politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The evening must read

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The evening must read

Great read on life inside the May bunker ft some true blue language https://t.co/TaYvPVLzV6 via @FT pic.twitter.com/8Yvs2buf50

Read the full story here

Ishmael_Z

1

David_Evershed

Deux

RobD

2

3

tlg86

Arsenal.

HYUFD

Makes pretty clear Hammond and Davis will stitch up the Brexit deal between them with May staying as nominal leader and they and Boris will then be the main candidates in a Tory leadership contest in late 2019 or early 2020

Alanbrooke

TSE continues to fight yesterdays battles

voters dont care, youre just banging on about Europe

williamglenn

HYUFD said:

Makes pretty clear Hammond and Davis will stitch up the Brexit deal between them

You don't think involving the EU27 might be needed?

Alanbrooke

Bill Gates against immigration to Europe

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4665198/Bill-Gates-warns-open-door-migration-overwhelm-Europe.html

HYUFD

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Makes pretty clear Hammond and Davis will stitch up the Brexit deal between them

You don't think involving the EU27 might be needed?

Of course but that will be the other side in any case if Beppe Grillo wins in Italy next year they will have to deal with an Italian referendum on the Euro too

TheScreamingEagles

Alanbrooke said:

TSE continues to fight yesterdays battles

voters dont care, youre just banging on about Europe

The quicker we leave, the quicker we rejoin.

Alanbrooke

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TSE continues to fight yesterdays battles

voters dont care, youre just banging on about Europe

The quicker we leave, the quicker we rejoin.

son of IDS speaks

Ishmael_Z

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

Alanbrooke

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

another_richard

Alanbrooke said:

Bill Gates against immigration to Europe

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4665198/Bill-Gates-warns-open-door-migration-overwhelm-Europe.html

Italy trying to stop migrants at sea:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/03/anger-at-rules-plan-for-migrant-charities-in-mediterranean

Austria trying to stop migrants at the Alps:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/04/austrian-troops-to-stop-migrants-crossing-border-with-italy

Still there will be more opportunities for Yvette and Nicola to finally house some refugees:

' Frans Timmermans, a European commission vice-president, said Italy’s call for solidarity was completely justified and urged other EU member states to meet their promises of housing refugees in Italy under an EU relocation scheme. “It would make a world of difference if member states would just do what they agreed before.”

He was clear that Brexit did not exempt the UK from taking part in a new refugee relocation scheme, as the commission announced a plan to bring asylum seekers from Libya, Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan to Europe. “This is an exercise we need to do at a European level and I count on solidarity from all member states including the United Kingdom.” '

Nigelb

Hammond and (who'd have thought it ?) Davis sound to be the only sane participants in the ongoing clusterf@ck.

Sean_F

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

She does have that duty. Leaving the Conservatives in the lurch (even though it's a lurch of her own making) would be the worst option.

TheScreamingEagles

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

Sean_F

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Alanbrooke

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

Mrs May isnt a man

this could explain your problems in night clubs

HYUFD

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

In 2015 they did not need to as Cameron had won his own mandate, in 2016 he lost a referendum he called and had to go, in 2017 May won most seats in an election she called even if she lost her majority

TheScreamingEagles

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

MyBurningEars

Mr Hammond is vehemently opposed to Mrs May’s threat — or bluff — that Britain could walk away with no deal at all.

I know this keeps cropping up in the press, but is there more nuance than what we are getting told?

Surely nobody ever walked to the negotiating table and said "I will fight hard for my position, but at the end of the day, when the deadline comes, I will accept anything you put in front of me." Which is what committing to "no walking away in any circumstances" would mean.

On a similar note, I have never understood the row over "no deal is better than a bad deal". That is surely axiomatic - the very definition of a deal so bad that you simply couldn't accept it, would be a deal whose outcomes are worse than the default situation that arises if the deadline passes without a deal.

So what is the row really about? Are the politicians arguing about the metric by which "better" or "worse" outcomes will be assessed? Are they arguing about the public presentation and rhetoric - whether we show strength by posturing that a walk-out is possible, or appear friendlier and more constructive by glossing over the fact that no-deal is a genuine possibility that both sides should be prepared for? Is the argument actually about the practicalities of "no deal" - what circumstances would trigger it, what amount of preparation should be done in case it happens, to what extent should avoiding it be prioritised?

I know there is a briefing war going on, but surely it cannot be as simple as Phil "I would sell my firstborn to Brussels if they so required" Hammond versus Theresa "Only New Labour's ghastly 'human rights' laws prevent me devouring Europeans for breakfast" May. I get that there are disagreements on the shape of the post-Brexit arrangements, the length of any transition, and so on, yet a lot of the briefing war seems to focus on the negotiation process itself in ways that I do not comprehend.

TheScreamingEagles

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

Mrs May isnt a man

this could explain your problems in night clubs

As my friends in The Village would tell you, the difference between a heterosexual man and a homosexual/bisexual man is six pints.

