Glen O'Hara on what the take away from the locals might be:
The coldest of cold takes will be this: 'ah, well, this and this doesn't match the polls, so they must be wrong'. Keep in mind that these are local elections. Lots of independents are standing. Loads of local issues are in play. Some voters will vote tactically when they look at the shape of their own council, and in ways that they might not when choosing a Prime Minister. In 1983 and 1987, for instance, the Conservatives ended the night on a projected national share of the vote 'only' three per cent and six per cent ahead of Labour. In General Elections just a month or so later, they ended up sixteen and eleven points ahead - a dichotomy that looks likely to remain in place this time. So if the Conservatives lead at all when you see academics discussing the national vote share - even by just a few points - then the opposition parties could still be in deep trouble. As Mike Smithson over at politicalbetting.com has pointed out, this time voters know that there's about to be a General Election (they didn't in 1983 and 1987), and so national preferences will indeed shape these contests more than most. But the qualitative signs above - rather than the raw numbers - should still give you a good impression of who's hot (and who's not) as we gear up for the national contest that's now upon us.
Congratulations to Prince Philip on retiring in financial security at time of his choosing from a job he enjoys #forthemanynotthefew #waspi
From a Labour MP...
Is any of it not true?
That's hardly the point. MPs in safe seats generally get to "retire in financial security at time of their choosing from a job they enjoy". It's the snideness of the comment - the 'congratulations' - that grates.
Screenshotted and emailed to Guido.
She'll take it down but its too late.
Just remember, snitches get stitches.
You won't find a bigger defender of the monarchy than me.
I think my profile pic tells you were my loyalties lie
As does mine.
Republicanism baffles me. Can you honestly look at the choices confronting the Austrians and the Americans last year and the French this year and tell me an elected head of state would be an improvement?
I do not feel strongly about our sort of monarchy, either for or against, but....
I do feel that having a hereditary position at the top of the UK social pyramid enshrines the whole upper class / middle class / working class thing which I am not convinced is good for the UK. Having said that I think over the last 50 years class divisions are breaking down and getting blurred compared to pre-1970s (ish)
Just my 2 €¢
Indeed, I agree. Whilst the disgusting situation of the upper class and idle rich of the first half of c20 has largely dissipated it lives on to an extent in the establishment. The class war was 'won' by the rich, and they live out their life of victory in quiet splendour and power. There is, however, a bubbling resentment that no amount of neo liberalism has ever truly washed away and the WC, like the South, will come again.
Don't most people consider themselves middle class now?
Yes born to be Head of state is archaic in a democratic society.Having said that the current Queen has been excellent in her position but in future it might not always be the case.
The monarchical system means you put up with the occasional imbecile as the quid pro quo for a mostly unchallengeable selection method. Avoiding disputed selection and the associated civil strife is deemed more important than the capabilities of the occupant of the throne.
In theory other people doing important jobs are there on merit, although it doesn't seem like it sometimes. The fact the monarch doesn't even have a theoretical requirement for competence is a little disturbing in the modern context.
If I were in charge, I'd make it mandatory for customers to be able to see lifetime p&l and ROI on their site.
Any idea why this isn't done ?
I mean I know what it is for Betfair exchange but no idea with Ladbrokes for instance.
If you were an occasional punter, because if you saw you were a net loser with say Ladbrokes and a few other bookies, you'd stop gambling, which is bad news for the bookies.
Not everyone keeps an excellent spreadsheet as you.
Republicanism baffles me. Can you honestly look at the choices confronting the Austrians and the Americans last year and the French this year and tell me an elected head of state would be an improvement?
I'm a strong believer in egalitarianism.
As a working class Pakistani heritage kid from the North, I was taught if I worked hard at school and in life, I could have every opportunity in life, which has turned out to be very true.
But sadly, you and I can't be the head of state, I find that wrong, would you support the principle of hereditary Prime Ministers?
As someone with Republican tendencies, I reckon the best thing that will happen for the cause, is when Charles is King.
What I support is a head of state who is above party politics. Electing people to the position defeats that object.
I'm not an egalitarian. I accept that there are things I can't do. I can't give birth or run 100m in 9 seconds of be Chief Rabbi. The idea that anybody can do anything is a fantasy, and a dangerous one. It's enough that most people can do most things, with luck, brains and application. In some ways I think having a role that only one individual can fill is quite salutary.
It is fascinating seeing your perspective through May tinted glasses.
First there is no conceivable way the UK will come out of this with a good deal. If it does, the other 27 members will pay close attention, and the EU will fall apart. Britain has to be punished for it's moment of populist folly otherwise the disease will spread and destroy the Union.
Second, the best person to get the deal must be someone who is capable of cultivating good relationships, socially adept, comfortable in their own shoes, jovial, humorous, diligent, hard working, reliable, intelligent, hard nosed, open minded, savvy, thick skinned, carries gravitas, able to compromise and empathise, pragmatic, charismatic.... Since we are leaving the EU the political affiliations of the person are much less important than their ability to strike a deal.
Since May carries few of the above, I would suggest it is in the UK's interests for her to remain as far away as possible.
David Davis is actually the best pic the Tories have as far as I can see. There could have been others, Osborne for instance, Mandelson another, Blair obviously, Cameron.....but May quite frankly needs to STFU because her interventions.... her control freakery, thin skin etc.... will be extremely damaging for the country.
I agree. Theresa's outburst yesterday could at best be described as unfortunate. That she allowed Juncker - a risible figure of fun - to get under her skin is ominous. Brexit and the associated negotiations are far too important to be hampered by the PM's vanity and sense of entitlement. If she isn't up to it, she should step aside and let DD take the reins.
Congratulations to Prince Philip on retiring in financial security at time of his choosing from a job he enjoys #forthemanynotthefew #waspi
From a Labour MP...
Is any of it not true?
That's hardly the point. MPs in safe seats generally get to "retire in financial security at time of their choosing from a job they enjoy". It's the snideness of the comment - the 'congratulations' - that grates.
Screenshotted and emailed to Guido.
She'll take it down but its too late.
Just remember, snitches get stitches.
You won't find a bigger defender of the monarchy than me.
I think my profile pic tells you were my loyalties lie
As does mine.
Republicanism baffles me. Can you honestly look at the choices confronting the Austrians and the Americans last year and the French this year and tell me an elected head of state would be an improvement?
I do not feel strongly about our sort of monarchy, either for or against, but....
I do feel that having a hereditary position at the top of the UK social pyramid enshrines the whole upper class / middle class / working class thing which I am not convinced is good for the UK. Having said that I think over the last 50 years class divisions are breaking down and getting blurred compared to pre-1970s (ish)
Just my 2 €¢
Indeed, I agree. Whilst the disgusting situation of the upper class and idle rich of the first half of c20 has largely dissipated it lives on to an extent in the establishment. The class war was 'won' by the rich, and they live out their life of victory in quiet splendour and power. There is, however, a bubbling resentment that no amount of neo liberalism has ever truly washed away and the WC, like the South, will come again.
Don't most people consider themselves middle class now?
At the moment it is most agreeable for the majority to identify as middle class, yes. That will not always be the case imo.
I do feel that having a hereditary position at the top of the UK social pyramid enshrines the whole upper class / middle class / working class thing which I am not convinced is good for the UK.
The monarchy is solely about social deference. It is the top point of the social pyramid. Of course it should be abolished. It is no coincidence that one of the most snobbish and class-ridden national cultures in the western world should have a monarchy.
By the way, do you notice something about your use of the term "UK"? I realise you don't say that you don't think the monarchy is good for the UK, but it would be self-contradictory if someone did say that. I never call the country the UK. The UK is a political regime that I oppose. It is not the country, any more than the Fifth Republic is France. The country is Britain. No doubt there will be some responses now telling me I'm technically wrong. They will be written by monarchists.
I'll take that. It might also be opposed by the Northern Irish, who get forgotten all the time. Britain is formal short form though, I think. If we go republican I expect we'll be the United Republic of etc etc - it is true the name of a country is in part political.
Are the Scandinavian monarchy societies known to be snobbish and class ridden? I've never been, but I thought they were much more equal. If so, it either is a coincidence, or you ascribe far too much influence on our snobbishness to a single factor.
By the way, do you notice something about your use of the term "UK"? I realise you don't say that you don't think the monarchy is good for the UK, but it would be self-contradictory if someone did say that. I never call the country the UK. The UK is a political regime that I oppose. It is not the country, any more than the Fifth Republic is France. The country is Britain. No doubt there will be some responses now telling me I'm technically wrong. They will be written by monarchist logic-choppers.
Britain in that sense is also a political construct. It's disingenuous to make the argument you just have and at the same time vehemently oppose the dissolution of the union with Scotland.
