build up the reputation of a local MP/councillor in between elections is a quite effective approach especially when you need to distract the electorate from the limitations of a national leader plumbing the depths of unpopularity.
2. In terms of "The search for the answers to Labour's woes", Yougov have another poll out of Labour party members: "Would X make a good or poor leader of the Labour Party if Jeremy Corbyn were to stand down" Net scores: Starmer +32 Lewis +24 Rayner +9 Jarvis +6 McDonnell +5 Umunna +4 Long Bailey +1 Nandy -2 Ashworth -6 Watson -22 Abbott -43
I reckon she is the one off that list that CCHQ would be most worried about facing. Talks sense, comes across well, young, female...what am I saying? This is the Labour membership we are talking about!
Nandy, Jarvis, Rayner, Long-Bailey and Ashworth have huge "don't know" scores in the poll if you follow the link. McDonnell and Umunna get polarised results - lots of fans, lots of opponents - while Watson and Abbott seem really not fancied as leaders by the membership. Starmer and Lewis both have lots of fans and not many opponents. In an actual context, I'd expect some of the "don't know" pack to become better known with a more marked result, but at present I think Lewis is probably the favourite - more left of centre than Starmer (right back to Harold Wilson it was said that the party is most effectivley led from the centre-left) but doesn't have the entrenched opposition that McDonnell and Umunna seem to have.
If the contest was Nandy v Lewis v Starmer I think Nandy would win.
1. Knocking doors and delivering leaflets to build up the reputation of a local MP/councillor in between elections is a quite effective approach especially when you need to distract the electorate from the limitations of a national leader plumbing the depths of unpopularity.
2. In terms of "The search for the answers to Labour's woes", Yougov have another poll out of Labour party members: "Would X make a good or poor leader of the Labour Party if Jeremy Corbyn were to stand down" Net scores: Starmer +32 Lewis +24 Rayner +9 Jarvis +6 McDonnell +5 Umunna +4 Long Bailey +1 Nandy -2 Ashworth -6 Watson -22 Abbott -43
I reckon she is the one off that list that CCHQ would be most worried about facing. Talks sense, comes across well, young, female...what am I saying? This is the Labour membership we are talking about!
Nandy, Jarvis, Rayner, Long-Bailey and Ashworth have huge "don't know" scores in the poll if you follow the link. McDonnell and Umunna get polarised results - lots of fans, lots of opponents - while Watson and Abbott seem really not fancied as leaders by the membership. Starmer and Lewis both have lots of fans and not many opponents. In an actual context, I'd expect some of the "don't know" pack to become better known with a more marked result, but at present I think Lewis is probably the favourite - more left of centre than Starmer (right back to Harold Wilson it was said that the party is most effectivley led from the centre-left) but doesn't have the entrenched opposition that McDonnell and Umunna seem to have.
If the contest was Nandy v Lewis v Starmer I think Nandy would win.
History suggests she'd lose in the first round.
Yep - but I think that many in Labour are achingly aware that the party has never elected a female leader and will want to make amends for that. Other things going for her: 1. She has clearly spent a lot of time thinking about where Labour is going wrong and developing solutions. 2. She is on the left of the party. 3. She represents a part of the country in which the party has a decent number of members.
David Davis says govt has not done economic assessment of impact of not reaching Brexit deal.
Then how can they say it's better than reaching a bad deal? The man's an idiot.
You've only just realised he's an idiot ?
David Davis says "it's not possible to calculate" the economic cost of leaving the Customs Union without a Brexit deal.
David Davis asked whether leaving the EU without a Brexit deal would be a bad thing: "We cannot quantify the outcome."
He adds: "It's not as frightening as some people say". Oh good.
You're being unfair to DD. He's actually coming over as extremely sensible, by far the most grown-up of the Brexiteers. This is a great and welcome surprise to me. He's also keeping the tone business-like, which is very good.
On the specific point, of course no deal is preferable to a bad deal, that's a simple statement of the obvious. A bad deal might, for example, be one where our EU friends insisted on a humoungous payment for nothing very much. Would we sign a deal where we had to fork out £50bn and still didn't get barrier-free access to the Single Market? Of course not.
I agree David Davis is the best of the three Brexiteers. At least he seems sincere and hard working.
no deal is preferable to a bad deal That on the other hand is a false dichotomy. No deal is practically impossible. The UK and the EU have to agree at the minimum on how to deal with the separation as well as on-going arrangements so that trade can still happen, finance can flow, aeroplanes can fly, people can travel etc etc. To an approximation, the more that can be agreed as quickly as possible, the better the deal will be. Arguments are a waste of time.
