Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Alastair Meeks makes his first next general election bet: LAB

SystemSystem Posts: 11,688
edited June 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Alastair Meeks makes his first next general election bet: LAB to win most seats

The Conservatives are in a wretched state. Everything Theresa May has touched recently has turned to ashes. Jeremy Corbyn in his response to the Queen’s Speech stated that the government has no majority, no mandate and no plan. Jeremy Corbyn is right.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930
    I'd make the same bet, but I will need the capital in the next 5 years.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,044
    It's hard to see a different result the way things stand.

    Then again, people got the 2017 GE very wrong on a lot shorter timescales. However I foresee much more that could go wrong for a governing party than for a nonsensical opposition.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,296
    edited June 2017
    Third!

    Betting way in advance is always bold. I actually had money on NOM placed shortly after the 2015 election, but cashed out during the 2017 campaign, sadly.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,044
    We're learning more about the fire: it started in a Hotpoint fridge-freezer, and both the cladding and insulation don't pass any safety tests.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40380584
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,907

    We're learning more about the fire: it started in a Hotpoint fridge-freezer, and both the cladding and insulation don't pass any safety tests.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40380584

    That's shocking. I thought we have professionally qualified architects and planning inspectors in the U.K.

    How much more shitty cladding is out there?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930
    "Seventy-nine people are feared dead after the blaze destroyed 151 homes in the Kensington tower block."

    I thought non confirmed deaths were not speculated on. Why is the word "feared" being used here ?!
  • Options
    kurtjesterkurtjester Posts: 121
    edited June 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    "Seventy-nine people are feared dead after the blaze destroyed 151 homes in the Kensington tower block."

    I thought non confirmed deaths were not speculated on. Why is the word "feared" being used here ?!

    Possible confusion over the numbers living in the building due to subletting, and those who survived but fear for their immigration status not coming forward?

    And the intensity of the fire may well have totally consumed the remains of some unfortunate enough to have perished.
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited June 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    "Seventy-nine people are feared dead after the blaze destroyed 151 homes in the Kensington tower block."

    I thought non confirmed deaths were not speculated on. Why is the word "feared" being used here ?!

    " Nine of those who died in ( sic ) the 14 June have been formally identified so far. "
    What's up with that ?
  • Options
    The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    "Conservatives can only watch as a newly-invigorated Jeremy Corbyn sinks his teeth into them"

    Sorry I don't see Corbyn having ever sunk his teeth into the Tories before and I cannot see him changing his behaviour now. People are rushing to conclusions about the next 5 years based on the last 5 weeks.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,907

    Pulpstar said:

    "Seventy-nine people are feared dead after the blaze destroyed 151 homes in the Kensington tower block."

    I thought non confirmed deaths were not speculated on. Why is the word "feared" being used here ?!

    " Nine of those who died in the 14 June have been formally identified so far. "
    What's up with that ?
    Most of them won't have easily available dental records.
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited June 2017
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    "Seventy-nine people are feared dead after the blaze destroyed 151 homes in the Kensington tower block."

    I thought non confirmed deaths were not speculated on. Why is the word "feared" being used here ?!

    " Nine of those who died in the 14 June have been formally identified so far. "
    What's up with that ?
    Most of them won't have easily available dental records.
    In this chaotic scenario I don't think it's appropriate to give any weight to any of the authorities' various pronouncements.
  • Options
    rawzerrawzer Posts: 189
    http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/uk-brexit-options-in-the-eurozone-complex-visualized/

    Loved this, perfect for all us trying to work out our Schengens from our EEAs - maybe someone cleverer could post the image itself
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,826
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,044
    Sandpit said:

    We're learning more about the fire: it started in a Hotpoint fridge-freezer, and both the cladding and insulation don't pass any safety tests.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40380584

    That's shocking. I thought we have professionally qualified architects and planning inspectors in the U.K.

    How much more shitty cladding is out there?
    That's not my main fear, to be honest. The cladding will get sorted. However it's clear that so much more failed here, and the questions are what other areas have failed.

    As an example, remember this recent fubar, where it was luck no-one got killed?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39580308

    The report into this was published earlier this year, and was quite interesting.
  • Options
    ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Great British understatement:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40370331

    As it turned out, those predictions were a touch pessimistic.
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Bobajob_PB

    Jackanory bob - I see you had another pop at me on the PT ,so lets try again -

    You posted last night these exact words - It was you who said you would celebrate mass EU deportations.

    Where did I post that please ?

    Come on big boy.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,080
    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Sod it, I'll be voting to leave if we have a rerun.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @thervd: This short video says more about our Brexit negotiating position than a thousand op-eds https://twitter.com/georgewparker/status/878227897223229441
  • Options
    kurtjesterkurtjester Posts: 121

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Worse than the alternative, a Hard Brexit?
  • Options
    woody662woody662 Posts: 255
    This is a extraordinary bet to recommend. 4 weeks ago, we were looking at a Tory landslide and Corbyn was unelectable. To make a prediction for how things will look in 5 months let alone in possibly 5 years is madness. The Tories will get their turd together as there is one thing the party loves more than anything and that is to be in power.
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,709

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Then Tusk and the EU need to make a counteroffer, and we can see if we can meet somewhere.

    Thats how negoiations work.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,080

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Then Tusk and the EU need to make a counteroffer, and we can see if we can meet somewhere.

    Thats how negoiations work.
    They set out their position previously.
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Who voted for Tusk ? Not the citizens he claims to represent, you bet.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,080
    Scott_P said:

    @thervd: This short video says more about our Brexit negotiating position than a thousand op-eds

    Is there anyone in the Cabinet who can throw in the towel?
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited June 2017
    So have you seen the story that Jim Messina was projecting Cons 304 seats?