On yesterday's Downing Street speech by Theresa May she has laid down a marker to the EU and those negotiating that she will 'call out' those who treat confidential meetings as a way to brief the discussion in an attempt to compromise one side. The attitude of 'leaking' is crass and counter productive, but more than that it will be a brave Eurocrat who continues to 'leak' on these negotiations. I would expect that Juncker has seen the inside of Downing Street for the last time
Theresa May is surprising many and yesterday must have put many votes in her column and at the same time allowed her to paint those rushing to criticise her including, Corbyn, Sturgeon, Farron, Cooper and others of siding with the EU against the British interest.
This is a toxic position for the opposition to be in at this stage of the GE and frankly I do not see a way out of it for them. Yesterday this GE turned into Theresa May v those who want to harm Britain, or as she will repeat ‘ad nauseum’, the 'coalition of chaos'
The further arrogance of the EU is to ban the PM from talking to anyone other than Barnier re the divorce. If they think the UK PM is about to absent herself from the discussions with the National Leaders of the 27 Country’s they are more deluded than even I thought they are.
Theresa May will still attend the Leaders meetings as a full member and it may well be uncomfortable for some of the leaders but any idea they will stay united against the UK is absolute nonsense. Tell that to the Irish, Dutch and Danes together with the alliance they have founded in the last week to act as a buffer between the power house of Germany and France.
I do not entirely rule out us walking away and putting the 100 billion to use but that is not my preferred option. However, no matter how this evolves Theresa May v Corbyn to lead the Country is just no contest and hopefully the Country will provide her with a good mandate. The one thing the EU cannot afford is to be seen as a bully against the 5th largest Country with a Prime Minister wishing it success and wanting a close working relationship.
You're like Saddam's proaganda ministry. One good news story about the great leader follows anther.
Indeed, I agree. Whilst the disgusting situation of the upper class and idle rich of the first half of c20 has largely dissipated it lives on to an extent in the establishment. The class war was 'won' by the rich, and they live out their life of victory in quiet splendour and power. There is, however, a bubbling resentment that no amount of neo liberalism has ever truly washed away and the WC, like the South, will come again.
"The monarchy is solely about social deference. It is the top point of the social pyramid. Of course it should be abolished. It is no coincidence that one of the most snobbish and class-ridden national cultures in the western world should have a monarchy."
The Netherlands is snobbish and class-ridden? What about Denmark? Or Sweden?
Congratulations to Prince Philip on retiring in financial security at time of his choosing from a job he enjoys #forthemanynotthefew #waspi
From a Labour MP...
Is any of it not true?
That's hardly the point. MPs in safe seats generally get to "retire in financial security at time of their choosing from a job they enjoy". It's the snideness of the comment - the 'congratulations' - that grates.
Screenshotted and emailed to Guido.
She'll take it down but its too late.
Just remember, snitches get stitches.
You won't find a bigger defender of the monarchy than me.
I think my profile pic tells you were my loyalties lie
By the way, do you notice something about your use of the term "UK"? I realise you don't say that you don't think the monarchy is good for the UK, but it would be self-contradictory if someone did say that. I never call the country the UK. The UK is a political regime that I oppose. It is not the country, any more than the Fifth Republic is France. The country is Britain. No doubt there will be some responses now telling me I'm technically wrong. They will be written by monarchist logic-choppers.
Britain in that sense is also a political construct. It's disingenuous to make the argument you just have and at the same time vehemently oppose the dissolution of the union with Scotland.
I recall making a similar point when I was told British identity was something that did not exist but xxx identity was), it was just a construct, because get down to it all national barriers, all tribal barriers, are artificial, we're all just humans after all.
Congratulations to Prince Philip on retiring in financial security at time of his choosing from a job he enjoys #forthemanynotthefew #waspi
From a Labour MP...
Is any of it not true?
That's hardly the point. MPs in safe seats generally get to "retire in financial security at time of their choosing from a job they enjoy". It's the snideness of the comment - the 'congratulations' - that grates.
Screenshotted and emailed to Guido.
She'll take it down but its too late.
Just remember, snitches get stitches.
You won't find a bigger defender of the monarchy than me.
I think my profile pic tells you were my loyalties lie
As does mine.
Republicanism baffles me. Can you honestly look at the choices confronting the Austrians and the Americans last year and the French this year and tell me an elected head of state would be an improvement?
Yes born to be Head of state is archaic in a democratic society.Having said that the current Queen has been excellent in her position but in future it might not always be the case.
The fact that something strikes you as archaic doesn't make it a bad thing though. That's not an argument, it's a slogan.
No not a slogan. I honestly believe that you should not be born to be Head of state. The American dream that you can become head of state is more inspiring .Bill Clinton for example from his background made it .
Mr. Eagles, I'm surprised you want May to be head of state as well as head of government.
No, I believe we should have an elected head of state.
The problems with elected heads of state is that they tend to be pretty ruthless (after all - how did they get there?) - which means they try and consolidate power (There are any number of elected heads of state who have done that.), leading to either a dictatorship or civil war.
For the monarchy, ruthlessness is not a required attribute these days.
We’re writing to you with regards to your Betfair Sportsbook account.
Having reviewed your account, we are notifying you that your account will not be eligible for Betfair Sportsbook promotions, including Best Odds Guaranteed, in future.
We can assure you that this decision has only be taken after careful consideration and that it does not affect your ability to play on the Betfair Exchange and Betfair Gaming channels.
Kind Regards, Betfair Customer Services"
What is this about?
It means you're a winner.
Congratulations, Ishmael. You are part of the 2% of the population that makes money from betting.
Yes born to be Head of state is archaic in a democratic society.Having said that the current Queen has been excellent in her position but in future it might not always be the case.
The monarchical system means you put up with the occasional imbecile as the quid pro quo for a mostly unchallengeable selection method.
The monarch in this country is monarch by proclamation, not by right of succession to the eldest son or whatever. Just so long as they're a descendant of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, not a Catholic, etc. There is an "unchallengeable" proclamation from the balcony at St James's Palace, on behalf of the Accession Council, which "naturally" includes an {insert collective noun here} of officials from the City of London.
I am quite convinced that our titular monarchy is preferable to the alternatives. Even under Charles, on the basis that William will be King soon enough.
It is fascinating seeing your perspective through May tinted glasses.
First there is no conceivable way the UK will come out of this with a good deal. If it does, the other 27 members will pay close attention, and the EU will fall apart. Britain has to be punished for it's moment of populist folly otherwise the disease will spread and destroy the Union.
Second, the best person to get the deal must be someone who is capable of cultivating good relationships, socially adept, comfortable in their own shoes, jovial, humorous, diligent, hard working, reliable, intelligent, hard nosed, open minded, savvy, thick skinned, carries gravitas, able to compromise and empathise, pragmatic, charismatic.... Since we are leaving the EU the political affiliations of the person are much less important than their ability to strike a deal.
Since May carries few of the above, I would suggest it is in the UK's interests for her to remain as far away as possible.
David Davis is actually the best pic the Tories have as far as I can see. There could have been others, Osborne for instance, Mandelson another, Blair obviously, Cameron.....but May quite frankly needs to STFU because her interventions.... her control freakery, thin skin etc.... will be extremely damaging for the country.
I agree. Theresa's outburst yesterday could at best be described as unfortunate. That she allowed Juncker - a risible figure of fun - to get under her skin is ominous. Brexit and the associated negotiations are far too important to be hampered by the PM's vanity and sense of entitlement. If she isn't up to it, she should step aside and let DD take the reins.
A) negotiations are not derailed by single outbursts so it will have no impact unless you think the EU are fools and b) it is not certain he got under her skin, it is also possible she just used his leaking for political purposes by it allowing her to posture. Partisan and not helping anything, but not necessarily a sign if got to her, other than providing a political opportunity.
We’re writing to you with regards to your Betfair Sportsbook account.
Having reviewed your account, we are notifying you that your account will not be eligible for Betfair Sportsbook promotions, including Best Odds Guaranteed, in future.
We can assure you that this decision has only be taken after careful consideration and that it does not affect your ability to play on the Betfair Exchange and Betfair Gaming channels.
Kind Regards, Betfair Customer Services"
What is this about?
It means you're a winner.
They should overhaul their algorithms. I have, oddly, had a beginner's luck winning streak with them - brexit, stoke, Rutte, Macron - at £25 a go, but that just makes likely to get over-cocky and lose the farm to them. They should be flying me to Vegas.
Indeed, I agree. Whilst the disgusting situation of the upper class and idle rich of the first half of c20 has largely dissipated it lives on to an extent in the establishment. The class war was 'won' by the rich, and they live out their life of victory in quiet splendour and power. There is, however, a bubbling resentment that no amount of neo liberalism has ever truly washed away and the WC, like the South, will come again.