1. Knocking doors and delivering leaflets to build up the reputation of a local MP/councillor in between elections is a quite effective approach especially when you need to distract the electorate from the limitations of a national leader plumbing the depths of unpopularity.
2. In terms of "The search for the answers to Labour's woes", Yougov have another poll out of Labour party members: "Would X make a good or poor leader of the Labour Party if Jeremy Corbyn were to stand down" Net scores: Starmer +32 Lewis +24 Rayner +9 Jarvis +6 McDonnell +5 Umunna +4 Long Bailey +1 Nandy -2 Ashworth -6 Watson -22 Abbott -43
I reckon she is the one off that list that CCHQ would be most worried about facing. Talks sense, comes across well, young, female...what am I saying? This is the Labour membership we are talking about!
Nandy, Jarvis, Rayner, Long-Bailey and Ashworth have huge "don't know" scores in the poll if you follow the link. McDonnell and Umunna get polarised results - lots of fans, lots of opponents - while Watson and Abbott seem really not fancied as leaders by the membership. Starmer and Lewis both have lots of fans and not many opponents. In an actual context, I'd expect some of the "don't know" pack to become better known with a more marked result, but at present I think Lewis is probably the favourite - more left of centre than Starmer (right back to Harold Wilson it was said that the party is most effectivley led from the centre-left) but doesn't have the entrenched opposition that McDonnell and Umunna seem to have.
If the contest was Nandy v Lewis v Starmer I think Nandy would win.
History suggests she'd lose in the first round.
Yep - but I think that many in Labour are achingly aware that the party has never elected a female leader and will want to make amends for that. Other things going for her: 1. She has clearly spent a lot of time thinking about where Labour is going wrong and developing solutions. 2. She is on the left of the party. 3. She represents a part of the country in which the party has a decent number of members.
David Davis says govt has not done economic assessment of impact of not reaching Brexit deal.
Then how can they say it's better than reaching a bad deal? The man's an idiot.
You've only just realised he's an idiot ?
David Davis says "it's not possible to calculate" the economic cost of leaving the Customs Union without a Brexit deal.
David Davis asked whether leaving the EU without a Brexit deal would be a bad thing: "We cannot quantify the outcome."
He adds: "It's not as frightening as some people say". Oh good.
You're being unfair to DD. He's actually coming over as extremely sensible, by far the most grown-up of the Brexiteers. This is a great and welcome surprise to me. He's also keeping the tone business-like, which is very good.
On the specific point, of course no deal is preferable to a bad deal, that's a simple statement of the obvious. A bad deal might, for example, be one where our EU friends insisted on a humoungous payment for nothing very much. Would we sign a deal where we had to fork out £50bn and still didn't get barrier-free access to the Single Market? Of course not.
I agree David Davis is the best of the three Brexiteers. At least he seems sincere and hard working.
no deal is preferable to a bad deal That on the other hand is a false dichotomy. No deal is practically impossible. The UK and the EU have to agree at the minimum on how to deal with the separation as well as on-going arrangements so that trade can still happen, finance can flow, aeroplanes can fly, people can travel etc etc. To an approximation, the more that can be agreed as quickly as possible, the better the deal will be. Arguments are a waste of time.
I think that is right: no deal is also a deal. It is a WTO deal. Unless we somehow come out of negotiations with tariffs higher than the WTO then a(ny) deal will be better than "no" deal.
Alpha des Obeaux to win the RSA Novices Chase at 6/1. Top class form at Cheltenham last year when 2nd to Thistlecrack in the World hurdle. Trainer Mouse Morris appears quietly hopeful.
1. Knocking doors and delivering leaflets to build up the reputation of a local MP/councillor in between elections is a quite effective approach especially when you need to distract the electorate from the limitations of a national leader plumbing the depths of unpopularity.
2. In terms of "The search for the answers to Labour's woes", Yougov have another poll out of Labour party members: "Would X make a good or poor leader of the Labour Party if Jeremy Corbyn were to stand down" Net scores: Starmer +32 Lewis +24 Rayner +9 Jarvis +6 McDonnell +5 Umunna +4 Long Bailey +1 Nandy -2 Ashworth -6 Watson -22 Abbott -43
I reckon she is the one off that list that CCHQ would be most worried about facing. Talks sense, comes across well, young, female...what am I saying? This is the Labour membership we are talking about!