Alanbrooke

another_richard said:

Alanbrooke said:

Bill Gates against immigration to Europe

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4665198/Bill-Gates-warns-open-door-migration-overwhelm-Europe.html

Italy trying to stop migrants at sea:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/03/anger-at-rules-plan-for-migrant-charities-in-mediterranean

Austria trying to stop migrants at the Alps:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/04/austrian-troops-to-stop-migrants-crossing-border-with-italy

Still there will be more opportunities for Yvette and Nicola to finally house some refugees:

' Frans Timmermans, a European commission vice-president, said Italy’s call for solidarity was completely justified and urged other EU member states to meet their promises of housing refugees in Italy under an EU relocation scheme. “It would make a world of difference if member states would just do what they agreed before.”

He was clear that Brexit did not exempt the UK from taking part in a new refugee relocation scheme, as the commission announced a plan to bring asylum seekers from Libya, Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan to Europe. “This is an exercise we need to do at a European level and I count on solidarity from all member states including the United Kingdom.” '

Farage says EU Parlt a joke = outrageous
Juncker says EU Parlt a joke = fair comment

williamglenn

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

Cameron did hire Steve Hilton...

Alanbrooke

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

Mrs May isnt a man

this could explain your problems in night clubs

As my friends in The Village would tell you, the difference between a heterosexual man and a homosexual/bisexual man is six pints.

you will struggle with that cut off point in most pubs

TheScreamingEagles

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

Cameron did hire Steve Hilton...

But no examples of Hilton repeatedly acting like that towards cabinet ministers?

Sean_F

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

That is not the point. The Conservative Parliamentary Party is made up of raging egos and headless chickens. If May resigns, they'll rip themselves apart.

Alanbrooke

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

Osborne

Alanbrooke

HYUFD said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

In 2015 they did not need to as Cameron had won his own mandate, in 2016 he lost a referendum he called and had to go, in 2017 May won most seats in an election she called even if she lost her majority

he said he would stay

then legged it

TheScreamingEagles

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

Mrs May isnt a man

this could explain your problems in night clubs

As my friends in The Village would tell you, the difference between a heterosexual man and a homosexual/bisexual man is six pints.

you will struggle with that cut off point in most pubs

Depends on what is in those six pints, you've never mixed champagne with vodka?

HYUFD

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

Cameron did hire Steve Hilton...

Hilton had some interesting ideas but most of them were blocked by Osborne, Clegg and the civil service

Alanbrooke

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

Mrs May isnt a man

this could explain your problems in night clubs

As my friends in The Village would tell you, the difference between a heterosexual man and a homosexual/bisexual man is six pints.

you will struggle with that cut off point in most pubs

Depends on what is in those six pints, you've never mixed champagne with vodka?

why would I want to dilute vodka ?

Sean_F

MyBurningEars said:

Mr Hammond is vehemently opposed to Mrs May’s threat — or bluff — that Britain could walk away with no deal at all.

I know this keeps cropping up in the press, but is there more nuance than what we are getting told?

Surely nobody ever walked to the negotiating table and said "I will fight hard for my position, but at the end of the day, when the deadline comes, I will accept anything you put in front of me." Which is what committing to "no walking away in any circumstances" would mean.

On a similar note, I have never understood the row over "no deal is better than a bad deal". That is surely axiomatic - the very definition of a deal so bad that you simply couldn't accept it, would be a deal whose outcomes are worse than the default situation that arises if the deadline passes without a deal.

So what is the row really about? Are the politicians arguing about the metric by which "better" or "worse" outcomes will be assessed? Are they arguing about the public presentation and rhetoric - whether we show strength by posturing that a walk-out is possible, or appear friendlier and more constructive by glossing over the fact that no-deal is a genuine possibility that both sides should be prepared for? Is the argument actually about the practicalities of "no deal" - what circumstances would trigger it, what amount of preparation should be done in case it happens, to what extent should avoiding it be prioritised?

I know there is a briefing war going on, but surely it cannot be as simple as Phil "I would sell my firstborn to Brussels if they so required" Hammond versus Theresa "Only New Labour's ghastly 'human rights' laws prevent me devouring Europeans for breakfast" May. I get that there are disagreements on the shape of the post-Brexit arrangements, the length of any transition, and so on, yet a lot of the briefing war seems to focus on the negotiation process itself in ways that I do not comprehend.

There have been times when I've advised clients to walk away from a deal. I've walked away from a ludicrously bad offer to buy my practice. Sometimes, no deal is the best option.

Alanbrooke

Sean_F said:

MyBurningEars said:

Mr Hammond is vehemently opposed to Mrs May’s threat — or bluff — that Britain could walk away with no deal at all.

I know this keeps cropping up in the press, but is there more nuance than what we are getting told?

Surely nobody ever walked to the negotiating table and said "I will fight hard for my position, but at the end of the day, when the deadline comes, I will accept anything you put in front of me." Which is what committing to "no walking away in any circumstances" would mean.