Well Indeed. Of course now the goalposts have been moved,along with the concept of poverty. That doesn't lessen the resentment of those in poverty as we understand it today.
Republicanism baffles me. Can you honestly look at the choices confronting the Austrians and the Americans last year and the French this year and tell me an elected head of state would be an improvement?
I'm a strong believer in egalitarianism.
As a working class Pakistani heritage kid from the North, I was taught if I worked hard at school and in life, I could have every opportunity in life, which has turned out to be very true.
But sadly, you and I can't be the head of state, I find that wrong, would you support the principle of hereditary Prime Ministers?
As someone with Republican tendencies, I reckon the best thing that will happen for the cause, is when Charles is King.
What I support is a head of state who is above party politics. Electing people to the position defeats that object.
I'm not an egalitarian. I accept that there are things I can't do. I can't give birth or run 100m in 9 seconds of be Chief Rabbi. The idea that anybody can do anything is a fantasy, and a dangerous one. It's enough that most people can do most things, with luck, brains and application. In some ways I think having a role that only one individual can fill is quite salutary.
Michael Higgins does a great job in Ireland and is widely admired.
The best arguments I see these days for keeping the Monarchy is that is better than having a politician as Head of State, and secondly the tourism it brings.
I suppose I should appreciate that our Royal family is primus inter pares of Royal families.
When the New York Times talks about 'The Royal Family' they aren't talking about the Dutch of Belgian one.
The class war was 'won' by the rich, and they live out their life of victory in quiet splendour and power. There is, however, a bubbling resentment that no amount of neo liberalism has ever truly washed away and the WC, like the South, will come again.
Don't most people consider themselves middle class now?
That article I linked to is quite funny because the Guardian's society columnist "social policy editor" scoffs throughout it about how the oiks are so stupid, they're only working class in their minds, they've clung to the old ways, etc. It is funny because the guy obviously has no clue about what he is supposedly paid to know about.
Congratulations to Prince Philip on retiring in financial security at time of his choosing from a job he enjoys #forthemanynotthefew #waspi
From a Labour MP...
Is any of it not true?
That's hardly the point. MPs in safe seats generally get to "retire in financial security at time of their choosing from a job they enjoy". It's the snideness of the comment - the 'congratulations' - that grates.
Screenshotted and emailed to Guido.
She'll take it down but its too late.
Just remember, snitches get stitches.
You won't find a bigger defender of the monarchy than me.
I think my profile pic tells you were my loyalties lie
As does mine.
Republicanism baffles me. Can you honestly look at the choices confronting the Austrians and the Americans last year and the French this year and tell me an elected head of state would be an improvement?
That's not a strong argument. Take the French elections this year, they had 11 candidates on the ballot, they had a choice to vote for whoever they wanted among them. Just because they chose potentially poor options does not mean it's better to have no choice at all. Ditto the Americans, who had the chance to vote in primary elections for many political parties, independents could have run had they so desired, and vote for whoever they want in the actual election. Again, they may have picked a poor choice, but that still beats no choice at all.
Now, in practical day-to-day terms, I don't have much of an issue with the monarchy, there are valid arguments around tourism benefits, providing a non politician to unite the country around etc, and the Queen has been a diligent public servant so I have much respect for her personally. I'd vote for a republic if there was ever a referendum but wouldn't particularly be agitated about getting a vote on it. But on the principles of the issue, it is far better to have a choice among potentially unpalatable candidates for your head of state, than it is to have one foisted upon you through hereditary selection.
Do you mean "very slow" by the standards of rural Devon, or "very slow" by the standards of everyone else? Because "very slow" for everyone else is fever pitch for rural Devon in my experience.
Is Corbyn proposing to make abolishing the monarchy Labour Party policy? NickP was agreeing the a guardian article that suggested he should go big and radical, all out, and that would certainly be it.
We’re writing to you with regards to your Betfair Sportsbook account.
Having reviewed your account, we are notifying you that your account will not be eligible for Betfair Sportsbook promotions, including Best Odds Guaranteed, in future.
We can assure you that this decision has only be taken after careful consideration and that it does not affect your ability to play on the Betfair Exchange and Betfair Gaming channels.
Kind Regards, Betfair Customer Services"
What is this about?
Congratulations, it means that you used promotional bets well and won a pile of money from them! They don't like you now, because you win, so won't be giving you any more promotions.
It is fascinating seeing your perspective through May tinted glasses.
First there is no conceivable way the UK will come out of this with a good deal. If it does, the other 27 members will pay close attention, and the EU will fall apart. Britain has to be punished for it's moment of populist folly otherwise the disease will spread and destroy the Union.
Second, the best person to get the deal must be someone who is capable of cultivating good relationships, socially adept, comfortable in their own shoes, jovial, humorous, diligent, hard working, reliable, intelligent, hard nosed, open minded, savvy, thick skinned, carries gravitas, able to compromise and empathise, pragmatic, charismatic.... Since we are leaving the EU the political affiliations of the person are much less important than their ability to strike a deal.
Since May carries few of the above, I would suggest it is in the UK's interests for her to remain as far away as possible.
David Davis is actually the best pic the Tories have as far as I can see. There could have been others, Osborne for instance, Mandelson another, Blair obviously, Cameron.....but May quite frankly needs to STFU because her interventions.... her control freakery, thin skin etc.... will be extremely damaging for the country.
I agree with your analysis, but I don't think Davis is a good negotiator except by comparison. He lacks flexibility and curiosity, which are important in giving the other side what they want to your greatest benefit and least cost. Hypothetical question. Is there anyone in the current cabinet, whether former Remainer or Leaver, who would make a better negotiator?
Then, as Britain trundled toward the 2016 referendum people began to assess the costs and benefits of EU membership. Crucially, a plurality accepted that Brexit would harm the economy, and probably their own finances as well. But most voters also felt that remaining in the EU would increase the risk of terrorism, harm Britain’s cultural life and erode sovereignty, while leaving the EU would mean less immigration. Identity concerns were already trumping economic self-interest. It is likely that Angela Merkel’s decision only a few months before the vote to allow large numbers of refugees into the EU sharpened this concern and entrenched a view that politicians (and the EU) were not in control of an issue that a large section of the electorate cared deeply about.
It is worth underlining the point that people accepted Brexit was a risk, a belief Cameron and Remainers sought to amplify through their elite-focused campaign...
....These immigration fears, hitherto confined to the politically incorrect margins, not abstract concerns about a ‘democratic deficit’ or rescuing UK sovereignty from Brussels bureaucrats, do much to explain why Britain voted for Brexit.
It is fascinating seeing your perspective through May tinted glasses.
First there is no conceivable way the UK will come out of this with a good deal. If it does, the other 27 members will pay close attention, and the EU will fall apart. Britain has to be punished for it's moment of populist folly otherwise the disease will spread and destroy the Union.
Second, the best person to get the deal must be someone who is capable of cultivating good relationships, socially adept, comfortable in their own shoes, jovial, humorous, diligent, hard working, reliable, intelligent, hard nosed, open minded, savvy, thick skinned, carries gravitas, able to compromise and empathise, pragmatic, charismatic.... Since we are leaving the EU the political affiliations of the person are much less important than their ability to strike a deal.
Since May carries few of the above, I would suggest it is in the UK's interests for her to remain as far away as possible.
David Davis is actually the best pic the Tories have as far as I can see. There could have been others, Osborne for instance, Mandelson another, Blair obviously, Cameron.....but May quite frankly needs to STFU because her interventions.... her control freakery, thin skin etc.... will be extremely damaging for the country.
Morning Tyson - If you think Theresa May will stand on the sidelines I think you will be dissappointed. However I hope a deal can be arrived at on citizens asap but unfortunately any idea they will stay under the ECJ for the rest of their lives is not going to happen.
As far as I am aware the conservative manifesto is going to include control of our borders, and the ending of the ECJ in our affairs. In those circumstances the ECJ will be replaced by our Supreme Court though a transistion period may be agreed
We’re writing to you with regards to your Betfair Sportsbook account.
Having reviewed your account, we are notifying you that your account will not be eligible for Betfair Sportsbook promotions, including Best Odds Guaranteed, in future.
We can assure you that this decision has only be taken after careful consideration and that it does not affect your ability to play on the Betfair Exchange and Betfair Gaming channels.
Kind Regards, Betfair Customer Services"
What is this about?
It means you're a winner.
It also means - keep on winning and we'll close your account altogether.