Nandy, Jarvis, Rayner, Long-Bailey and Ashworth have huge "don't know" scores in the poll if you follow the link. McDonnell and Umunna get polarised results - lots of fans, lots of opponents - while Watson and Abbott seem really not fancied as leaders by the membership. Starmer and Lewis both have lots of fans and not many opponents. In an actual context, I'd expect some of the "don't know" pack to become better known with a more marked result, but at present I think Lewis is probably the favourite - more left of centre than Starmer (right back to Harold Wilson it was said that the party is most effectivley led from the centre-left) but doesn't have the entrenched opposition that McDonnell and Umunna seem to have.
If the contest was Nandy v Lewis v Starmer I think Nandy would win.
History suggests she'd lose in the first round.
Yep - but I think that many in Labour are achingly aware that the party has never elected a female leader and will want to make amends for that. Other things going for her: 1. She has clearly spent a lot of time thinking about where Labour is going wrong and developing solutions. 2. She is on the left of the party. 3. She represents a part of the country in which the party has a decent number of members.
Is that many 'in the higher echelons' of the party
or
many 'voting' members of the party.
I am not sure that the average member is obsessed by equality as much as those who run the party. There could be a disconnect there.
Could be an interesting one, given IIRC there was that ridiculous case last year where an estranged daughter left out of a will was awarded significant amounts by the courts despite explicit instructions from the mother.
Thats the law. We should repeal the 75 Act if we don't like the law. The courts weren't making things up they enforced the law passed by Parliament.
I didn't say they were - I disliked the outcome in that case, but if that is the law it is what it is, I don't blame judges for following the law. I will just be curious, as a layperson, what the differences were in setting aside the wishes of the deceased in that case but not this one.
This is a travesty of a case in my opinion. The 1975 act was to stop dependant family being cut out. Healthy adult children that have no contact with their parents should not count.
I'd be interested to see how costs are awarded? Will it all come out of the estate. Or will the daughter have to pay?
The "ridiculous case" last year and the Supreme Court case this year are the same case.
The original judge decided that Mrs Ilott (the estranged daughter cut out of her mother's will) was entitled to reasonable provision from her mother's estate and awarded her £50,000 - a little over 10% of the estate. The Court of Appeal increased the award to £163,000. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the original judge could have awarded nothing at all and that, if he had, it is unlikely that an appeal would have succeeded. As his decision that Mrs Ilott was entitled to some provision was not legally flawed it has been upheld. However, their judgement today is very critical of the Court of Appeal. They find:
- the original judge did not make either of the errors attributed to him - the Court of Appeal attached too little weight to the deceased's wishes - the original judge was correct regarding the effect of his award on Mrs Ilott's benefits and the Court of Appeal was completely wrong in this regard - the process followed by the Court of Appeal in determining the award was contrary to the law - the original judge was correct to consider only Mrs Ilott's maintenance needs and the Court of Appeal's award of a lump sum to allow her to buy her house from the Housing Association was contrary to the law
As a result they have restored the original judgement, so Mrs Ilott is entitled to £50,000.
I understand there was an arrangement between the charities involved and Mrs Ilott regarding what would happen if the charities won the appeal. The details of this arrangement have not been made public.
So the government is in favour of complying with the letter and spirit of manifesto commitments? How can they possible deny Sturgeon her referendum in that case?
Predictable nonsense re weakness, lack of spine. Not convinced that the press and commentators were really worried about impact on Mr and Ms White-Van, more worried about how much extra they had to pay.
Remains to be seen if Corbyn can think on his feet or if he will just go blundering off at another tangent.
no deal is preferable to a bad deal That on the other hand is a false dichotomy. No deal is practically impossible. The UK and the EU have to agree at the minimum on how to deal with the separation as well as on-going arrangements so that trade can still happen, finance can flow, aeroplanes can fly, people can travel etc etc. To an approximation, the more that can be agreed as quickly as possible, the better the deal will be. Arguments are a waste of time.
You are right that there will be some deal, on issues such as those you mention. However, 'no deal' in this context means no free-trade deal offering tariffs and terms better than the WTO 'most favoured nation' status. That is certainly a possibility, although in my judgement relatively unlikely (say a 10% to 20% chance).