    Lets just remember what he said about YouGov model -

    https://twitter.com/Messina2012/status/869928746974949378

    The attempts to salvage reputations here is astonishing in it's brazenness.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Scott_P said:

    @thervd: This short video says more about our Brexit negotiating position than a thousand op-eds twitter.com/georgewparker/status/878227897223229441

    She does look despondent, but that just seems to be her "thing". It is not the first time she has been reported as looking like a fish out of water

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    I'm wary of trying to forecast the next election. There are numerous complicated and overlapping factors that explain the lumpy, and often tight, results from the last one.

    I could see either major party doing substantially better or worse next time.

    It's also worth noting that in both 2015 and 2017 the pollsters generally were accurate with small parties and inaccurate with large ones.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190

    We're learning more about the fire: it started in a Hotpoint fridge-freezer, and both the cladding and insulation don't pass any safety tests.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40380584

    Police said the fire had not been started deliberately and the speed with which the fire spread was "unexpected".

    Clearly many people in many local authorities (and national government) are going to be in a lot of trouble. But I think there are also many questions for the fire brigade to answer.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930
    woody662 said:

    This is a extraordinary bet to recommend. 4 weeks ago, we were looking at a Tory landslide and Corbyn was unelectable. To make a prediction for how things will look in 5 months let alone in possibly 5 years is madness. The Tories will get their turd together as there is one thing the party loves more than anything and that is to be in power.

    I'm not betting but the Tories are going to look shockingly tired come 2022 I think, so Meeks' bet makes sense.
    I couldn't in all honesty recommend the other side.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @AlbertoNardelli: Merkel: work of 27 has priority over Brexit. #EUCO
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Who voted for Tusk ? Not the citizens he claims to represent, you bet.
    The citizens of various countries elect governments. The heads of the elect govts elected Tusk.

    So he was elected by democratically elected leaders. It is not like he led a military coup.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930
    edited June 2017
    I've had a think, the Lib Dem single market amendment might well cause political trouble, but my hunch is not for the Tories, but for Labour
  • Options
    dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Looking at EU events, it's obviously a play to the Brexit vote at home. May has concluded the best place to ambush the EU is out of the closed doors negotiation rooms, and indeed they seem a little unprepared. She is setting out the first offer which she sells at home as generous, thoughtful and open. EU have to play for more and risk looking awkward and unreasonable in the British voters eyes.
    In addition, our first move is portrayed as generous and open, the EUs first move will be to ask for more and set out a divorce demand.
    Tactically pretty sound manouvere.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Looking at the Government consultation on betting site withdrawal restrictions

    terms preventing players from withdrawing any money they have deposited in their account unless they have wagered its value through in full once, or several times

    That one actually seems reasonable doesn't it (assuming it's a 1x wagering requirement)? Otherwise people could use the gambling site as a unregulated money transfer or money laundering service.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,907

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    "Seventy-nine people are feared dead after the blaze destroyed 151 homes in the Kensington tower block."

    I thought non confirmed deaths were not speculated on. Why is the word "feared" being used here ?!

    " Nine of those who died in the 14 June have been formally identified so far. "
    What's up with that ?
    Most of them won't have easily available dental records.
    In this chaotic scenario I don't think it's appropriate to give any weight to any of the authorities' various pronouncements.
    Sadly, there were most likely a lot of people in the building who weren't supposed to be there for one reason or another. The authorities are going to need to be very careful when identifying the bodies, not making any assumptions as to who they might be.
  • Options
    woody662woody662 Posts: 255
    edited June 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    woody662 said:

    This is a extraordinary bet to recommend. 4 weeks ago, we were looking at a Tory landslide and Corbyn was unelectable. To make a prediction for how things will look in 5 months let alone in possibly 5 years is madness. The Tories will get their turd together as there is one thing the party loves more than anything and that is to be in power.

    I'm not betting but the Tories are going to look shockingly tired come 2022 I think, so Meeks' bet makes sense.
    I couldn't in all honesty recommend the other side.
    If the Party went into the election with Theresa May as leader and the same campaign tactics then yes there is a fair chance Labour will do well, however it will not and there is a large chunk of people for whom there is a lot in that Labour manifesto that will horrify them. 1992 being the prime example.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited June 2017
    rawzer said:

    http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/uk-brexit-options-in-the-eurozone-complex-visualized/

    Loved this, perfect for all us trying to work out our Schengens from our EEAs - maybe someone cleverer could post the image itself

    image

  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,320
    Pulpstar said:

    I'd make the same bet, but I will need the capital in the next 5 years.

    It looks a pretty good even money shot to me and I very much doubt it will be five years before we get a result. The more I think about it the more improbable it seems that May can last until the Tory Party Conference. Just imagine what such a Conference would be like with her in situ. And as Alastair indicates, it's not as if the Party is rallying four-square behind her.

    A new PM would imply a new election before the expiry of the full five years. I find it trickier to guess just when it might be because it's hard to envisage exactly what triggers it, but on the other hand, I just can't see a minority Government going the full distance.

    So the next question is, do Labour win it, whenever it happens? Well, we're getting used to surprises but you have to go on form, and all the form suggests they should be hot favorites. How hot? Well, we all have our views on that but they have to be well odds on, so yes, Alastair is making sense, as usual, and I'm on too.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,080
    May takes a planned question from a Polish journalist. The UK is obviously focussing on Poland in their 'divide and rule' strategy.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @PolhomeEditor: Theresa May says George Osborne's claims re EU citizens is "certainly not my recollection". A classic non-denial denial.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,044
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    "Seventy-nine people are feared dead after the blaze destroyed 151 homes in the Kensington tower block."