The class war was 'won' by the rich, and they live out their life of victory in quiet splendour and power. There is, however, a bubbling resentment that no amount of neo liberalism has ever truly washed away and the WC, like the South, will come again.
Don't most people consider themselves middle class now?
That article I linked to is quite funny because the Guardian's society columnist "social policy editor" scoffs throughout it about how the oiks are so stupid, they're only working class in their minds, they've clung to the old ways, etc. It is funny because the guy obviously has no clue about what he is supposedly paid to know about.
I assumed that because fewer people work in traditional 'working class' industries and more go to university that more people would presume they are middle class.
Mr. Eagles, I'm surprised you want May to be head of state as well as head of government.
No, I believe we should have an elected head of state.
The problems with elected heads of state is that they tend to be pretty ruthless (after all - how did they get there?) - which means they try and consolidate power (There are any number of elected heads of state who have done that.), leading to either a dictatorship or civil war.
For the monarchy, ruthlessness is not a required attribute these days.
See, whilst the Fixed-term Parliament Act had its critics, it at least got rid of the Lascelles principles which was based on a letter to The Times.
Let it sink in, the decision to grant (early) general elections was based on a letter to The Times.
In the wrong hands the monarch could be terrible for the country.
Just imagine if Edward VIII had decided not to abdicate and married Mrs Simpson, we would have had a general election, what would the general election campaign had been like?
Mr. Eagles, I'm surprised you want May to be head of state as well as head of government.
No, I believe we should have an elected head of state.
We have an elected head of state. Elected by God.
You're talking to an agnostic here, and only confirming my belief in the abolition of the monarchy.
Godspeed with your job relocation to the French Republic.
The real problem with hereditary royalty is the public obsession with the affairs, marriages, offspring, social events of all their relatives that have no consequence. Quite frankly its all very nauseating.
I'd be happy with a Pope kind of system for choosing a head of state.
Republicanism baffles me. Can you honestly look at the choices confronting the Austrians and the Americans last year and the French this year and tell me an elected head of state would be an improvement?
I'm a strong believer in egalitarianism.
As a working class Pakistani heritage kid from the North, I was taught if I worked hard at school and in life, I could have every opportunity in life, which has turned out to be very true.
But sadly, you and I can't be the head of state, I find that wrong, would you support the principle of hereditary Prime Ministers?
As someone with Republican tendencies, I reckon the best thing that will happen for the cause, is when Charles is King.
What I support is a head of state who is above party politics. Electing people to the position defeats that object.
I'm not an egalitarian. I accept that there are things I can't do. I can't give birth or run 100m in 9 seconds of be Chief Rabbi. The idea that anybody can do anything is a fantasy, and a dangerous one. It's enough that most people can do most things, with luck, brains and application. In some ways I think having a role that only one individual can fill is quite salutary.
Michael Higgins does a great job in Ireland and is widely admired.
The best arguments I see these days for keeping the Monarchy is that is better than having a politician as Head of State, and secondly the tourism it brings.
I suppose I should appreciate that our Royal family is primus inter pares of Royal families.
When the New York Times talks about 'The Royal Family' they aren't talking about the Dutch of Belgian one.
Actually I've always thought tourism was a lousy argument. How many tourists get to see The Queen?
We’re writing to you with regards to your Betfair Sportsbook account.
Having reviewed your account, we are notifying you that your account will not be eligible for Betfair Sportsbook promotions, including Best Odds Guaranteed, in future.
We can assure you that this decision has only be taken after careful consideration and that it does not affect your ability to play on the Betfair Exchange and Betfair Gaming channels.
Kind Regards, Betfair Customer Services"
What is this about?
It means you're a winner.
It also means - keep on winning and we'll close your account altogether.
Is Corbyn proposing to make abolishing the monarchy Labour Party policy? NickP was agreeing the a guardian article that suggested he should go big and radical, all out, and that would certainly be it.
I don’t think it needs a Labour policy, most people already assume Corbyn is anti-monarchist.
Is Corbyn proposing to make abolishing the monarchy Labour Party policy? NickP was agreeing the a guardian article that suggested he should go big and radical, all out, and that would certainly be it.
That would be great, but I doubt it will happen. If Corbyn had a stronger backbone he would say
• leave NATO • get rid of nuclear weapons • abolish the monarchy • smash the private schools by one means or another
Is Corbyn proposing to make abolishing the monarchy Labour Party policy? NickP was agreeing the a guardian article that suggested he should go big and radical, all out, and that would certainly be it.
I don’t think it needs a Labour policy, most people already assume Corbyn is anti-monarchist.
He is, but there is a difference between that and trying to make it party policy.
When we have a King in this country, their wives automatically become Queens.
So why didn't Prince Philip become King when his wife became Queen?
Is this everyday sexism in action?
Isn't it simply because, given inheritance down the male line until changed recently (#blamenickclegg), it was so uncommon for the monarch to be the Queen, that you could safely assume a reference to a Queen was to Queen Consort. Since a King Consort is unusual (although I believe the title has been conferred now and then), Prince Consort is more usual to avoid confusion. With the change in rules making a king or queen equally likely, check back in 200 years and it may well change. Indeed, there has been some talk of it changing for Kate in due course (and indeed Camilla may well not take the title for different reasons).
For most of the last 250 years, the British monarch has been female.
Yes, but even in that historically exceptional period, seven of our nine Queens have been Queens Consort.
Mr. Eagles, I'm surprised you want May to be head of state as well as head of government.
No, I believe we should have an elected head of state.
The problems with elected heads of state is that they tend to be pretty ruthless (after all - how did they get there?) - which means they try and consolidate power (There are any number of elected heads of state who have done that.), leading to either a dictatorship or civil war.
For the monarchy, ruthlessness is not a required attribute these days.
See, whilst the Fixed-term Parliament Act had its critics, it at least got rid of the Lascelles principles which was based on a letter to The Times.
Let it sink in, the decision to grant (early) general elections was based on a letter to The Times.
That's what gives us our charm!
But in an entirely ceremonial head of state position, even the wrong monarch would do little real damage - one step over the line and public opinion would shift quickly and boom we're a republic.
It is fascinating seeing your perspective through May tinted glasses.
First there is no conceivable way the UK will come out of this with a good deal. If it does, the other 27 members will pay close attention, and the EU will fall apart. Britain has to be punished for it's moment of populist folly otherwise the disease will spread and destroy the Union.
Second, the best person to get the deal must be someone who is capable of cultivating good relationships, socially adept, comfortable in their own shoes, jovial, humorous, diligent, hard working, reliable, intelligent, hard nosed, open minded, savvy, thick skinned, carries gravitas, able to compromise and empathise, pragmatic, charismatic.... Since we are leaving the EU the political affiliations of the person are much less important than their ability to strike a deal.
Since May carries few of the above, I would suggest it is in the UK's interests for her to remain as far away as possible.
David Davis is actually the best pic the Tories have as far as I can see. There could have been others, Osborne for instance, Mandelson another, Blair obviously, Cameron.....but May quite frankly needs to STFU because her interventions.... her control freakery, thin skin etc.... will be extremely damaging for the country.
Morning Tyson - If you think Theresa May will stand on the sidelines I think you will be dissappointed. However I hope a deal can be arrived at on citizens asap but unfortunately any idea they will stay under the ECJ for the rest of their lives is not going to happen.
As far as I am aware the conservative manifesto is going to include control of our borders, and the ending of the ECJ in our affairs. In those circumstances the ECJ will be replaced by our Supreme Court though a transistion period may be agreed
I fear you are right about May...that she is such an obsessional, control freak she will not be able to stop herself meddling....,.
that is precisely why I said yesterday the men in grey coats will be moving in approximately this time next year, and David Davis or Philip Hammond will be installed as the next PM......
Mr. Eagles, I'm surprised you want May to be head of state as well as head of government.
No, I believe we should have an elected head of state.
We have an elected head of state. Elected by God.
You're talking to an agnostic here, and only confirming my belief in the abolition of the monarchy.
Godspeed with your job relocation to the French Republic.
The real problem with hereditary royalty is the public obsession with the affairs, marriages, offspring, social events of all their relatives that have no consequence. Quite frankly its all very nauseating.
I'd be happy with a Pope kind of system for choosing a head of state.
Republicanism baffles me. Can you honestly look at the choices confronting the Austrians and the Americans last year and the French this year and tell me an elected head of state would be an improvement?
I'm a strong believer in egalitarianism.
As a working class Pakistani heritage kid from the North, I was taught if I worked hard at school and in life, I could have every opportunity in life, which has turned out to be very true.
But sadly, you and I can't be the head of state, I find that wrong, would you support the principle of hereditary Prime Ministers?
As someone with Republican tendencies, I reckon the best thing that will happen for the cause, is when Charles is King.