So the government is in favour of complying with the letter and spirit of manifesto commitments? How can they possible deny Sturgeon her referendum in that case?
Nandy, Jarvis, Rayner, Long-Bailey and Ashworth have huge "don't know" scores in the poll if you follow the link. McDonnell and Umunna get polarised results - lots of fans, lots of opponents - while Watson and Abbott seem really not fancied as leaders by the membership. Starmer and Lewis both have lots of fans and not many opponents. In an actual context, I'd expect some of the "don't know" pack to become better known with a more marked result, but at present I think Lewis is probably the favourite - more left of centre than Starmer (right back to Harold Wilson it was said that the party is most effectivley led from the centre-left) but doesn't have the entrenched opposition that McDonnell and Umunna seem to have.
As an example, I suspect that both Southam Observer and I could live comfortably with Starmer or Lewis, though I remain a supporter of Corbyn and SO...not so much.
I am still unsure why Jarvis continues to get a mention as a possible future leader. Yes he has a good backstory but what are his politics? What has he actually done since he became an MP? He reminds me of that lad Rory Stewart who everyone was talking about in the Conservative Party a few years ago, a nice CV but since being elected seems to have sunk without trace.
Rayner and Ashworth I don't think I have ever heard of. Long-Bailey from the little I have seen of her seems bloody clueless. As for Nandy, I did read an article of hers the other day which indicates she is at least starting to ask the right questions about the future of Labour though whether she has the ability to come up with good answers let alone the ability to lead the Party is another matter.
Of the "older" players: Umunna, has, I think, some very big and embarrassing skeletons in his cupboard which would probably make him unelectable to the membership and Starmer I cannot stand based on his time at the DPP - a nasty piece of work I doubt he could get many people to actually follow him, at least not for long.
Which seems to leave Lewis as the most likely winner. I might stick a tenner on him next time I go to the bookies.
“We didn’t create this mess, the clever d*cks at CCHQ [Conservative Campaign Headquarters] did, and I don’t see their professional reputations being trashed in the media.”
The initial c*ck-ups, ‘strategy’ and ineptitude with regard to this issue that has so negatively impacted our: lives, standing in our communities, standing amongst colleagues, families and our regard for particular parts of the Party centrally, and were all of CCHQ’s making…need to stop.”
MPs elected off the back of dodgy tactics cannot escape blame by pushing all responsibility onto others. If they were content to be part of the system, the focal point of the strategies, then tough, they deserve their reputations to be trashed. They may not have directed any of it personally, but if allegations are true they were complicit an ad they were th ones who personally benefited.
TMPM post 2020 is looking rather unlikely at this rate.
IMO, there's a good chance she'll be ousted by the right when brexit gets messy.
One shouldn't over-state it. The original mistake was a rookie error and an entirely unecessary self-inflicted wound, but fairly minor. All governments - even Blair in his majesty with a massive majority - do U-turns.
At least she's got one thing right here - if you're going to U-turn, do it quickly.
David Davis says govt has not done economic assessment of impact of not reaching Brexit deal.
Then how can they say it's better than reaching a bad deal? The man's an idiot.
You've only just realised he's an idiot ?
David Davis says "it's not possible to calculate" the economic cost of leaving the Customs Union without a Brexit deal.
David Davis asked whether leaving the EU without a Brexit deal would be a bad thing: "We cannot quantify the outcome."
He adds: "It's not as frightening as some people say". Oh good.
You're being unfair to DD. He's actually coming over as extremely sensible, by far the most grown-up of the Brexiteers. This is a great and welcome surprise to me. He's also keeping the tone business-like, which is very good.
On the specific point, of course no deal is preferable to a bad deal, that's a simple statement of the obvious. A bad deal might, for example, be one where our EU friends insisted on a humoungous payment for nothing very much. Would we sign a deal where we had to fork out £50bn and still didn't get barrier-free access to the Single Market? Of course not.
I agree David Davis is the best of the three Brexiteers. At least he seems sincere and hard working.
no deal is preferable to a bad deal That on the other hand is a false dichotomy. No deal is practically impossible. The UK and the EU have to agree at the minimum on how to deal with the separation as well as on-going arrangements so that trade can still happen, finance can flow, aeroplanes can fly, people can travel etc etc. To an approximation, the more that can be agreed as quickly as possible, the better the deal will be. Arguments are a waste of time.