    I thought non confirmed deaths were not speculated on. Why is the word "feared" being used here ?!

    " Nine of those who died in the 14 June have been formally identified so far. "
    What's up with that ?
    Most of them won't have easily available dental records.
    In this chaotic scenario I don't think it's appropriate to give any weight to any of the authorities' various pronouncements.
    Sadly, there were most likely a lot of people in the building who weren't supposed to be there for one reason or another. The authorities are going to need to be very careful when identifying the bodies, not making any assumptions as to who they might be.
    Depending on how hot the fire got, and how long it lasted in various areas, just discovering the bodies might be difficult. It might be as distressing a situation as sifting through ashes to discover bone fragments. As they say the forensic search might take the rest of the year, I fear that's the case.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited June 2017
    A cheque for £1000 I received from Betfair has just bounced.
  • Options
    rawzerrawzer Posts: 189

    rawzer said:

    http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/uk-brexit-options-in-the-eurozone-complex-visualized/

    Loved this, perfect for all us trying to work out our Schengens from our EEAs - maybe someone cleverer could post the image itself

    image

    Thank you :)
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930
    edited June 2017
    Alistair said:

    Looking at the Government consultation on betting site withdrawal restrictions

    terms preventing players from withdrawing any money they have deposited in their account unless they have wagered its value through in full once, or several times

    That one actually seems reasonable doesn't it (assuming it's a 1x wagering requirement)? Otherwise people could use the gambling site as a unregulated money transfer or money laundering service.

    No, its not reasonable at all. Often I've deposited, tried to get my 50 quid or whatever on a bet and been allowed £12.17 or so, and since I have no idea on the other markets that bookmaker is offering I've wanted to take out the £37.83 or so I wasn't allowed to bet on the market that I preferred.
    If there is a bonus involved it is a different matter, 365's requirement to wager ~ £1200 or so to crystallize the £200 was reasonable. The 40x, Blackjack counts for 1/5th of normal play through casino requirements to clear bonuses these days are not.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Alistair said:

    Looking at the Government consultation on betting site withdrawal restrictions

    terms preventing players from withdrawing any money they have deposited in their account unless they have wagered its value through in full once, or several times

    That one actually seems reasonable doesn't it (assuming it's a 1x wagering requirement)? Otherwise people could use the gambling site as a unregulated money transfer or money laundering service.

    Not if its back to the same account or debit card
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    Alistair said:

    Looking at the Government consultation on betting site withdrawal restrictions

    terms preventing players from withdrawing any money they have deposited in their account unless they have wagered its value through in full once, or several times

    That one actually seems reasonable doesn't it (assuming it's a 1x wagering requirement)? Otherwise people could use the gambling site as a unregulated money transfer or money laundering service.

    I can't remember which firm it was, but I saw one restriction which was something like five times the original deposit.
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Who voted for Tusk ? Not the citizens he claims to represent, you bet.
    The citizens of various countries elect governments. The heads of the elect govts elected Tusk.

    So he was elected by democratically elected leaders. It is not like he led a military coup.
    Tusk is just an appointee with no popular mandate. He has no business lecturing May on citizens' rights.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Who voted for Tusk ? Not the citizens he claims to represent, you bet.
    The citizens of various countries elect governments. The heads of the elect govts elected Tusk.

    So he was elected by democratically elected leaders. It is not like he led a military coup.
    Tusk is just an appointee with no popular mandate. He has no business lecturing May on citizens' rights.
    May's mandate is not exactly sparkling either... or had you not noticed?
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Alistair said:

    Looking at the Government consultation on betting site withdrawal restrictions

    terms preventing players from withdrawing any money they have deposited in their account unless they have wagered its value through in full once, or several times

    That one actually seems reasonable doesn't it (assuming it's a 1x wagering requirement)? Otherwise people could use the gambling site as a unregulated money transfer or money laundering service.

    That will be the excuse but consider this scenario: you read today's thread header from the Meeksmeister. You check Oddschecker for the best price about Labour, load £1,000 into your account but then discover that in the 30 seconds that operation took, the price has been cut -- so you want to withdraw your money rather than accept the new, shorter odds.
  • Options
    kurtjesterkurtjester Posts: 121

    A cheque for £1000 I received from Betfair has just bounced.

    Written against their account?
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908
    Interesting post.
    But I think what's neglected is the Tories will choose the time of the next election. Admittedly their recent record suggests they don't always make the right call. Labour have to vote for an election if they get the chance - the Tories can pick their moment.
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Who voted for Tusk ? Not the citizens he claims to represent, you bet.
    The citizens of various countries elect governments. The heads of the elect govts elected Tusk.

    So he was elected by democratically elected leaders. It is not like he led a military coup.
    Tusk is just an appointee with no popular mandate. He has no business lecturing May on citizens' rights.
    May's mandate is not exactly sparkling either... or had you not noticed?
    May has an 85% mandate for Brexit, Tusk is the worthy successor of a damp rag.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419

    "With seven of the nine Lib Dem seats in England now held with majorities of less than eight per cent of the vote, the next election offers a chance to take the Lib Dems out for good."

    http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/06/richard-holden-how-and-why-the-libdems-went-backwards-in-every-seat-they-were-defending-last-month.html

    Given what the polls were like at the start of the most recent election, *that* one offered the chance to take the Lib Dems out for good. For all the reasons given in Alastair's article, there's sod all chance of those conditions returning.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,907

    Sandpit said:

    We're learning more about the fire: it started in a Hotpoint fridge-freezer, and both the cladding and insulation don't pass any safety tests.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40380584

    That's shocking. I thought we have professionally qualified architects and planning inspectors in the U.K.