On a similar note, I have never understood the row over "no deal is better than a bad deal". That is surely axiomatic - the very definition of a deal so bad that you simply couldn't accept it, would be a deal whose outcomes are worse than the default situation that arises if the deadline passes without a deal.

So what is the row really about? Are the politicians arguing about the metric by which "better" or "worse" outcomes will be assessed? Are they arguing about the public presentation and rhetoric - whether we show strength by posturing that a walk-out is possible, or appear friendlier and more constructive by glossing over the fact that no-deal is a genuine possibility that both sides should be prepared for? Is the argument actually about the practicalities of "no deal" - what circumstances would trigger it, what amount of preparation should be done in case it happens, to what extent should avoiding it be prioritised?

I know there is a briefing war going on, but surely it cannot be as simple as Phil "I would sell my firstborn to Brussels if they so required" Hammond versus Theresa "Only New Labour's ghastly 'human rights' laws prevent me devouring Europeans for breakfast" May. I get that there are disagreements on the shape of the post-Brexit arrangements, the length of any transition, and so on, yet a lot of the briefing war seems to focus on the negotiation process itself in ways that I do not comprehend.

There have been times when I've advised clients to walk away from a deal. I've walked away from a ludicrously bad offer to buy my practice. Sometimes, no deal is the best option.

Ive just lost a deal today other side pulled it

bastards

Charles

MyBurningEars said:

Mr Hammond is vehemently opposed to Mrs May’s threat — or bluff — that Britain could walk away with no deal at all.

I know this keeps cropping up in the press, but is there more nuance than what we are getting told?

Surely nobody ever walked to the negotiating table and said "I will fight hard for my position, but at the end of the day, when the deadline comes, I will accept anything you put in front of me." Which is what committing to "no walking away in any circumstances" would mean.

On a similar note, I have never understood the row over "no deal is better than a bad deal". That is surely axiomatic - the very definition of a deal so bad that you simply couldn't accept it, would be a deal whose outcomes are worse than the default situation that arises if the deadline passes without a deal.

So what is the row really about? Are the politicians arguing about the metric by which "better" or "worse" outcomes will be assessed? Are they arguing about the public presentation and rhetoric - whether we show strength by posturing that a walk-out is possible, or appear friendlier and more constructive by glossing over the fact that no-deal is a genuine possibility that both sides should be prepared for? Is the argument actually about the practicalities of "no deal" - what circumstances would trigger it, what amount of preparation should be done in case it happens, to what extent should avoiding it be prioritised?

I know there is a briefing war going on, but surely it cannot be as simple as Phil "I would sell my firstborn to Brussels if they so required" Hammond versus Theresa "Only New Labour's ghastly 'human rights' laws prevent me devouring Europeans for breakfast" May. I get that there are disagreements on the shape of the post-Brexit arrangements, the length of any transition, and so on, yet a lot of the briefing war seems to focus on the negotiation process itself in ways that I do not comprehend.

Remainers trying to paint Brexiteers as extremists. Brexiteers trying to avoid what they see as Cameron's mistake of never being willing to back Leave

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

Cameron did hire Steve Hilton...

But no examples of Hilton repeatedly acting like that towards cabinet ministers?

Hilton used to walk around No 10 in bare feet berating cabinet ministers and civil servants alike and firing off emails to all and sundry

Charles

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

Mrs May isnt a man

this could explain your problems in night clubs

As my friends in The Village would tell you, the difference between a heterosexual man and a homosexual/bisexual man is six pints.

you will struggle with that cut off point in most pubs

Depends on what is in those six pints, you've never mixed champagne with vodka?

I once downed a pint of champagne. Not a recommended course of action

Charles

Alanbrooke said:

Sean_F said:

MyBurningEars said:

Mr Hammond is vehemently opposed to Mrs May’s threat — or bluff — that Britain could walk away with no deal at all.

I know this keeps cropping up in the press, but is there more nuance than what we are getting told?

Surely nobody ever walked to the negotiating table and said "I will fight hard for my position, but at the end of the day, when the deadline comes, I will accept anything you put in front of me." Which is what committing to "no walking away in any circumstances" would mean.

On a similar note, I have never understood the row over "no deal is better than a bad deal". That is surely axiomatic - the very definition of a deal so bad that you simply couldn't accept it, would be a deal whose outcomes are worse than the default situation that arises if the deadline passes without a deal.

So what is the row really about? Are the politicians arguing about the metric by which "better" or "worse" outcomes will be assessed? Are they arguing about the public presentation and rhetoric - whether we show strength by posturing that a walk-out is possible, or appear friendlier and more constructive by glossing over the fact that no-deal is a genuine possibility that both sides should be prepared for? Is the argument actually about the practicalities of "no deal" - what circumstances would trigger it, what amount of preparation should be done in case it happens, to what extent should avoiding it be prioritised?