I think that is right: no deal is also a deal. It is a WTO deal. Unless we somehow come out of negotiations with tariffs higher than the WTO then a(ny) deal will be better than "no" deal.
There's a really interesting coordinated counter-attack by Team Trump against the liberal MSM.
Tucker and Hannity threw accusations against NBC big boys last night re the Pussygate tape. They said NBC top brass tried to influence the election - and NBC refused to comment. NBC let's not forget paid Chelsea $600k for a few puff pieces.
It's fascinating to watch - Fox is now squishing the other cable channels - and even networks. More watched Trump's congressional speech on Fox than ABC.
The whole dynamic is shifting.
So Fox are no longer part of your MSM news conspiracy? It's hard to keep up as the membership changes depending on whether it supports you viewpoint...
NI increase dropped. A pity as it was a progressive measure. Where is the money coming from now?
To be announced i the Autumn. A pity I think, but I guess its a case of 'battles & wars' and keeping their powder dry....
Only 3 alternatives. More borrowing, more cuts, or more taxes on some other bugger. None seem appealing right now. I guess it would be politically easiest to pile it onto debt, but that hardly keeps a manifesto promise either.
Watch as students, public sector workers or the disabled are made to pay extra rather than tax the self employed properly
To be fair, there is an Inquiry into the current state of employment and in particular the gig economy, and it might have been wiser to wait for that.
However, according to the FT Liam Fox believes there’s far too many 'workers rights' in this country and once Brexit is out of the legislative way then lots of them should be withdrawn.
This government will not do anything that upsets the Tory right. It has been totally captured.
I once dated a CNN producer. I asked her why she did not chose to do on-screen stuff (she wrote most of the stories she produced, including the Dan Quayle potato-spelling story). She said that those who went in front of the camera became incredibly vain and that she was already vain enough.
I see Ed Conway manages to squeeze not one, but three photos of himself into his Twitter feed. I see what she meant.
Thats the law. We should repeal the 75 Act if we don't like the law. The courts weren't making things up they enforced the law passed by Parliament.
I didn't say they were - I disliked the outcome in that case, but if that is the law it is what it is, I don't blame judges for following the law. I will just be curious, as a layperson, what the differences were in setting aside the wishes of the deceased in that case but not this one.
This is a travesty of a case in my opinion. The 1975 act was to stop dependant family being cut out. Healthy adult children that have no contact with their parents should not count.
I'd be interested to see how costs are awarded? Will it all come out of the estate. Or will the daughter have to pay?
The "ridiculous case" last year and the Supreme Court case this year are the same case.
The original judge decided that Mrs Ilott (the estranged daughter cut out of her mother's will) was entitled to reasonable provision from her mother's estate and awarded her £50,000 - a little over 10% of the estate. The Court of Appeal increased the award to £163,000. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the original judge could have awarded nothing at all and that, if he had, it is unlikely that an appeal would have succeeded. As his decision that Mrs Ilott was entitled to some provision was not legally flawed it has been upheld. However, their judgement today is very critical of the Court of Appeal. They find:
- the original judge did not make either of the errors attributed to him - the Court of Appeal attached too little weight to the deceased's wishes - the original judge was correct regarding the effect of his award on Mrs Ilott's benefits and the Court of Appeal was completely wrong in this regard - the process followed by the Court of Appeal in determining the award was contrary to the law - the original judge was correct to consider only Mrs Ilott's maintenance needs and the Court of Appeal's award of a lump sum to allow her to buy her house from the Housing Association was contrary to the law
As a result they have restored the original judgement, so Mrs Ilott is entitled to £50,000.
I understand there was an arrangement between the charities involved and Mrs Ilott regarding what would happen if the charities won the appeal. The details of this arrangement have not been made public.
Interesting - I couldn't recall any of the names and haven't done any further googling this morn. Seems like it has mostly worked out.
Mrs May seems awfully flatfooted. She needs to learn that sometimes it's better to make the wrong decision quickly than the right decision slowly.
Most Osborne budgets (and even many Autumn Statements) resulted in a u-turn too. This one has been done rather quickly, within a week and just in time before the first PMQs afterwards.
It seems the nature of modern politics is to announce a number of measures in a budget then retreat on the one that gets the most criticism.
So did I, but was shouted down at the time and told in no uncertain terms that there was absolutely no chance of the Treasury back-tracking on this.