    How much more shitty cladding is out there?
    That's not my main fear, to be honest. The cladding will get sorted. However it's clear that so much more failed here, and the questions are what other areas have failed.

    As an example, remember this recent fubar, where it was luck no-one got killed?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39580308

    The report into this was published earlier this year, and was quite interesting.
    I must have missed that at the time, quite shocking. Building a wall shouldn't be something we forget how to do properly. We need to give more teeth to planning inspectors, and be able to find accountable those who mess up.

    The architect should agree the plans and the inspector should check that what's built matches them. Both of these should be professionally qualified and able to be disciplined by a professional body in the same way as doctors or teachers. This may require more supervision of the works by these professionals than has previously been the case.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    It pains me to say this, but Theresa May does seem to have made yet another unforced error on the rights of EU and UK citizens. As often seems to be the case, her initial position was perfectly reasonable, indeed the only sensible one: that there shouldn't be any unilateral guarantees by the UK, but we should negotiate reciprocal rights with the EU. However, the EU has recently published proposals which were reciprocal, but she doesn't seem to have responded to those; instead she has made a big show (why?) of making her own, less generous, proposals. Surely the UK should simply have welcomed the EU proposals with some reservations on the detail, and left it to DD's team to discuss it with Barnier's team? She seems to have put a lot of effort into a personal initiative which is at best unnecessary and might be counter-productive.
  • Options
    Bobajob_PBBobajob_PB Posts: 928

    Bobajob_PB

    Jackanory bob - I see you had another pop at me on the PT ,so lets try again -

    You posted last night these exact words - It was you who said you would celebrate mass EU deportations.

    Where did I post that please ?

    Come on big boy.

    TheScreamingEagles said:
    » show previous quotes
    Oh grow up.

    I can tell you're upset that Mrs May is deporting all those EU citizens you don't like.

    Yep ,i bet I am in a majority if we put it to a vote in the country.

    That will do me pal.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930
    edited June 2017

    A cheque for £1000 I received from Betfair has just bounced.

    Well that is a bit worrying. Although my exposure with them is 2% of what it was pre-election, so less worrying than then.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,080
    edited June 2017

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Who voted for Tusk ? Not the citizens he claims to represent, you bet.
    The citizens of various countries elect governments. The heads of the elect govts elected Tusk.

    So he was elected by democratically elected leaders. It is not like he led a military coup.
    Tusk is just an appointee with no popular mandate. He has no business lecturing May on citizens' rights.
    May's mandate is not exactly sparkling either... or had you not noticed?
    May has an 85% mandate for Brexit, Tusk is the worthy successor of a damp rag.
    It's as much use as having an 85% mandate for sticking your hand in the fire.

    No British PM could navigate this process without being utterly crushed by the pressure. May's cack-handed attempts to paint the EU27 as divided by claiming the Poles were positive was transparent and embarrassing.

    https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/878183376032870401
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,009
    woody662 said:

    The Tories will get their turd together as there is one thing the party loves more than anything and that is to be in power.

    They already have their Turd together. They sent him to Brussels to negotiate Brexit.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820

    A cheque for £1000 I received from Betfair has just bounced.

    Written against their account?
    Yep. Apparently it mysteriously got stopped. 'This can sometimes happen' according to their live chat lady, but I must say I've never heard of a cheque stopping itself before,
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908

    A cheque for £1000 I received from Betfair has just bounced.

    Is sports book and exchange separate?

    Exchange presumably can't fail to honour winnings and withdrawals or am I confused?
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    rkrkrk said:

    A cheque for £1000 I received from Betfair has just bounced.

    Is sports book and exchange separate?

    Exchange presumably can't fail to honour winnings and withdrawals or am I confused?
    No, I think they are confused. Or at least I hope it's just confusion.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,907
    Alistair said:

    Looking at the Government consultation on betting site withdrawal restrictions

    terms preventing players from withdrawing any money they have deposited in their account unless they have wagered its value through in full once, or several times

    That one actually seems reasonable doesn't it (assuming it's a 1x wagering requirement)? Otherwise people could use the gambling site as a unregulated money transfer or money laundering service.

    Link to the Competition and Markets Authority consultation, as posted by @isam on the previous thread.

    https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/online-gambling#withdrawal-amounts-further-call-for-your-views

    I suggest that anyone who's had a winning account shut down or restricted, has had issues with terms & conditions, or problems withdrawing money, should all add their voice.

    @MikeSmithson and @TheScreamingEagles this might be a good header for a quiet day over the summer. It's open for consultation until 31st August.
  • Options
    Bobajob_PBBobajob_PB Posts: 928

    It pains me to say this, but Theresa May does seem to have made yet another unforced error on the rights of EU and UK citizens. As often seems to be the case, her initial position was perfectly reasonable, indeed the only sensible one: that there shouldn't be any unilateral guarantees by the UK, but we should negotiate reciprocal rights with the EU. However, the EU has recently published proposals which were reciprocal, but she doesn't seem to have responded to those; instead she has made a big show (why?) of making her own, less generous, proposals. Surely the UK should simply have welcomed the EU proposals with some reservations on the detail, and left it to DD's team to discuss it with Barnier's team? She seems to have put a lot of effort into a personal initiative which is at best unnecessary and might be counter-productive.

    Exactly. She is hopeless. A dullard.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,907

    A cheque for £1000 I received from Betfair has just bounced.

    Whoops!
    Actually, that's potentially quite worrying.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Damn you, Mr Meeks. That was just about the piece I was going to write tonight.

    However, I'm going to disagree with this bit:

    "Whatever travails Labour might face, they have the enormous advantage that they will not be in government during this period. Pretty well by default they can expect to take large leads in the polls at times during this Parliament. There is no obvious reason why they should lose them."