I know there is a briefing war going on, but surely it cannot be as simple as Phil "I would sell my firstborn to Brussels if they so required" Hammond versus Theresa "Only New Labour's ghastly 'human rights' laws prevent me devouring Europeans for breakfast" May. I get that there are disagreements on the shape of the post-Brexit arrangements, the length of any transition, and so on, yet a lot of the briefing war seems to focus on the negotiation process itself in ways that I do not comprehend.

There have been times when I've advised clients to walk away from a deal. I've walked away from a ludicrously bad offer to buy my practice. Sometimes, no deal is the best option.

Ive just lost a deal today other side pulled it

bastards

I just walked away from. $10m fee as I didn't trust the guy I was working with

williamglenn

Charles said:

Remainers trying to paint Brexiteers as extremists. Brexiteers trying to avoid what they see as Cameron's mistake of never being willing to back Leave

'If we don't get what we want we'll leave' has rather lost its currency as a threat.

Charles

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

Remainers trying to paint Brexiteers as extremists. Brexiteers trying to avoid what they see as Cameron's mistake of never being willing to back Leave

'If we don't get what we want we'll leave' has rather lost its currency as a threat.

"If you insist on Eur 100bn or nothing you'll get nothing" hasn't

Alanbrooke

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Sean_F said:

MyBurningEars said:

Mr Hammond is vehemently opposed to Mrs May’s threat — or bluff — that Britain could walk away with no deal at all.

I know this keeps cropping up in the press, but is there more nuance than what we are getting told?

Surely nobody ever walked to the negotiating table and said "I will fight hard for my position, but at the end of the day, when the deadline comes, I will accept anything you put in front of me." Which is what committing to "no walking away in any circumstances" would mean.

On a similar note, I have never understood the row over "no deal is better than a bad deal". That is surely axiomatic - the very definition of a deal so bad that you simply couldn't accept it, would be a deal whose outcomes are worse than the default situation that arises if the deadline passes without a deal.

So what is the row really about? Are the politicians arguing about the metric by which "better" or "worse" outcomes will be assessed? Are they arguing about the public presentation and rhetoric - whether we show strength by posturing that a walk-out is possible, or appear friendlier and more constructive by glossing over the fact that no-deal is a genuine possibility that both sides should be prepared for? Is the argument actually about the practicalities of "no deal" - what circumstances would trigger it, what amount of preparation should be done in case it happens, to what extent should avoiding it be prioritised?

I know there is a briefing war going on, but surely it cannot be as simple as Phil "I would sell my firstborn to Brussels if they so required" Hammond versus Theresa "Only New Labour's ghastly 'human rights' laws prevent me devouring Europeans for breakfast" May. I get that there are disagreements on the shape of the post-Brexit arrangements, the length of any transition, and so on, yet a lot of the briefing war seems to focus on the negotiation process itself in ways that I do not comprehend.

There have been times when I've advised clients to walk away from a deal. I've walked away from a ludicrously bad offer to buy my practice. Sometimes, no deal is the best option.

Ive just lost a deal today other side pulled it

bastards

I just walked away from. $10m fee as I didn't trust the guy I was working with

was he wearing red shoes ?

williamglenn

Charles said:

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

Remainers trying to paint Brexiteers as extremists. Brexiteers trying to avoid what they see as Cameron's mistake of never being willing to back Leave

'If we don't get what we want we'll leave' has rather lost its currency as a threat.

"If you insist on Eur 100bn or nothing you'll get nothing" hasn't

Only if we are genuinely prepared, not only to walk away from negotiations, but to adopt a foreign policy based on hostility to the European Union and to succeed in bringing it down. Otherwise it can only offer a short-term solution.

MyBurningEars

MyBurningEars said:

I know there is a briefing war going on, but surely it cannot be as simple as Phil "I would sell my firstborn to Brussels if they so required" Hammond versus Theresa "Only New Labour's ghastly 'human rights' laws prevent me devouring Europeans for breakfast" May. I get that there are disagreements on the shape of the post-Brexit arrangements, the length of any transition, and so on, yet a lot of the briefing war seems to focus on the negotiation process itself in ways that I do not comprehend.

I would appreciate enlightenment if anybody can read the tea leaves better than me. For what little it's worth, my working assumptions are (1) what rows appear in the press are not necessarily the rows taking place behind closed doors, (2) the briefing wars partly relate to jockeying for political influence within the Cabinet, partly relate to jockeying for pole position in the Tory leadership neverendum, and partly about Brexit.

But even if this is correct, I've no idea which is which. I don't even know what things put out for public consumption are ultimately intended for the ears of fellow ministers, which are for backbenchers, which are hints of cooperation for opposition MPs with similar Brexit views, which are for Tory members (qua leadership voters), which are for the EU to take note of, which are intended (as reassurance or warning) for the business community and investors... it's like being spectator to a sport whose rules are kept secret, you're not even sure who is playing, and the commentator is double-jobbing as the composer of The Times cryptic crossword.