So that's Part One of the battle won, Part Two relates to the even more anti-Tory bashing measure, spread over the last two budgets, firstly the scrapping last year of ACT, replaced by a miserable £5k annual allowance, followed this year by a more than halving of this allowance from £5k to £2k. How's about a serious bit of cost saving instead Mr Hammond by way of a change?
no deal is preferable to a bad deal That on the other hand is a false dichotomy. No deal is practically impossible. The UK and the EU have to agree at the minimum on how to deal with the separation as well as on-going arrangements so that trade can still happen, finance can flow, aeroplanes can fly, people can travel etc etc. To an approximation, the more that can be agreed as quickly as possible, the better the deal will be. Arguments are a waste of time.
You are right that there will be some deal, on issues such as those you mention. However, 'no deal' in this context means no free-trade deal offering tariffs and terms better than the WTO 'most favoured nation' status. That is certainly a possibility, although in my judgement relatively unlikely (say a 10% to 20% chance).
The issue is in the way that Davis and May are approaching the negotiations. The "no deal" ISthe "bad deal" in those terms. Specifically on the €60 billion claim, rather than saying "No way. We'll walk out otherwise.", which they can't actually do, they could say, "What do we get for that?" and take it from there. Or at least try to move the talks to areas of mutual benefit. Aim to keep it expansive. The EU will win any hardball contest and we would definitely end up with the bad deal/"no deal" result.
The government abandons one of their few progressive measures after a couple bad headlines. I figured they would, but disappointing nonetheless.
What I can't understand is the stupidity of the whole affair? Surely they were aware there would be a right wing backlash? Entirely obvious. Don't announce it in the first place in that case.
I am not a hater of May, and despite not supporting brexit I do recognise the challenging balancing acts she has ahead. But she reminds me of nick clegg after 2010: dealt a bad hand, and playing it poorly.
NI increase dropped. A pity as it was a progressive measure. Where is the money coming from now?
To be announced i the Autumn. A pity I think, but I guess its a case of 'battles & wars' and keeping their powder dry....
Only 3 alternatives. More borrowing, more cuts, or more taxes on some other bugger. None seem appealing right now. I guess it would be politically easiest to pile it onto debt, but that hardly keeps a manifesto promise.
Some manifesto promises are worth more than others, it would seem.
Personally, I'm disappointed. If May and Hammond are competent then they must have decided that, despite the manifesto commitment, things have changed and this was the best option, and therefore to u-turn because of a media campaign and a few backbenchers is being too cowardly to make that argument. If it was not a good policy and can be so easily overturned now they have noticed it was bad, then they were incompetent to include it (and May cannot pretend it was just Hammond, she must have signed off on what went before parliament before).
I'm fine with u-turns where it is justified with a rational explanation of why someone was wrong in the first place or that things have changed now, and I don't think those arguing for a u-turn have initially done a good enough job explaining why it was needed.
NI increase dropped. A pity as it was a progressive measure. Where is the money coming from now?
To be announced i the Autumn. A pity I think, but I guess its a case of 'battles & wars' and keeping their powder dry....
Only 3 alternatives. More borrowing, more cuts, or more taxes on some other bugger. None seem appealing right now. I guess it would be politically easiest to pile it onto debt, but that hardly keeps a manifesto promise.
Some manifesto promises are worth more than others, it would seem.
Personally, I'm disappointed. If May and Hammond are competent then they must have decided that, despite the manifesto commitment, things have changed and this was the best option, and therefore to u-turn because of a media campaign and a few backbenchers is being too cowardly to make that argument. If it was not a good policy and can be so easily overturned now they have noticed it was bad, then they were incompetent to include it (and May cannot pretend it was just Hammond, she must have signed off on what went before parliament before).
I'm fine with u-turns where it is justified with a rational explanation of why someone was wrong in the first place or that things have changed now, and I don't think those arguing for a u-turn have initially done a good enough job explaining why it was needed.
The root of the problem was that neither Theresa May nor Philip Hammond could count. No measure is going to get passed if it doesn't command a majority in the House of Commons.
They have demonstrated themselves to be moveable bodies. That encourages every political force out there to try its luck.
It seems the nature of modern politics is to announce a number of measures in a budget then retreat on the one that gets the most criticism.
What were the other bold measures in Phil's budget that escaped criticism?
I'm not sure since it escaped criticism. Had the NICs measure not been there though I bet my bottom pound something else would have attracted criticism instead. Just as nature abhors a vacuum so too do the media.