What I support is a head of state who is above party politics. Electing people to the position defeats that object.
I'm not an egalitarian. I accept that there are things I can't do. I can't give birth or run 100m in 9 seconds of be Chief Rabbi. The idea that anybody can do anything is a fantasy, and a dangerous one. It's enough that most people can do most things, with luck, brains and application. In some ways I think having a role that only one individual can fill is quite salutary.
Michael Higgins does a great job in Ireland and is widely admired.
The best arguments I see these days for keeping the Monarchy is that is better than having a politician as Head of State, and secondly the tourism it brings.
I suppose I should appreciate that our Royal family is primus inter pares of Royal families.
When the New York Times talks about 'The Royal Family' they aren't talking about the Dutch of Belgian one.
Actually I've always thought tourism was a lousy argument. How many tourists get to see The Queen?
Is Corbyn proposing to make abolishing the monarchy Labour Party policy? NickP was agreeing the a guardian article that suggested he should go big and radical, all out, and that would certainly be it.
That would be great, but I doubt it will happen. If Corbyn had a stronger backbone he would say
• leave NATO • get rid of nuclear weapons • abolish the monarchy • smash the private schools by one means or another
It'd be interesting to see just how low the poll ratings go.
Is Corbyn proposing to make abolishing the monarchy Labour Party policy? NickP was agreeing the a guardian article that suggested he should go big and radical, all out, and that would certainly be it.
I don’t think it needs a Labour policy, most people already assume Corbyn is anti-monarchist.
There's an immense difference between something being Labour policy and being Corbyn's view.
I'm not sure Corbyn himself has ever fully understood the difference but, if we entertain for a crazy moment the possibility he could be PM in June, he might conceivably be able to enact official Labour policies in the manifesto (even if some MPs grumble about it), but there is zero chance of him being able to do anything about his republican views other than on the margins.
It is fascinating seeing your perspective through May tinted glasses.
First there is no conceivable way the UK will come out of this with a good deal. If it does, the other 27 members will pay close attention, and the EU will fall apart. Britain has to be punished for it's moment of populist folly otherwise the disease will spread and destroy the Union.
Second, the best person to get the deal must be someone who is capable of cultivating good relationships, socially adept, comfortable in their own shoes, jovial, humorous, diligent, hard working, reliable, intelligent, hard nosed, open minded, savvy, thick skinned, carries gravitas, able to compromise and empathise, pragmatic, charismatic.... Since we are leaving the EU the political affiliations of the person are much less important than their ability to strike a deal.
Since May carries few of the above, I would suggest it is in the UK's interests for her to remain as far away as possible.
David Davis is actually the best pic the Tories have as far as I can see. There could have been others, Osborne for instance, Mandelson another, Blair obviously, Cameron.....but May quite frankly needs to STFU because her interventions.... her control freakery, thin skin etc.... will be extremely damaging for the country.
Morning Tyson - If you think Theresa May will stand on the sidelines I think you will be dissappointed. However I hope a deal can be arrived at on citizens asap but unfortunately any idea they will stay under the ECJ for the rest of their lives is not going to happen.
As far as I am aware the conservative manifesto is going to include control of our borders, and the ending of the ECJ in our affairs. In those circumstances the ECJ will be replaced by our Supreme Court though a transistion period may be agreed
I fear you are right about May...that she is such an obsessional, control freak she will not be able to stop herself meddling....,.
that is precisely why I said yesterday the men in grey coats will be moving in approximately this time next year, and David Davis or Philip Hammond will be installed as the next PM......
Republicanism baffles me. Can you honestly look at the choices confronting the Austrians and the Americans last year and the French this year and tell me an elected head of state would be an improvement?
I'm a strong believer in egalitarianism.
As a working class Pakistani heritage kid from the North, I was taught if I worked hard at school and in life, I could have every opportunity in life, which has turned out to be very true.
But sadly, you and I can't be the head of state, I find that wrong, would you support the principle of hereditary Prime Ministers?
As someone with Republican tendencies, I reckon the best thing that will happen for the cause, is when Charles is King.
What I support is a head of state who is above party politics. Electing people to the position defeats that object.
I'm not an egalitarian. I accept that there are things I can't do. I can't give birth or run 100m in 9 seconds of be Chief Rabbi. The idea that anybody can do anything is a fantasy, and a dangerous one. It's enough that most people can do most things, with luck, brains and application. In some ways I think having a role that only one individual can fill is quite salutary.
Michael Higgins does a great job in Ireland and is widely admired.
The best arguments I see these days for keeping the Monarchy is that is better than having a politician as Head of State, and secondly the tourism it brings.
I suppose I should appreciate that our Royal family is primus inter pares of Royal families.
When the New York Times talks about 'The Royal Family' they aren't talking about the Dutch of Belgian one.
Actually I've always thought tourism was a lousy argument. How many tourists get to see The Queen?
It is tourists visit Versailles and to see the Whitehouse .They would still visit London whether we had a monarchy or not.
It is fascinating seeing your perspective through May tinted glasses.
First there is no conceivable way the UK will come out of this with a good deal. If it does, the other 27 members will pay close attention, and the EU will fall apart. Britain has to be punished for it's moment of populist folly otherwise the disease will spread and destroy the Union.
Second, the best person to get the deal must be someone who is capable of cultivating good relationships, socially adept, comfortable in their own shoes, jovial, humorous, diligent, hard working, reliable, intelligent, hard nosed, open minded, savvy, thick skinned, carries gravitas, able to compromise and empathise, pragmatic, charismatic.... Since we are leaving the EU the political affiliations of the person are much less important than their ability to strike a deal.
Since May carries few of the above, I would suggest it is in the UK's interests for her to remain as far away as possible.
David Davis is actually the best pic the Tories have as far as I can see. There could have been others, Osborne for instance, Mandelson another, Blair obviously, Cameron.....but May quite frankly needs to STFU because her interventions.... her control freakery, thin skin etc.... will be extremely damaging for the country.
Morning Tyson - If you think Theresa May will stand on the sidelines I think you will be dissappointed. However I hope a deal can be arrived at on citizens asap but unfortunately any idea they will stay under the ECJ for the rest of their lives is not going to happen.
As far as I am aware the conservative manifesto is going to include control of our borders, and the ending of the ECJ in our affairs. In those circumstances the ECJ will be replaced by our Supreme Court though a transistion period may be agreed
I fear you are right about May...that she is such an obsessional, control freak she will not be able to stop herself meddling....,.
that is precisely why I said yesterday the men in grey coats will be moving in approximately this time next year, and David Davis or Philip Hammond will be installed as the next PM......
It won't be Hammond or Davis, too many enemies/critics in the party.
It is fascinating seeing your perspective through May tinted glasses.
First there is no conceivable way the UK will come out of this with a good deal. If it does, the other 27 members will pay close attention, and the EU will fall apart. Britain has to be punished for it's moment of populist folly otherwise the disease will spread and destroy the Union.
Second, the best person to get the deal must be someone who is capable of cultivating good relationships, socially adept, comfortable in their own shoes, jovial, humorous, diligent, hard working, reliable, intelligent, hard nosed, open minded, savvy, thick skinned, carries gravitas, able to compromise and empathise, pragmatic, charismatic.... Since we are leaving the EU the political affiliations of the person are much less important than their ability to strike a deal.
Since May carries few of the above, I would suggest it is in the UK's interests for her to remain as far away as possible.
David Davis is actually the best pic the Tories have as far as I can see. There could have been others, Osborne for instance, Mandelson another, Blair obviously, Cameron.....but May quite frankly needs to STFU because her interventions.... her control freakery, thin skin etc.... will be extremely damaging for the country.
Morning Tyson - If you think Theresa May will stand on the sidelines I think you will be dissappointed. However I hope a deal can be arrived at on citizens asap but unfortunately any idea they will stay under the ECJ for the rest of their lives is not going to happen.
As far as I am aware the conservative manifesto is going to include control of our borders, and the ending of the ECJ in our affairs. In those circumstances the ECJ will be replaced by our Supreme Court though a transistion period may be agreed
I fear you are right about May...that she is such an obsessional, control freak she will not be able to stop herself meddling....,.
that is precisely why I said yesterday the men in grey coats will be moving in approximately this time next year, and David Davis or Philip Hammond will be installed as the next PM......
It won't be Hammond or Davis, too many enemies/critics in the party.
Spreadex's Tory and Labour GE Total Seats spreads have shifted quite significantly this morning with the Tories UP six seats at a mid-spread of 393 with Labour DOWN by six seats on 158 ..... I believe these represent new high and low points respectively.