    That logic is one of the main reasons why I advocated last week that the Tories should vacate government. One year of Corbyn in Number 10 and the country might look quite differently at him (though there are, of course, all sorts of potential unintended consequences, not least the risk of the Tories going nuts at Corbyn's mishandling of Brexit and ignoring the more pressing domestic decisions).

    But Corbyn does still lead Labour and while he's fine spouting platitudes on rostrums, he shows no inclination to do politics as normal and after the last two months, why would he? He and his supporters will feel utterly vindicated in toughing it out and doing it their way. They are not going to change now. But not changing will mean not upping their MSM game, continuing to focus on social media and running a sub-par shadow cabinet; it'll mean ignoring MPs and treating parliamentary discipline as a nice-to-have rather than an essential attribute of an effective opposition (particularly in a hung parliament). It'll mean policy on the hoof and not consulting front benchers before announcing decisions (not that Labour is unique in that).

    In government or in opposition, Corbyn, and Corbyn's style of politics, will prove a considerable barrier to success. Yes, he did do well on June 8 in votes, vote share and seats gained. But just about any other recent Labour leader up against the same Tory leader, campaign and manifesto would have done better.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,080

    It pains me to say this, but Theresa May does seem to have made yet another unforced error on the rights of EU and UK citizens. As often seems to be the case, her initial position was perfectly reasonable, indeed the only sensible one: that there shouldn't be any unilateral guarantees by the UK, but we should negotiate reciprocal rights with the EU. However, the EU has recently published proposals which were reciprocal, but she doesn't seem to have responded to those; instead she has made a big show (why?) of making her own, less generous, proposals. Surely the UK should simply have welcomed the EU proposals with some reservations on the detail, and left it to DD's team to discuss it with Barnier's team? She seems to have put a lot of effort into a personal initiative which is at best unnecessary and might be counter-productive.

    Exactly. She is hopeless. A dullard.
    I think she made this mistake for the same reason she made her hopelessly tone-deaf statement after the election. In her head she mapped out all the set pieces of her Brexit strategy months ago and is completely incapable of adapting to changing events or new information.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Who voted for Tusk ? Not the citizens he claims to represent, you bet.
    The citizens of various countries elect governments. The heads of the elect govts elected Tusk.

    So he was elected by democratically elected leaders. It is not like he led a military coup.
    Tusk is just an appointee with no popular mandate. He has no business lecturing May on citizens' rights.
    May's mandate is not exactly sparkling either... or had you not noticed?
    May has an 85% mandate for Brexit, Tusk is the worthy successor of a damp rag.
    ?
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited June 2017

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Whttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/eu-takes-action-against-eastern-states-for-refusing-to-take-refugeesho voted for Tusk ? Not the citizens he claims to represent, you bet.
    The citizens of various countries elect governments. The heads of the elect govts elected Tusk.

    So he was elected by democratically elected leaders. It is not like he led a military coup.
    Tusk is just an appointee with no popular mandate. He has no business lecturing May on citizens' rights.
    May's mandate is not exactly sparkling either... or had you not noticed?
    May has an 85% mandate for Brexit, Tusk is the worthy successor of a damp rag.
    It's as much use as having an 85% mandate for sticking your hand in the fire.

    No British PM could navigate this process without being utterly crushed by the pressure. May's cack-handed attempts to paint the EU27 as divided by claiming the Poles were positive was transparent and embarrassing.

    https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/878183376032870401
    Friend Pole would do well to keep his nose out of our business ;

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/eu-takes-action-against-eastern-states-for-refusing-to-take-refugees
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,933
    Sandpit said:

    Alistair said:

    Looking at the Government consultation on betting site withdrawal restrictions

    terms preventing players from withdrawing any money they have deposited in their account unless they have wagered its value through in full once, or several times

    That one actually seems reasonable doesn't it (assuming it's a 1x wagering requirement)? Otherwise people could use the gambling site as a unregulated money transfer or money laundering service.

    Link to the Competition and Markets Authority consultation, as posted by @isam on the previous thread.

    https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/online-gambling#withdrawal-amounts-further-call-for-your-views

    I suggest that anyone who's had a winning account shut down or restricted, has had issues with terms & conditions, or problems withdrawing money, should all add their voice.

    @MikeSmithson and @TheScreamingEagles this might be a good header for a quiet day over the summer. It's open for consultation until 31st August.
    The most annoying one for me is the way the bookmakers take your money without question but ask for three forms of ID when you want to make a withdrawal. I can't understand how this protects the customer as they claim? I said many times if someone's hacked my details, I'd rather they are prevented depositing than withdrawing!
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Bobajob_PB

    Jackanory bob - I see you had another pop at me on the PT ,so lets try again -

    You posted last night these exact words - It was you who said you would celebrate mass EU deportations.

    Where did I post that please ?

    Come on big boy.

    TheScreamingEagles said:
    » show previous quotes
    Oh grow up.

    I can tell you're upset that Mrs May is deporting all those EU citizens you don't like.

    Yep ,i bet I am in a majority if we put it to a vote in the country.

    That will do me pal.
    Again where did i say - It was you who said you would celebrate mass EU deportations ?
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Who voted for Tusk ? Not the citizens he claims to represent, you bet.
    The citizens of various countries elect governments. The heads of the elect govts elected Tusk.