Mr. Borough, what about those who shun technology? I recall hearing of a Quaker firm with which my brother did business. He was very impressed by their efficiency, but their sole technological device was a landline telephone. Everything else was paper and ink.
I think the unemployment statistics should be taken with a large pinch of salt, since in many western countries there are large numbers of people who are not included in any of the employment or unemployment statistics because they don't actively seek work. Lots of people have given up completely and they often don't show up in the figures.
(((Dan Hodges)))Verified account @DPJHodges 48s49 seconds ago More May has just announced the most staggering U-turn in Budget history. It has been turned into a humiliation for the leader of the opposition.
And then didn't even ask a question! What a joke the guy is....
It is way beyond a joke now. Again, we ask, what the hell is wrong with the people who continue to support him? Can they not see how bad it is getting.
Ruth Lea #IMF to upgrade UK growth forecast - again. Forecasting establishment all wrong about post-#Brexit vote economy. https://t.co/QXM9eY2FDB
I would be surprised if they upgraded it much, because the UK PMI data was disappointing for February, while inflation data has been slightly stronger than expected.
(((Dan Hodges)))Verified account @DPJHodges 48s49 seconds ago More May has just announced the most staggering U-turn in Budget history. It has been turned into a humiliation for the leader of the opposition.
A bigger humiliation than Brown's 10p tax abolition? Don't think so.
Comments
http://www.politico.eu/article/how-to-watch-the-dutch-election-like-a-pro/
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0203-judgment.pdf
It looks as if some deal was done between the parties during the course of the proceedings which will have included costs, so almost certainly I should think they would come out of the estate.
Tips on nags which lose miserably, less so.
Glenn Greewald
Here's @andersoncooper on what Dems thought Maddow scoop would be: Trump not only got huge tax refund from US Govt but "was paid in rubles." https://t.co/BuEYvvy4bP
As an example, I suspect that both Southam Observer and I could live comfortably with Starmer or Lewis, though I remain a supporter of Corbyn and SO...not so much.
The original judge decided that Mrs Ilott (the estranged daughter cut out of her mother's will) was entitled to reasonable provision from her mother's estate and awarded her £50,000 - a little over 10% of the estate. The Court of Appeal increased the award to £163,000. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the original judge could have awarded nothing at all and that, if he had, it is unlikely that an appeal would have succeeded. As his decision that Mrs Ilott was entitled to some provision was not legally flawed it has been upheld. However, their judgement today is very critical of the Court of Appeal. They find:
- the original judge did not make either of the errors attributed to him
- the Court of Appeal attached too little weight to the deceased's wishes
- the original judge was correct regarding the effect of his award on Mrs Ilott's benefits and the Court of Appeal was completely wrong in this regard
- the process followed by the Court of Appeal in determining the award was contrary to the law
- the original judge was correct to consider only Mrs Ilott's maintenance needs and the Court of Appeal's award of a lump sum to allow her to buy her house from the Housing Association was contrary to the law
As a result they have restored the original judgement, so Mrs Ilott is entitled to £50,000.
I understand there was an arrangement between the charities involved and Mrs Ilott regarding what would happen if the charities won the appeal. The details of this arrangement have not been made public.
1. She has clearly spent a lot of time thinking about where Labour is going wrong and developing solutions.
2. She is on the left of the party.
3. She represents a part of the country in which the party has a decent number of members.
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/841977464414965765
no deal is preferable to a bad deal That on the other hand is a false dichotomy. No deal is practically impossible. The UK and the EU have to agree at the minimum on how to deal with the separation as well as on-going arrangements so that trade can still happen, finance can flow, aeroplanes can fly, people can travel etc etc. To an approximation, the more that can be agreed as quickly as possible, the better the deal will be. Arguments are a waste of time.
Edit: who looks worse, him or her?
This government will not do anything that upsets the Tory right. It has been totally captured.
window dressing
Mr. Topping, I'd argue the more intriguing question is whether this is an indication of the Cabinet's collective authority.
Alpha des Obeaux to win the RSA Novices Chase at 6/1. Top class form at Cheltenham last year when 2nd to Thistlecrack in the World hurdle. Trainer Mouse Morris appears quietly hopeful.
or
many 'voting' members of the party.
I am not sure that the average member is obsessed by equality as much as those who run the party. There could be a disconnect there.