Surprisingly, Sporting's spreads haven't yet moved and remain on a mid point 387 for the Tories and 164 for Labour, a difference of 6 seats, i.e. the full extent of the spread, between the two firms.
Sporting have now followed Spreadex, marginally increasing their mid-spread for the Tories by just two seats to 389 and decreasing that of Labour by the same extent to 162 seats.
Presumably this is in the wake of YouGov's latest poll and it seems likely that the fixed odds bookies will follow suit in relation to their total seats over/under you choose markets.
A Conservative candidate has been awarded a £338,000 payout after winning a libel case against Iranian state television channel Press TV.
The channel falsely accused Nadhim Zahawi, who is of Kurdish background and was born in Iraq, of facilitating the trade in oil between Isil and Israel.
The broadcaster has been ordered to pay Mr Zahawi £200,000 in damages and over £138,000 in costs after the judge described the defamatory allegations as "exceptionally grave".
Republicanism baffles me. Can you honestly look at the choices confronting the Austrians and the Americans last year and the French this year and tell me an elected head of state would be an improvement?
I'm a strong believer in egalitarianism.
As a working class Pakistani heritage kid from the North, I was taught if I worked hard at school and in life, I could have every opportunity in life, which has turned out to be very true.
But sadly, you and I can't be the head of state, I find that wrong, would you support the principle of hereditary Prime Ministers?
As someone with Republican tendencies, I reckon the best thing that will happen for the cause, is when Charles is King.
What I support is a head of state who is above party politics. Electing people to the position defeats that object.
I'm not an egalitarian. I accept that there are things I can't do. I can't give birth or run 100m in 9 seconds of be Chief Rabbi. The idea that anybody can do anything is a fantasy, and a dangerous one. It's enough that most people can do most things, with luck, brains and application. In some ways I think having a role that only one individual can fill is quite salutary.
Michael Higgins does a great job in Ireland and is widely admired.
The best arguments I see these days for keeping the Monarchy is that is better than having a politician as Head of State, and secondly the tourism it brings.
I suppose I should appreciate that our Royal family is primus inter pares of Royal families.
When the New York Times talks about 'The Royal Family' they aren't talking about the Dutch of Belgian one.
Actually I've always thought tourism was a lousy argument. How many tourists get to see The Queen?
It is tourists visit Versailles and to see the Whitehouse .They would still visit London whether we had a monarchy or not.
I'm not a monarchist myself (although nor am I rabidly republican). But I do basically see the argument that part of the "brand" in the UK is that it's a living monarchy.
When a tourist goes to Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle, they get the added frisson of feeling they are in the home of one of the world's biggest celebs, rather than a preserved relic of a long dead historical figure they don't know much about.
I'm not saying that's a particularly attractive thing about tourists and tourism, and the view of Britain as a "living museum" is grating and unhelpful in many ways, but that's the brand and that's how a lot of people feel.
It is fascinating seeing your perspective through May tinted glasses.
First there is no conceivable way the UK will come out of this with a good deal. If it does, the other 27 members will pay close attention, and the EU will fall apart. Britain has to be punished for it's moment of populist folly otherwise the disease will spread and destroy the Union.
Second, the best person to get the deal must be someone who is capable of cultivating good relationships, socially adept, comfortable in their own shoes, jovial, humorous, diligent, hard working, reliable, intelligent, hard nosed, open minded, savvy, thick skinned, carries gravitas, able to compromise and empathise, pragmatic, charismatic.... Since we are leaving the EU the political affiliations of the person are much less important than their ability to strike a deal.
Since May carries few of the above, I would suggest it is in the UK's interests for her to remain as far away as possible.
David Davis is actually the best pic the Tories have as far as I can see. There could have been others, Osborne for instance, Mandelson another, Blair obviously, Cameron.....but May quite frankly needs to STFU because her interventions.... her control freakery, thin skin etc.... will be extremely damaging for the country.
Morning Tyson - If you think Theresa May will stand on the sidelines I think you will be dissappointed. However I hope a deal can be arrived at on citizens asap but unfortunately any idea they will stay under the ECJ for the rest of their lives is not going to happen.
As far as I am aware the conservative manifesto is going to include control of our borders, and the ending of the ECJ in our affairs. In those circumstances the ECJ will be replaced by our Supreme Court though a transistion period may be agreed
I fear you are right about May...that she is such an obsessional, control freak she will not be able to stop herself meddling....,.
that is precisely why I said yesterday the men in grey coats will be moving in approximately this time next year, and David Davis or Philip Hammond will be installed as the next PM......
It won't be Hammond or Davis, too many enemies/critics in the party.
It'll be Sir Michael Fallon.
It will not be anybody
They've been whinging about May since she got the job.....if only the voters had the same point of view, they might have a point....
It is fascinating seeing your perspective through May tinted glasses.
First there is no conceivable way the UK will come out of this with a good deal. If it does, the other 27 members will pay close attention, and the EU will fall apart. Britain has to be punished for it's moment of populist folly otherwise the disease will spread and destroy the Union.
Second, the best person to get the deal must be someone who is capable of cultivating good relationships, socially adept, comfortable in their own shoes, jovial, humorous, diligent, hard working, reliable, intelligent, hard nosed, open minded, savvy, thick skinned, carries gravitas, able to compromise and empathise, pragmatic, charismatic.... Since we are leaving the EU the political affiliations of the person are much less important than their ability to strike a deal.
Since May carries few of the above, I would suggest it is in the UK's interests for her to remain as far away as possible.
David Davis is actually the best pic the Tories have as far as I can see. There could have been others, Osborne for instance, Mandelson another, Blair obviously, Cameron.....but May quite frankly needs to STFU because her interventions.... her control freakery, thin skin etc.... will be extremely damaging for the country.
I agree with your analysis, but I don't think Davis is a good negotiator except by comparison. He lacks flexibility and curiosity, which are important in giving the other side what they want to your greatest benefit and least cost. Hypothetical question. Is there anyone in the current cabinet, whether former Remainer or Leaver, who would make a better negotiator?
Is Corbyn proposing to make abolishing the monarchy Labour Party policy? NickP was agreeing the a guardian article that suggested he should go big and radical, all out, and that would certainly be it.
I don’t think it needs a Labour policy, most people already assume Corbyn is anti-monarchist.
There's an immense difference between something being Labour policy and being Corbyn's view.
I'm not sure Corbyn himself has ever fully understood the difference but, if we entertain for a crazy moment the possibility he could be PM in June, he might conceivably be able to enact official Labour policies in the manifesto (even if some MPs grumble about it), but there is zero chance of him being able to do anything about his republican views other than on the margins.
I appreciate the difference Mr Passmore, however my point was that from an electoral point, the damage is already factored in. - Would Corbyn win an election on a manifesto promise to abolish the monarchy? I would suggest a resounding no is the answer.
Is Corbyn proposing to make abolishing the monarchy Labour Party policy? NickP was agreeing the a guardian article that suggested he should go big and radical, all out, and that would certainly be it.
That would be great, but I doubt it will happen. If Corbyn had a stronger backbone he would say
• leave NATO • get rid of nuclear weapons • abolish the monarchy • smash the private schools by one means or another
It'd be interesting to see just how low the poll ratings go.
It is fascinating seeing your perspective through May tinted glasses.
First there is no conceivable way the UK will come out of this with a good deal. If it does, the other 27 members will pay close attention, and the EU will fall apart. Britain has to be punished for it's moment of populist folly otherwise the disease will spread and destroy the Union.
Second, the best person to get the deal must be someone who is capable of cultivating good relationships, socially adept, comfortable in their own shoes, jovial, humorous, diligent, hard working, reliable, intelligent, hard nosed, open minded, savvy, thick skinned, carries gravitas, able to compromise and empathise, pragmatic, charismatic.... Since we are leaving the EU the political affiliations of the person are much less important than their ability to strike a deal.
Since May carries few of the above, I would suggest it is in the UK's interests for her to remain as far away as possible.
David Davis is actually the best pic the Tories have as far as I can see. There could have been others, Osborne for instance, Mandelson another, Blair obviously, Cameron.....but May quite frankly needs to STFU because her interventions.... her control freakery, thin skin etc.... will be extremely damaging for the country.
I agree with your analysis, but I don't think Davis is a good negotiator except by comparison. He lacks flexibility and curiosity, which are important in giving the other side what they want to your greatest benefit and least cost. Hypothetical question. Is there anyone in the current cabinet, whether former Remainer or Leaver, who would make a better negotiator?
No-one in the current cabinet - except, perhaps, Hammond - rises above the mediocre. Most do not even get to that dizzy level.
A Conservative candidate has been awarded a £338,000 payout after winning a libel case against Iranian state television channel Press TV.