Alanbrooke

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

Remainers trying to paint Brexiteers as extremists. Brexiteers trying to avoid what they see as Cameron's mistake of never being willing to back Leave

'If we don't get what we want we'll leave' has rather lost its currency as a threat.

"If you insist on Eur 100bn or nothing you'll get nothing" hasn't

Only if we are genuinely prepared, not only to walk away from negotiations, but to adopt a foreign policy based on hostility to the European Union and to succeed in bringing it down. Otherwise it can only offer a short-term solution.

I suppose youre not in the nuke the fuckers camp then ?

Nigelb

Charles said:

MyBurningEars said:

Mr Hammond is vehemently opposed to Mrs May’s threat — or bluff — that Britain could walk away with no deal at all.

I know this keeps cropping up in the press, but is there more nuance than what we are getting told?

Surely nobody ever walked to the negotiating table and said "I will fight hard for my position, but at the end of the day, when the deadline comes, I will accept anything you put in front of me." Which is what committing to "no walking away in any circumstances" would mean.

On a similar note, I have never understood the row over "no deal is better than a bad deal". That is surely axiomatic - the very definition of a deal so bad that you simply couldn't accept it, would be a deal whose outcomes are worse than the default situation that arises if the deadline passes without a deal.

So what is the row really about? Are the politicians arguing about the metric by which "better" or "worse" outcomes will be assessed? Are they arguing about the public presentation and rhetoric - whether we show strength by posturing that a walk-out is possible, or appear friendlier and more constructive by glossing over the fact that no-deal is a genuine possibility that both sides should be prepared for? Is the argument actually about the practicalities of "no deal" - what circumstances would trigger it, what amount of preparation should be done in case it happens, to what extent should avoiding it be prioritised?

I know there is a briefing war going on, but surely it cannot be as simple as Phil "I would sell my firstborn to Brussels if they so required" Hammond versus Theresa "Only New Labour's ghastly 'human rights' laws prevent me devouring Europeans for breakfast" May. I get that there are disagreements on the shape of the post-Brexit arrangements, the length of any transition, and so on, yet a lot of the briefing war seems to focus on the negotiation process itself in ways that I do not comprehend.

Remainers trying to paint Brexiteers as extremists...

Not really.
Dogmatists without a coherent plan - or even a clue - perhaps.

Charles

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Sean_F said:

MyBurningEars said:

Mr Hammond is vehemently opposed to Mrs May’s threat — or bluff — that Britain could walk away with no deal at all.

I know this keeps cropping up in the press, but is there more nuance than what we are getting told?

Surely nobody ever walked to the negotiating table and said "I will fight hard for my position, but at the end of the day, when the deadline comes, I will accept anything you put in front of me." Which is what committing to "no walking away in any circumstances" would mean.

On a similar note, I have never understood the row over "no deal is better than a bad deal". That is surely axiomatic - the very definition of a deal so bad that you simply couldn't accept it, would be a deal whose outcomes are worse than the default situation that arises if the deadline passes without a deal.

So what is the row really about? Are the politicians arguing about the metric by which "better" or "worse" outcomes will be assessed? Are they arguing about the public presentation and rhetoric - whether we show strength by posturing that a walk-out is possible, or appear friendlier and more constructive by glossing over the fact that no-deal is a genuine possibility that both sides should be prepared for? Is the argument actually about the practicalities of "no deal" - what circumstances would trigger it, what amount of preparation should be done in case it happens, to what extent should avoiding it be prioritised?

I know there is a briefing war going on, but surely it cannot be as simple as Phil "I would sell my firstborn to Brussels if they so required" Hammond versus Theresa "Only New Labour's ghastly 'human rights' laws prevent me devouring Europeans for breakfast" May. I get that there are disagreements on the shape of the post-Brexit arrangements, the length of any transition, and so on, yet a lot of the briefing war seems to focus on the negotiation process itself in ways that I do not comprehend.

There have been times when I've advised clients to walk away from a deal. I've walked away from a ludicrously bad offer to buy my practice. Sometimes, no deal is the best option.

Ive just lost a deal today other side pulled it

bastards

I just walked away from. $10m fee as I didn't trust the guy I was working with

was he wearing red shoes ?

He was Jinjie

AlastairMeeks

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

That is not the point. The Conservative Parliamentary Party is made up of raging egos and headless chickens. If May resigns, they'll rip themselves apart.

I pointed out before the election that Theresa May might well be obliged to stay in office if she lost her majority, whether she liked it or not. So it has proved.

Charles

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

Remainers trying to paint Brexiteers as extremists. Brexiteers trying to avoid what they see as Cameron's mistake of never being willing to back Leave

'If we don't get what we want we'll leave' has rather lost its currency as a threat.

"If you insist on Eur 100bn or nothing you'll get nothing" hasn't

Only if we are genuinely prepared, not only to walk away from negotiations, but to adopt a foreign policy based on hostility to the European Union and to succeed in bringing it down. Otherwise it can only offer a short-term solution.