    So he was elected by democratically elected leaders. It is not like he led a military coup.
    Tusk is just an appointee with no popular mandate. He has no business lecturing May on citizens' rights.
    May's mandate is not exactly sparkling either... or had you not noticed?
    May has an 85% mandate for Brexit, Tusk is the worthy successor of a damp rag.
    ?
    Do you follow UK elections from Eire ?
  • Options
    Alistair said:

    Looking at the Government consultation on betting site withdrawal restrictions

    terms preventing players from withdrawing any money they have deposited in their account unless they have wagered its value through in full once, or several times

    That one actually seems reasonable doesn't it (assuming it's a 1x wagering requirement)? Otherwise people could use the gambling site as a unregulated money transfer or money laundering service.

    They still can. You just place opposite bets on different exchanges.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820

    Alistair said:

    Looking at the Government consultation on betting site withdrawal restrictions

    terms preventing players from withdrawing any money they have deposited in their account unless they have wagered its value through in full once, or several times

    That one actually seems reasonable doesn't it (assuming it's a 1x wagering requirement)? Otherwise people could use the gambling site as a unregulated money transfer or money laundering service.

    They still can. You just place opposite bets on different exchanges.
    But then if the wrong one wins, you end up transferring the money in the wrong direction, surely?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,907

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    "Seventy-nine people are feared dead after the blaze destroyed 151 homes in the Kensington tower block."

    I thought non confirmed deaths were not speculated on. Why is the word "feared" being used here ?!

    " Nine of those who died in the 14 June have been formally identified so far. "
    What's up with that ?
    Most of them won't have easily available dental records.
    In this chaotic scenario I don't think it's appropriate to give any weight to any of the authorities' various pronouncements.
    Sadly, there were most likely a lot of people in the building who weren't supposed to be there for one reason or another. The authorities are going to need to be very careful when identifying the bodies, not making any assumptions as to who they might be.
    Depending on how hot the fire got, and how long it lasted in various areas, just discovering the bodies might be difficult. It might be as distressing a situation as sifting through ashes to discover bone fragments. As they say the forensic search might take the rest of the year, I fear that's the case.
    Yes, the fire was insense and burned for several hours. Sadly it's going to be pretty gruesome in there, with a potentially unstable building there will be restrictions on any heavy equipment being bought in - and I'm not sure there are any ladders that can reach the higher floors. The solution is probably going to be to surround the whole building in scaffolding and clear it forensically a floor at a time from the top. As you say it will take months.

    I hope that those involved in the operations on site are being provided with sufficient counselling - the first responders and emergency services are well set up to provide this to their own, but there will be a whole load of other people working on the site in the coming months who won't be prepared for what they see and smell.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930

    Alistair said:

    Looking at the Government consultation on betting site withdrawal restrictions

    terms preventing players from withdrawing any money they have deposited in their account unless they have wagered its value through in full once, or several times

    That one actually seems reasonable doesn't it (assuming it's a 1x wagering requirement)? Otherwise people could use the gambling site as a unregulated money transfer or money laundering service.

    They still can. You just place opposite bets on different exchanges.
    But then if the wrong one wins, you end up transferring the money in the wrong direction, surely?
    + Premium charges......
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,972
    edited June 2017
    What's so egregiously bad about the UK government's proposals on EU citizens? Is it the ambiguity regarding the cut-off date, or the lack of ECJ oversight? I thought it seemed pretty reasonable, given that it said that all the 3m currently in the UK would be given the same rights as UK citizens.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,972

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Who voted for Tusk ? Not the citizens he claims to represent, you bet.
    The citizens of various countries elect governments. The heads of the elect govts elected Tusk.

    So he was elected by democratically elected leaders. It is not like he led a military coup.
    Tusk is just an appointee with no popular mandate. He has no business lecturing May on citizens' rights.
    May's mandate is not exactly sparkling either... or had you not noticed?
    May has an 85% mandate for Brexit, Tusk is the worthy successor of a damp rag.
    ?
    Both main parties campaigned on a manifesto to leave the EU.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,933
    edited June 2017

    Alistair said:

    Looking at the Government consultation on betting site withdrawal restrictions

    terms preventing players from withdrawing any money they have deposited in their account unless they have wagered its value through in full once, or several times

    That one actually seems reasonable doesn't it (assuming it's a 1x wagering requirement)? Otherwise people could use the gambling site as a unregulated money transfer or money laundering service.

    That will be the excuse but consider this scenario: you read today's thread header from the Meeksmeister. You check Oddschecker for the best price about Labour, load £1,000 into your account but then discover that in the 30 seconds that operation took, the price has been cut -- so you want to withdraw your money rather than accept the new, shorter odds.
    I did exactly that w Betway about 4 years ago trying to back Luis Suarez to be top prem scorer. They were 7/2 so I deposited, asked for the bet but they said I could have 5/2. I said no thanks and tried to withdraw my money, they refused to let me do so and threatened me with imprisonment for fraud!
  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    "Jeremy Corbyn has shown no interest since the election in seeking a meaningful reconciliation with his party critics.."

    Is this not very slightly harsh? He has given a shadow cabinet position to Owen Smith, who challenged him for the leadership in 2016. Although Owen Smith does not have as high a media profile as someone like Yvette Cooper, he did win more backing among Labour MPs than the other challenger in 2016. Bringing him back into the fold is a meaningful step in my view, even if I also think that it does not go as far as he could have done.
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    RobD said:

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Who voted for Tusk ? Not the citizens he claims to represent, you bet.
    The citizens of various countries elect governments. The heads of the elect govts elected Tusk.

    So he was elected by democratically elected leaders. It is not like he led a military coup.
    Tusk is just an appointee with no popular mandate. He has no business lecturing May on citizens' rights.
    May's mandate is not exactly sparkling either... or had you not noticed?
    May has an 85% mandate for Brexit, Tusk is the worthy successor of a damp rag.
    ?
    Both main parties campaigned on a manifesto to leave the EU.
    And Brussels rule's most obsequious supplicant, the SNP, suffered grievous losses.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,080
    RobD said:

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Who voted for Tusk ? Not the citizens he claims to represent, you bet.
    The citizens of various countries elect governments. The heads of the elect govts elected Tusk.