The channel falsely accused Nadhim Zahawi, who is of Kurdish background and was born in Iraq, of facilitating the trade in oil between Isil and Israel.
The broadcaster has been ordered to pay Mr Zahawi £200,000 in damages and over £138,000 in costs after the judge described the defamatory allegations as "exceptionally grave".
But in an entirely ceremonial head of state position
Are you aware of what "queen's consent" is? (Not the royal assent.)
Ok its not legally entirely ceremonial mr pedantry you are right, but we all know public contentment with monarchy would plummet if they ever did anything deemed to be crossing the line. We could switch to republican at any moment without difficulty.
Textor — “a polling genius” according to one insider — has a more prominent role, having only been brought in for the final few weeks in 2015. This time he’s in London for the duration of the campaign, working on constituency-level polling, testing key Tory messages in the heart of Labour’s traditional strongholds.
Even Blair’s former constituency of Sedgefield is a realistic target, according to one senior pollster who has crunched private demographic data.
and
However, this time Gilbert, not Crosby, is in charge, in what experienced party officials and MPs believe is a return to traditional party structures of the 1980s, with long-serving operatives trusted with getting the job done having worked their way up from the bottom like May, who served as a councillor before moving into parliament, shadow cabinet, government and finally No. 10. However, this time, unlike 1997, the Tory Party has brought in cutting-edge data and the best campaign gurus from international politics.
Those who know Gilbert reject any notion that his appointment above Crosby — the Australian attack-dog who was given complete control of the 2015 election by Cameron — will lead to a softer, less ruthless campaign. “Stephen Gilbert is basically the modern Conservative Party,” one senior official close to the campaign said. “He has been central to so many Conservative campaigns.”
Full disclosure, I rate Lord Gilbert very highly, met/attended some of his briefings/seminars.
This is really quite unbelievable stuff from the EU. No way will TMay be able to sell this.
It was presumed EU assets would be divided between Britain and the rEU, for the jolly good reason that we have paid billions towards many of them, and if we are expected to cough up for spending commitments, we jolly well get our share of these assets we bought.
But no.
"It had been hoped by some in the UK that Britain could offset its liabilities by reference to its share of EU buildings, investments and even its generous wine cellar, but it is understood that it was the EU member states who decided to stand firm on the issue.
“The EU assets belong to the union and the EU member states do not have any rights to those assets,” an EU official said. “There is no shareholding in the European Union. All of the union’s assets belong to the union and that includes buildings, other assets tangible and intangible, financial, drinkable and non-drinkable.”"
The EU constantly tells us that Brexit is a divorce, so it will be messy and painful. There is no other way. Fair enough. But in what kind of divorce do the house, the car, the air miles and the Nespresso machine all belong to "the wedding", and therefore they are, funnily enough, all kept by one party to the divorce, and the other party must fuck off with nothing.
Fuck the EU.
So did we make a one-off payment to 'buy' a share in the Community's assets when we joined, late to the party?
Messina boasts that he has 1,000 pieces of data on every voter in the U.K., one admiring Tory official revealed. Using the credit-checking agency Experian, Messina knows where every target voter shops, what they buy, how they travel to work — and much more besides.
Where as labour? I can't see team twat being sophisticated...
It is fascinating seeing your perspective through May tinted glasses.
First there is no conceivable way the UK will come out of this with a good deal. If it does, the other 27 members will pay close attention, and the EU will fall apart. Britain has to be punished for it's moment of populist folly otherwise the disease will spread and destroy the Union.
Second, the best person to get the deal must be someone who is capable of cultivating good relationships, socially adept, comfortable in their own shoes, jovial, humorous, diligent, hard working, reliable, intelligent, hard nosed, open minded, savvy, thick skinned, carries gravitas, able to compromise and empathise, pragmatic, charismatic.... Since we are leaving the EU the political affiliations of the person are much less important than their ability to strike a deal.
Since May carries few of the above, I would suggest it is in the UK's interests for her to remain as far away as possible.
David Davis is actually the best pic the Tories have as far as I can see. There could have been others, Osborne for instance, Mandelson another, Blair obviously, Cameron.....but May quite frankly needs to STFU because her interventions.... her control freakery, thin skin etc.... will be extremely damaging for the country.
Morning Tyson - If you think Theresa May will stand on the sidelines I think you will be dissappointed. However I hope a deal can be arrived at on citizens asap but unfortunately any idea they will stay under the ECJ for the rest of their lives is not going to happen.
As far as I am aware the conservative manifesto is going to include control of our borders, and the ending of the ECJ in our affairs. In those circumstances the ECJ will be replaced by our Supreme Court though a transistion period may be agreed
I fear you are right about May...that she is such an obsessional, control freak she will not be able to stop herself meddling....,.
that is precisely why I said yesterday the men in grey coats will be moving in approximately this time next year, and David Davis or Philip Hammond will be installed as the next PM......
You do seem a touch obsessive yourself on this point. Should we be worried for you if she's still in place by the end of next year ?
... “The EU assets belong to the union and the EU member states do not have any rights to those assets,” an EU official said. “There is no shareholding in the European Union. All of the union’s assets belong to the union and that includes buildings, other assets tangible and intangible, financial, drinkable and non-drinkable.”" .. .
That's really excellent news. It demonstrates that they have conceded the crucial point that the European Union is a legal entity in its own right, with its own assets and liabilities, separate from member states.
It follows from that, as night follows day, the the UK as it leaves has absolutely no legal responsibility whatsoever for any liabilities, real or implied, which the EU has incurred or thinks it has incurred in relation to future spending plans. That of course includes pension libilities.
So that's the demand for €60bn, let alone €100bn, blown out of the water.
(This exact point was made, in more legalistic language, in the very good Lords report on the exit bill).
This is worse than a divorce, in a divorce there is a judge to decide some semblance of fairness (Supposedly). I think the EU realises the strength of it's hand if it keeps a united front and is acting accordingly, I don't think the final settlement will be remotely "fair".
... “The EU assets belong to the union and the EU member states do not have any rights to those assets,” an EU official said. “There is no shareholding in the European Union. All of the union’s assets belong to the union and that includes buildings, other assets tangible and intangible, financial, drinkable and non-drinkable.”" .. .
That's really excellent news. It demonstrates that they have conceded the crucial point that the European Union is a legal entity in its own right, with its own assets and liabilities, separate from member states.
It follows from that, as night follows day, the the UK as it leaves has absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for any liabilities, real or implied, which the EU has incurred or thinks it has incurred in relation to future spending plans. That of course includes pension libilities.
So that's the demand for €60bn, let alone €100bn, blown out of the water.
(This exact point was made, in more legalistic language, in the very good Lords report on the exit bill).
And any legal obligations we may have had disappear the moment we leave.
Mr. Nabavi, I fear your argument is based on the supposition the EU is honest, fair, and logically consistent.
However, I do agree that the idea the EU thinks the liabilities exist for us but not assets is a totally bullshit stance practically designed to provoke ire and increase the chances of leaving without a deal.
Mr. Eagles, I went to Betfair Sportsbook to see the Con odds for Sedgefield, and they're only 4/6...
It is fascinating seeing your perspective through May tinted glasses.
First there is no conceivable way the UK will come out of this with a good deal. If it does, the other 27 members will pay close attention, and the EU will fall apart. Britain has to be punished for it's moment of populist folly otherwise the disease will spread and destroy the Union.
Second, the best person to get the deal must be someone who is capable of cultivating good relationships, socially adept, comfortable in their own shoes, jovial, humorous, diligent, hard working, reliable, intelligent, hard nosed, open minded, savvy, thick skinned, carries gravitas, able to compromise and empathise, pragmatic, charismatic.... Since we are leaving the EU the political affiliations of the person are much less important than their ability to strike a deal.
Since May carries few of the above, I would suggest it is in the UK's interests for her to remain as far away as possible.
David Davis is actually the best pic the Tories have as far as I can see. There could have been others, Osborne for instance, Mandelson another, Blair obviously, Cameron.....but May quite frankly needs to STFU because her interventions.... her control freakery, thin skin etc.... will be extremely damaging for the country.
I agree with your analysis, but I don't think Davis is a good negotiator except by comparison. He lacks flexibility and curiosity, which are important in giving the other side what they want to your greatest benefit and least cost. Hypothetical question. Is there anyone in the current cabinet, whether former Remainer or Leaver, who would make a better negotiator?
No-one in the current cabinet - except, perhaps, Hammond - rises above the mediocre. Most do not even get to that dizzy level.
I guess. I was cutting Mrs May some slack on the basis that mediocrity was the appropriate quality for a Brexit that inevitably will be heavily compromised and immensely crap.