Never pay the Danegeld

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/bbcsport/status/882323281054969857

Beverley_C

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

That is not the point. The Conservative Parliamentary Party is made up of raging egos and headless chickens. If May resigns, they'll rip themselves apart.

Then surely "The Mission" is to get Mrs May to step down and let the "... raging egos and headless chickens ..." rip the Conservative Parliamentary Party apart before they do it to the UK instead.

alex.

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

Cameron did hire Steve Hilton...

And, er, Andy Coulson.

Beverley_C

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ive just lost a deal today other side pulled it

bastards

I just walked away from. $10m fee as I didn't trust the guy I was working with

Are you two on opposite sides of the same deal by any chance?

rkrkrk

MyBurningEars said:

MyBurningEars said:

I know there is a briefing war going on, but surely it cannot be as simple as Phil "I would sell my firstborn to Brussels if they so required" Hammond versus Theresa "Only New Labour's ghastly 'human rights' laws prevent me devouring Europeans for breakfast" May. I get that there are disagreements on the shape of the post-Brexit arrangements, the length of any transition, and so on, yet a lot of the briefing war seems to focus on the negotiation process itself in ways that I do not comprehend.

I would appreciate enlightenment if anybody can read the tea leaves better than me. For what little it's worth, my working assumptions are (1) what rows appear in the press are not necessarily the rows taking place behind closed doors, (2) the briefing wars partly relate to jockeying for political influence within the Cabinet, partly relate to jockeying for pole position in the Tory leadership neverendum, and partly about Brexit.

But even if this is correct, I've no idea which is which. I don't even know what things put out for public consumption are ultimately intended for the ears of fellow ministers, which are for backbenchers, which are hints of cooperation for opposition MPs with similar Brexit views, which are for Tory members (qua leadership voters), which are for the EU to take note of, which are intended (as reassurance or warning) for the business community and investors... it's like being spectator to a sport whose rules are kept secret, you're not even sure who is playing, and the commentator is double-jobbing as the composer of The Times cryptic crossword.

Absolutely agree. Other than those with excellent insider knowledge - I think we can have very little idea what is going on. Same applies to the EU negotiations also.

From a betting standpoint - I think lay the favourite/current media speculation is probably a good strategy. We know Boris wants it - which justifies his price.

We don't know Davis wants it - so I think he is a lay.

Hunt at 100/1 is a silly price and was well worth backing.

MarkHopkins

alex. said:

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

Cameron did hire Steve Hilton...

And, er, Andy Coulson.

Everyone needs a second chance.

Even Cameron.

Sean_F

MyBurningEars said:

MyBurningEars said:

I know there is a briefing war going on, but surely it cannot be as simple as Phil "I would sell my firstborn to Brussels if they so required" Hammond versus Theresa "Only New Labour's ghastly 'human rights' laws prevent me devouring Europeans for breakfast" May. I get that there are disagreements on the shape of the post-Brexit arrangements, the length of any transition, and so on, yet a lot of the briefing war seems to focus on the negotiation process itself in ways that I do not comprehend.

I would appreciate enlightenment if anybody can read the tea leaves better than me. For what little it's worth, my working assumptions are (1) what rows appear in the press are not necessarily the rows taking place behind closed doors, (2) the briefing wars partly relate to jockeying for political influence within the Cabinet, partly relate to jockeying for pole position in the Tory leadership neverendum, and partly about Brexit.

But even if this is correct, I've no idea which is which. I don't even know what things put out for public consumption are ultimately intended for the ears of fellow ministers, which are for backbenchers, which are hints of cooperation for opposition MPs with similar Brexit views, which are for Tory members (qua leadership voters), which are for the EU to take note of, which are intended (as reassurance or warning) for the business community and investors... it's like being spectator to a sport whose rules are kept secret, you're not even sure who is playing, and the commentator is double-jobbing as the composer of The Times cryptic crossword.

It's like Kremlinology. There are endless wheels within wheels.

William_H

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

That is not the point. The Conservative Parliamentary Party is made up of raging egos and headless chickens. If May resigns, they'll rip themselves apart.

Does having a weak interim May premiership do anything except extend the fighting?

Sean_F

William_H said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

That is not the point. The Conservative Parliamentary Party is made up of raging egos and headless chickens. If May resigns, they'll rip themselves apart.

Does having a weak interim May premiership do anything except extend the fighting?

It gains time.

FF43

MyBurningEars said:

Mr Hammond is vehemently opposed to Mrs May’s threat — or bluff — that Britain could walk away with no deal at all.

I know this keeps cropping up in the press, but is there more nuance than what we are getting told?

Surely nobody ever walked to the negotiating table and said "I will fight hard for my position, but at the end of the day, when the deadline comes, I will accept anything you put in front of me." Which is what committing to "no walking away in any circumstances" would mean.