To be announced i the Autumn. A pity I think, but I guess its a case of 'battles & wars' and keeping their powder dry....
ps. surprised, but happy you are still speaking to me after my F1 comments.
Predictable nonsense re weakness, lack of spine. Not convinced that the press and commentators were really worried about impact on Mr and Ms White-Van, more worried about how much extra they had to pay.
Remains to be seen if Corbyn can think on his feet or if he will just go blundering off at another tangent.
Matt Drudge
TRUMP PAID HIGHER TAX RATE [25%] THAN MSNBC COMCAST [24%].. AND MUCH HIGHER THAN OBAMA [19%]
https://t.co/u6NjyCzLfm
https://t.co/h6cbETEDMx
#IMF to upgrade UK growth forecast - again. Forecasting establishment all wrong about post-#Brexit vote economy. https://t.co/QXM9eY2FDB
IMO, there's a good chance she'll be ousted by the right when brexit gets messy.
really its all bollocks
Rayner and Ashworth I don't think I have ever heard of. Long-Bailey from the little I have seen of her seems bloody clueless. As for Nandy, I did read an article of hers the other day which indicates she is at least starting to ask the right questions about the future of Labour though whether she has the ability to come up with good answers let alone the ability to lead the Party is another matter.
Of the "older" players: Umunna, has, I think, some very big and embarrassing skeletons in his cupboard which would probably make him unelectable to the membership and Starmer I cannot stand based on his time at the DPP - a nasty piece of work I doubt he could get many people to actually follow him, at least not for long.
Which seems to leave Lewis as the most likely winner. I might stick a tenner on him next time I go to the bookies.
Mrs May seems awfully flatfooted. She needs to learn that sometimes it's better to make the wrong decision quickly than the right decision slowly.
At least she's got one thing right here - if you're going to U-turn, do it quickly.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/841946368402948096
However, according to the FT Liam Fox believes there’s far too many 'workers rights' in this country and once Brexit is out of the legislative way then lots of them should be withdrawn.
I see Ed Conway manages to squeeze not one, but three photos of himself into his Twitter feed. I see what she meant.
Can't read the Hammond letter. What does it say?
https://twitter.com/montie/status/841978749214158849
It seems the nature of modern politics is to announce a number of measures in a budget then retreat on the one that gets the most criticism.
So that's Part One of the battle won, Part Two relates to the even more anti-Tory bashing measure, spread over the last two budgets, firstly the scrapping last year of ACT, replaced by a miserable £5k annual allowance, followed this year by a more than halving of this allowance from £5k to £2k. How's about a serious bit of cost saving instead Mr Hammond by way of a change?
What I can't understand is the stupidity of the whole affair? Surely they were aware there would be a right wing backlash? Entirely obvious. Don't announce it in the first place in that case.
I am not a hater of May, and despite not supporting brexit I do recognise the challenging balancing acts she has ahead. But she reminds me of nick clegg after 2010: dealt a bad hand, and playing it poorly.
Thatcher she ain't.
https://twitter.com/HalaGorani/status/841962475297882112/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Personally, I'm disappointed. If May and Hammond are competent then they must have decided that, despite the manifesto commitment, things have changed and this was the best option, and therefore to u-turn because of a media campaign and a few backbenchers is being too cowardly to make that argument. If it was not a good policy and can be so easily overturned now they have noticed it was bad, then they were incompetent to include it (and May cannot pretend it was just Hammond, she must have signed off on what went before parliament before).
I'm fine with u-turns where it is justified with a rational explanation of why someone was wrong in the first place or that things have changed now, and I don't think those arguing for a u-turn have initially done a good enough job explaining why it was needed.
They have demonstrated themselves to be moveable bodies. That encourages every political force out there to try its luck.
Mr. Borough, what about those who shun technology? I recall hearing of a Quaker firm with which my brother did business. He was very impressed by their efficiency, but their sole technological device was a landline telephone. Everything else was paper and ink.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-94708000-americans-not-labor-force-participation-rate-drops
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/14/more-and-more-americans-are-outside-the-labor-force-entirely-who-are-they/
More
May has just announced the most staggering U-turn in Budget history. It has been turned into a humiliation for the leader of the opposition.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/841984967332794368
The only other explanation is they made a big mistake, which I doubt they'd like to characterise it that way.
May: The Honourable Gentleman hasn't got the hang of this. He's supposed to ask me a question.
(laughter)
Bercow: Let's hear the answer!