You support their stance. You want us to suffer. You applaud their extortions. You urge them on as they seek to shaft us. Ugh. What a spectacle you are. Just a pound shop Quisling, really.
None of that is true.
You, however, are just trying to mentally insulate yourself from the consequences of your vote.
Comments
The coldest of cold takes will be this: 'ah, well, this and this doesn't match the polls, so they must be wrong'. Keep in mind that these are local elections. Lots of independents are standing. Loads of local issues are in play. Some voters will vote tactically when they look at the shape of their own council, and in ways that they might not when choosing a Prime Minister. In 1983 and 1987, for instance, the Conservatives ended the night on a projected national share of the vote 'only' three per cent and six per cent ahead of Labour. In General Elections just a month or so later, they ended up sixteen and eleven points ahead - a dichotomy that looks likely to remain in place this time. So if the Conservatives lead at all when you see academics discussing the national vote share - even by just a few points - then the opposition parties could still be in deep trouble. As Mike Smithson over at politicalbetting.com has pointed out, this time voters know that there's about to be a General Election (they didn't in 1983 and 1987), and so national preferences will indeed shape these contests more than most. But the qualitative signs above - rather than the raw numbers - should still give you a good impression of who's hot (and who's not) as we gear up for the national contest that's now upon us.
http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.id/2017/05/what-should-we-look-out-for-on-super.html
In theory other people doing important jobs are there on merit, although it doesn't seem like it sometimes. The fact the monarch doesn't even have a theoretical requirement for competence is a little disturbing in the modern context.
Not everyone keeps an excellent spreadsheet as you.
I'm not an egalitarian. I accept that there are things I can't do. I can't give birth or run 100m in 9 seconds of be Chief Rabbi. The idea that anybody can do anything is a fantasy, and a dangerous one. It's enough that most people can do most things, with luck, brains and application. In some ways I think having a role that only one individual can fill is quite salutary.
That will not always be the case imo.
Are the Scandinavian monarchy societies known to be snobbish and class ridden? I've never been, but I thought they were much more equal. If so, it either is a coincidence, or you ascribe far too much influence on our snobbishness to a single factor.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=poverty+in+london+1900&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWk8PZhtbTAhWMXhoKHZ0vAx4Q_AUICigB&biw=1093&bih=530
The Netherlands is snobbish and class-ridden? What about Denmark? Or Sweden?
For the monarchy, ruthlessness is not a required attribute these days.
Of course now the goalposts have been moved,along with the concept of poverty.
That doesn't lessen the resentment of those in poverty as we understand it today.
The best arguments I see these days for keeping the Monarchy is that is better than having a politician as Head of State, and secondly the tourism it brings.
I suppose I should appreciate that our Royal family is primus inter pares of Royal families.
When the New York Times talks about 'The Royal Family' they aren't talking about the Dutch of Belgian one.
That article I linked to is quite funny because the Guardian's society columnist "social policy editor" scoffs throughout it about how the oiks are so stupid, they're only working class in their minds, they've clung to the old ways, etc. It is funny because the guy obviously has no clue about what he is supposedly paid to know about.
Now, in practical day-to-day terms, I don't have much of an issue with the monarchy, there are valid arguments around tourism benefits, providing a non politician to unite the country around etc, and the Queen has been a diligent public servant so I have much respect for her personally. I'd vote for a republic if there was ever a referendum but wouldn't particularly be agitated about getting a vote on it. But on the principles of the issue, it is far better to have a choice among potentially unpalatable candidates for your head of state, than it is to have one foisted upon you through hereditary selection.
It is worth underlining the point that people accepted Brexit was a risk, a belief Cameron and Remainers sought to amplify through their elite-focused campaign...
....These immigration fears, hitherto confined to the politically incorrect margins, not abstract concerns about a ‘democratic deficit’ or rescuing UK sovereignty from Brussels bureaucrats, do much to explain why Britain voted for Brexit.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/05/04/why-britain-voted-to-leave-and-what-boris-johnson-had-to-do-with-it/
As far as I am aware the conservative manifesto is going to include control of our borders, and the ending of the ECJ in our affairs. In those circumstances the ECJ will be replaced by our Supreme Court though a transistion period may be agreed
It's what us pro gamblers do
Let it sink in, the decision to grant (early) general elections was based on a letter to The Times.
In the wrong hands the monarch could be terrible for the country.
Just imagine if Edward VIII had decided not to abdicate and married Mrs Simpson, we would have had a general election, what would the general election campaign had been like?
Utter anarchy and carnage.
I'd be happy with a Pope kind of system for choosing a head of state.
say
• leave NATO
• get rid of nuclear weapons
• abolish the monarchy
• smash the private schools by one means or another
But in an entirely ceremonial head of state position, even the wrong monarch would do little real damage - one step over the line and public opinion would shift quickly and boom we're a republic.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/
that is precisely why I said yesterday the men in grey coats will be moving in approximately this time next year, and David Davis or Philip Hammond will be installed as the next PM......
Incidentally isn't it odd how often the monarchy comes up for discussion on a site that's mainly about betting on elections?
The polling station had been open for a few hours, in which time 8 people had voted in front of me...
I'm not sure Corbyn himself has ever fully understood the difference but, if we entertain for a crazy moment the possibility he could be PM in June, he might conceivably be able to enact official Labour policies in the manifesto (even if some MPs grumble about it), but there is zero chance of him being able to do anything about his republican views other than on the margins.
It'll be Sir Michael Fallon.
Presumably this is in the wake of YouGov's latest poll and it seems likely that the fixed odds bookies will follow suit in relation to their total seats over/under you choose markets.
Just called my mother to remind her to vote - she didn't even know there was an election...
A Conservative candidate has been awarded a £338,000 payout after winning a libel case against Iranian state television channel Press TV.
The channel falsely accused Nadhim Zahawi, who is of Kurdish background and was born in Iraq, of facilitating the trade in oil between Isil and Israel.
The broadcaster has been ordered to pay Mr Zahawi £200,000 in damages and over £138,000 in costs after the judge described the defamatory allegations as "exceptionally grave".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/04/tory-gets-338000-payout-winning-libel-case-against-iranian-state/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
When a tourist goes to Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle, they get the added frisson of feeling they are in the home of one of the world's biggest celebs, rather than a preserved relic of a long dead historical figure they don't know much about.
I'm not saying that's a particularly attractive thing about tourists and tourism, and the view of Britain as a "living museum" is grating and unhelpful in many ways, but that's the brand and that's how a lot of people feel.
Did Lib Dem councillors stand on a "No to the Iraq war" platform back in the day?
Between 2010 and 2015 my money was on William Hague.
http://www.politico.eu/article/theresa-may-campaign-war-room-conservative-stephen-gilbert-lynton-crosby/
WTF!
Even Blair’s former constituency of Sedgefield is a realistic target, according to one senior pollster who has crunched private demographic data.
and
However, this time Gilbert, not Crosby, is in charge, in what experienced party officials and MPs believe is a return to traditional party structures of the 1980s, with long-serving operatives trusted with getting the job done having worked their way up from the bottom like May, who served as a councillor before moving into parliament, shadow cabinet, government and finally No. 10. However, this time, unlike 1997, the Tory Party has brought in cutting-edge data and the best campaign gurus from international politics.
Those who know Gilbert reject any notion that his appointment above Crosby — the Australian attack-dog who was given complete control of the 2015 election by Cameron — will lead to a softer, less ruthless campaign. “Stephen Gilbert is basically the modern Conservative Party,” one senior official close to the campaign said. “He has been central to so many Conservative campaigns.”
Full disclosure, I rate Lord Gilbert very highly, met/attended some of his briefings/seminars.
Knows his stuff and was very loyal to Dave.
Where as labour? I can't see team twat being sophisticated...
It follows from that, as night follows day, the the UK as it leaves has absolutely no legal responsibility whatsoever for any liabilities, real or implied, which the EU has incurred or thinks it has incurred in relation to future spending plans. That of course includes pension libilities.
So that's the demand for €60bn, let alone €100bn, blown out of the water.
(This exact point was made, in more legalistic language, in the very good Lords report on the exit bill).
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3479835/labours-chi-onwurah-slammed-for-prince-philip-tweet/
I think the EU realises the strength of it's hand if it keeps a united front and is acting accordingly, I don't think the final settlement will be remotely "fair".
https://twitter.com/johnharris1969/status/860089536365432832
However, I do agree that the idea the EU thinks the liabilities exist for us but not assets is a totally bullshit stance practically designed to provoke ire and increase the chances of leaving without a deal.
Mr. Eagles, I went to Betfair Sportsbook to see the Con odds for Sedgefield, and they're only 4/6...
You, however, are just trying to mentally insulate yourself from the consequences of your vote.