    So he was elected by democratically elected leaders. It is not like he led a military coup.
    Tusk is just an appointee with no popular mandate. He has no business lecturing May on citizens' rights.
    May's mandate is not exactly sparkling either... or had you not noticed?
    May has an 85% mandate for Brexit, Tusk is the worthy successor of a damp rag.
    ?
    Both main parties campaigned on a manifesto to leave the EU.
    Do people vote for candidates on the basis of their judgement or their loyalty to the manifesto? Are we no longer a representative democracy?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,972

    RobD said:

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Who voted for Tusk ? Not the citizens he claims to represent, you bet.
    The citizens of various countries elect governments. The heads of the elect govts elected Tusk.

    So he was elected by democratically elected leaders. It is not like he led a military coup.
    Tusk is just an appointee with no popular mandate. He has no business lecturing May on citizens' rights.
    May's mandate is not exactly sparkling either... or had you not noticed?
    May has an 85% mandate for Brexit, Tusk is the worthy successor of a damp rag.
    ?
    Both main parties campaigned on a manifesto to leave the EU.
    Do people vote for candidates on the basis of their judgement or their loyalty to the manifesto? Are we no longer a representative democracy?
    I'd say manifestos are still important. Especially given the big deal made about NICs just a few months ago.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,333

    It pains me to say this, but Theresa May does seem to have made yet another unforced error on the rights of EU and UK citizens. As often seems to be the case, her initial position was perfectly reasonable, indeed the only sensible one: that there shouldn't be any unilateral guarantees by the UK, but we should negotiate reciprocal rights with the EU. However, the EU has recently published proposals which were reciprocal, but she doesn't seem to have responded to those; instead she has made a big show (why?) of making her own, less generous, proposals. Surely the UK should simply have welcomed the EU proposals with some reservations on the detail, and left it to DD's team to discuss it with Barnier's team? She seems to have put a lot of effort into a personal initiative which is at best unnecessary and might be counter-productive.

    Exactly. She is hopeless. A dullard.
    I think it's more in the flexibility, or lack thereof. She had probably initiated an initiative and had, and has not the nimbleness to change. Quite why any of her (admittedly dwindling) band of advisers couldn't have helped goodness only knows.
  • Options

    Alistair said:

    Looking at the Government consultation on betting site withdrawal restrictions

    terms preventing players from withdrawing any money they have deposited in their account unless they have wagered its value through in full once, or several times

    That one actually seems reasonable doesn't it (assuming it's a 1x wagering requirement)? Otherwise people could use the gambling site as a unregulated money transfer or money laundering service.

    They still can. You just place opposite bets on different exchanges.
    But then if the wrong one wins, you end up transferring the money in the wrong direction, surely?
    Sure, but if you control both accounts you don't care.

    If I buy 1,000 lots of March 2019 coffee futures on one exchange and sell 1,000 on another, or indeed sell them to myself under two names on the same exchange, and then wait 6 months, there will be a profit and loss in one direction or another. It all accrues to me. I just don't know which sockpuppet account will win and which will lose. There's no economic effect, but all the money comes back from a nice clean source.

    It must be feasible to concoct something similar using sports results, where you're on both finalists, or something.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,972
    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/walespolitics/status/878230395770241028

    Despite writing it, I don't think he has the final say in interpreting it (neither does the UK government for that matter).
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Whttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/eu-takes-action-against-eastern-states-for-refusing-to-take-refugeesho voted for Tusk ? Not the citizens he claims to represent, you bet.
    The citizens of various countries elect governments. The heads of the elect govts elected Tusk.

    So he was elected by democratically elected leaders. It is not like he led a military coup.
    Tusk is just an appointee with no popular mandate. He has no business lecturing May on citizens' rights.
    May's mandate is not exactly sparkling either... or had you not noticed?
    May has an 85% mandate for Brexit, Tusk is the worthy successor of a damp rag.
    It's as much use as having an 85% mandate for sticking your hand in the fire.

    No British PM could navigate this process without being utterly crushed by the pressure. May's cack-handed attempts to paint the EU27 as divided by claiming the Poles were positive was transparent and embarrassing.

    https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/878183376032870401
    Friend Pole would do well to keep his nose out of our business ;

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/eu-takes-action-against-eastern-states-for-refusing-to-take-refugees
    There are close to a million Poles in Britain. That makes it his business.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    RobD said:

    What's so egregiously bad about the UK government's proposals on EU citizens? Is it the ambiguity regarding the cut-off date, or the lack of ECJ oversight? I thought it seemed pretty reasonable, given that it said that all the 3m currently in the UK would be given the same rights as UK citizens.

    There's nothing wrong with the proposals; the problem is with the politics. As RichardN says, we could probably have got somewhere near these - or somewhere near where we'd end up starting with these proposals - by accepting the EU document subject to specific reservations. Instead, she's marched her troops up the hill and will look silly when she makes concessions (or when she fails to get anywhere if she's not prepared to negotiate).
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,721
    Scott_P said:
    "A democracy that cannot change its mind has ceased to be a democracy"
    This guy quoting David Davis.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Mr. P, I posted previously that if the EU offered anything remotely substantive (say, increasing the rebate by £1bn) then it could have a crack at a rethink.

    But the muttering from the likes of Verhofstadt is in precisely the opposite direction.

    On betting etc: still not heard back from Ladbrokes. Not a fan of live chatting so I'll probably leave it until a bit later today and hope I get a reply.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Damn you, Mr Meeks. That was just about the piece I was going to write tonight.