On a similar note, I have never understood the row over "no deal is better than a bad deal". That is surely axiomatic - the very definition of a deal so bad that you simply couldn't accept it, would be a deal whose outcomes are worse than the default situation that arises if the deadline passes without a deal.

So what is the row really about? Are the politicians arguing about the metric by which "better" or "worse" outcomes will be assessed? Are they arguing about the public presentation and rhetoric - whether we show strength by posturing that a walk-out is possible, or appear friendlier and more constructive by glossing over the fact that no-deal is a genuine possibility that both sides should be prepared for? Is the argument actually about the practicalities of "no deal" - what circumstances would trigger it, what amount of preparation should be done in case it happens, to what extent should avoiding it be prioritised?

I know there is a briefing war going on, but surely it cannot be as simple as Phil "I would sell my firstborn to Brussels if they so required" Hammond versus Theresa "Only New Labour's ghastly 'human rights' laws prevent me devouring Europeans for breakfast" May. I get that there are disagreements on the shape of the post-Brexit arrangements, the length of any transition, and so on, yet a lot of the briefing war seems to focus on the negotiation process itself in ways that I do not comprehend.

This is a divorce. While theoretically there might be a situation where the only available deal is so bad, it's worth giving up access to your children and losing your half share on the house, you won't get a decent outcome going into negotiations threatening to walk away. You would get a better result being responsible adults, thinking of the children and offering to help out with childcare on the weekend

Alistair

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/bbcsport/status/882323281054969857

Most devastating result in Sevco's short history.

Jonathan

Sean_F said:

William_H said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

That is not the point. The Conservative Parliamentary Party is made up of raging egos and headless chickens. If May resigns, they'll rip themselves apart.

Does having a weak interim May premiership do anything except extend the fighting?

It gains time.

In exchange for more damage and less time to recover from it.

GIN1138

It appears the government is a fairly unhappy place at the moment...

MyBurningEars

Sean_F said:

MyBurningEars said:

MyBurningEars said:

I know there is a briefing war going on, but surely it cannot be as simple as Phil "I would sell my firstborn to Brussels if they so required" Hammond versus Theresa "Only New Labour's ghastly 'human rights' laws prevent me devouring Europeans for breakfast" May. I get that there are disagreements on the shape of the post-Brexit arrangements, the length of any transition, and so on, yet a lot of the briefing war seems to focus on the negotiation process itself in ways that I do not comprehend.

I would appreciate enlightenment if anybody can read the tea leaves better than me. For what little it's worth, my working assumptions are (1) what rows appear in the press are not necessarily the rows taking place behind closed doors, (2) the briefing wars partly relate to jockeying for political influence within the Cabinet, partly relate to jockeying for pole position in the Tory leadership neverendum, and partly about Brexit.

But even if this is correct, I've no idea which is which. I don't even know what things put out for public consumption are ultimately intended for the ears of fellow ministers, which are for backbenchers, which are hints of cooperation for opposition MPs with similar Brexit views, which are for Tory members (qua leadership voters), which are for the EU to take note of, which are intended (as reassurance or warning) for the business community and investors... it's like being spectator to a sport whose rules are kept secret, you're not even sure who is playing, and the commentator is double-jobbing as the composer of The Times cryptic crossword.

It's like Kremlinology. There are endless wheels within wheels.

"Brusselsology" has only 26 google hits. Surprised it's so low, perhaps there's a different term for it.

Jonathan

GIN1138 said:

It appears the government is a fairly unhappy place at the moment...

To think she could have not bothered with any of it. It would all be BAU with summer beckoning. Instead she ruined her premiership.

GIN1138

Jonathan said:

GIN1138 said:

It appears the government is a fairly unhappy place at the moment...

To think she could have not bothered with any of it. It would all be BAU with summer beckoning. Instead she ruined her premiership.

The potential gains of an election win made it worth it.

The problem was that bloody manifesto....

Scott_P

Alistair said:

Most devastating result in Sevco's short history.

https://twitter.com/momentumtrumpt1/status/882337115392143362

jonny83

I see Dave has been vocal today about austerity and the public sector pay cap (for some reason he is in South Korea). He was also talking about Genomics project today and its use in treating cancer.

Becoming more vocal, is the comeback on? lol

CornishJohn

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

William_H said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

That is not the point. The Conservative Parliamentary Party is made up of raging egos and headless chickens. If May resigns, they'll rip themselves apart.

Does having a weak interim May premiership do anything except extend the fighting?

It gains time.

In exchange for more damage and less time to recover from it.

The damage was the mistake of a manifesto that thought we could dole out hard truths to the electorate because Corbyn was on the other side. The further we get from that mistake, the better we will recover.

As they say in football, form is temporary, talent is permanent. At the heart of it, Theresa May is a hard-working, intelligent woman with strong character. Jeremy Corbyn is a less-than-bright far leftist with questionable sympathies. In due time, the media will get bored of a "Theresa is doomed" narrative and start looking at Corbyn again.