    However, I'm going to disagree with this bit:

    "Whatever travails Labour might face, they have the enormous advantage that they will not be in government during this period. Pretty well by default they can expect to take large leads in the polls at times during this Parliament. There is no obvious reason why they should lose them."

    That logic is one of the main reasons why I advocated last week that the Tories should vacate government. One year of Corbyn in Number 10 and the country might look quite differently at him (though there are, of course, all sorts of potential unintended consequences, not least the risk of the Tories going nuts at Corbyn's mishandling of Brexit and ignoring the more pressing domestic decisions).

    But Corbyn does still lead Labour and while he's fine spouting platitudes on rostrums, he shows no inclination to do politics as normal and after the last two months, why would he? He and his supporters will feel utterly vindicated in toughing it out and doing it their way. They are not going to change now. But not changing will mean not upping their MSM game, continuing to focus on social media and running a sub-par shadow cabinet; it'll mean ignoring MPs and treating parliamentary discipline as a nice-to-have rather than an essential attribute of an effective opposition (particularly in a hung parliament). It'll mean policy on the hoof and not consulting front benchers before announcing decisions (not that Labour is unique in that).

    In government or in opposition, Corbyn, and Corbyn's style of politics, will prove a considerable barrier to success. Yes, he did do well on June 8 in votes, vote share and seats gained. But just about any other recent Labour leader up against the same Tory leader, campaign and manifesto would have done better.

    I think the mainstream big hitters in labour are facing the most interesting and difficult decision in recent history in deciding how far they can now go in being born again as Corbynites in order to stay in the game, while still maintaining the option of a reverse ferret when corbynism implodes. I hope Neil and Marr have plans to nail them down on this.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited June 2017

    RobD said:

    What's so egregiously bad about the UK government's proposals on EU citizens? Is it the ambiguity regarding the cut-off date, or the lack of ECJ oversight? I thought it seemed pretty reasonable, given that it said that all the 3m currently in the UK would be given the same rights as UK citizens.

    There's nothing wrong with the proposals; the problem is with the politics. As RichardN says, we could probably have got somewhere near these - or somewhere near where we'd end up starting with these proposals - by accepting the EU document subject to specific reservations. Instead, she's marched her troops up the hill and will look silly when she makes concessions (or when she fails to get anywhere if she's not prepared to negotiate).
    The EU will be more damaged that the UK as a whole(because the trade balance is huge in the EU's favour) and the EU cost will be split over 27 nations.
    Frankly if the EU play hardball then so should we. the UK will recover from this terrible decision, with or without the EU. Frankly its worth it to tell the French and the Germans to go feck themselves. Lets see how Germany likes 50% tarriifs on VW's, BMW's and Mercs
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Scott_P said:
    Lesser breeds can be browbeaten into changing their minds but the British aren't like that ;

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IpBMqAKf-VQ
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,972
    edited June 2017

    Scott_P said:
    "A democracy that cannot change its mind has ceased to be a democracy"
    This guy quoting David Davis.
    That does not necessarily mean it can undo all its decisions without any repercussions.
  • Options
    ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,819
    RobD said:

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Who voted for Tusk ? Not the citizens he claims to represent, you bet.
    The citizens of various countries elect governments. The heads of the elect govts elected Tusk.

    So he was elected by democratically elected leaders. It is not like he led a military coup.
    Tusk is just an appointee with no popular mandate. He has no business lecturing May on citizens' rights.
    May's mandate is not exactly sparkling either... or had you not noticed?
    May has an 85% mandate for Brexit, Tusk is the worthy successor of a damp rag.
    ?
    Both main parties campaigned on a manifesto to leave the EU.
    By that same logic she has no mandate to not offer unilateral EU citizens rights, because that is what the majority of parties in the parliament support. If Labour's positions are going be subsumed into May's mandate, then she needs to actually get Labour onboard. She hasn't so she only speaks for the Tory party, which doesn't have a majority.
  • Options
    Bobajob_PBBobajob_PB Posts: 928

    Bobajob_PB

    Jackanory bob - I see you had another pop at me on the PT ,so lets try again -

    You posted last night these exact words - It was you who said you would celebrate mass EU deportations.

    Where did I post that please ?

    Come on big boy.

    TheScreamingEagles said:
    » show previous quotes
    Oh grow up.

    I can tell you're upset that Mrs May is deporting all those EU citizens you don't like.

    Yep ,i bet I am in a majority if we put it to a vote in the country.

    That will do me pal.
    Again where did i say - It was you who said you would celebrate mass EU deportations ?
    Eh? You admitted you were upset that May won't be deporting people. Do you not see??
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,972

    RobD said:

    Tusk: "The UK's offer is below our expectations and risks worsening the situation for citizens."

    Who voted for Tusk ? Not the citizens he claims to represent, you bet.
    The citizens of various countries elect governments. The heads of the elect govts elected Tusk.

    So he was elected by democratically elected leaders. It is not like he led a military coup.
    Tusk is just an appointee with no popular mandate. He has no business lecturing May on citizens' rights.
    May's mandate is not exactly sparkling either... or had you not noticed?
    May has an 85% mandate for Brexit, Tusk is the worthy successor of a damp rag.
    ?
    Both main parties campaigned on a manifesto to leave the EU.
    By that same logic she has no mandate to not offer unilateral EU citizens rights, because that is what the majority of parties in the parliament support. If Labour's positions are going be subsumed into May's mandate, then she needs to actually get Labour onboard. She hasn't so she only speaks for the Tory party, which doesn't have a majority.
    Majority of parties? I don't think that is a useful metric.
This discussion has been closed.