That will happen far sooner if the ardent Remainers in the parliamentary party started respecting the fact they were elected as Conservatives and behaved with some discipline. Of course, from reading the FT article, it sounds like they would rather work with the Labour Party. If that is their preference, they should do the honourable thing, cross the floor and stand for by-elections.

DecrepitJohnL

MyBurningEars said:

Mr Hammond is vehemently opposed to Mrs May’s threat — or bluff — that Britain could walk away with no deal at all.

I know this keeps cropping up in the press, but is there more nuance than what we are getting told?

Surely nobody ever walked to the negotiating table and said "I will fight hard for my position, but at the end of the day, when the deadline comes, I will accept anything you put in front of me." Which is what committing to "no walking away in any circumstances" would mean.

On a similar note, I have never understood the row over "no deal is better than a bad deal". That is surely axiomatic - the very definition of a deal so bad that you simply couldn't accept it, would be a deal whose outcomes are worse than the default situation that arises if the deadline passes without a deal.

The analogy breaks down because in this case, almost uniquely, "no deal" does not mean both sides return to the status quo ante, which is to cancel Article 50 and stay in the EU. Technically that is still possible but not if "Brexit means Brexit".

surbiton

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/bbcsport/status/882323281054969857

Brexit !

CornishJohn

rkrkrk said:

MyBurningEars said:

MyBurningEars said:

I know there is a briefing war going on, but surely it cannot be as simple as Phil "I would sell my firstborn to Brussels if they so required" Hammond versus Theresa "Only New Labour's ghastly 'human rights' laws prevent me devouring Europeans for breakfast" May. I get that there are disagreements on the shape of the post-Brexit arrangements, the length of any transition, and so on, yet a lot of the briefing war seems to focus on the negotiation process itself in ways that I do not comprehend.

I would appreciate enlightenment if anybody can read the tea leaves better than me. For what little it's worth, my working assumptions are (1) what rows appear in the press are not necessarily the rows taking place behind closed doors, (2) the briefing wars partly relate to jockeying for political influence within the Cabinet, partly relate to jockeying for pole position in the Tory leadership neverendum, and partly about Brexit.

But even if this is correct, I've no idea which is which. I don't even know what things put out for public consumption are ultimately intended for the ears of fellow ministers, which are for backbenchers, which are hints of cooperation for opposition MPs with similar Brexit views, which are for Tory members (qua leadership voters), which are for the EU to take note of, which are intended (as reassurance or warning) for the business community and investors... it's like being spectator to a sport whose rules are kept secret, you're not even sure who is playing, and the commentator is double-jobbing as the composer of The Times cryptic crossword.

Absolutely agree. Other than those with excellent insider knowledge - I think we can have very little idea what is going on. Same applies to the EU negotiations also.

From a betting standpoint - I think lay the favourite/current media speculation is probably a good strategy. We know Boris wants it - which justifies his price.

We don't know Davis wants it - so I think he is a lay.

Hunt at 100/1 is a silly price and was well worth backing.

If Davis wants it, he would walk it. He is intelligent, hardworking, capable, has been loyal to May and his background helps remake the Conservative image. Boris falls on several of those things.

Stark_Dawning

CornishJohn said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

William_H said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

That is not the point. The Conservative Parliamentary Party is made up of raging egos and headless chickens. If May resigns, they'll rip themselves apart.

Does having a weak interim May premiership do anything except extend the fighting?

It gains time.

In exchange for more damage and less time to recover from it.

The damage was the mistake of a manifesto that thought we could dole out hard truths to the electorate because Corbyn was on the other side. The further we get from that mistake, the better we will recover.

As they say in football, form is temporary, talent is permanent. At the heart of it, Theresa May is a hard-working, intelligent woman with strong character. Jeremy Corbyn is a less-than-bright far leftist with questionable sympathies. In due time, the media will get bored of a "Theresa is doomed" narrative and start looking at Corbyn again.

That will happen far sooner if the ardent Remainers in the parliamentary party started respecting the fact they were elected as Conservatives and behaved with some discipline. Of course, from reading the FT article, it sounds like they would rather work with the Labour Party. If that is their preference, they should do the honourable thing, cross the floor and stand for by-elections.

Sorry, but if she was the saint you describe what was she doing employing those odious henchmen Hill and Timothy? Gordon's claims to rectitude - 'Son of Manse' and all that - were rightly smashed when we found out about Dolly Draper and McPosion. The Vicar's Daughter seemed similarly besotted with thugs and bully boys.

CornishJohn

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

Well, there was the time David Cameron himself told Syed Kamall he would ruin his career if he didn't back Remain.

blueblue

Jonathan said:

GIN1138 said:

It appears the government is a fairly unhappy place at the moment...

To think she could have not bothered with any of it. It would all be BAU with summer beckoning. Instead she ruined her premiership.

Don't worry - all future Conservative leaders will know to follow the Corbyn strategy in their manifestos: rainbows, unicorns, massive giveaways, and not one word that could suggest hard choices to anyone.

DecrepitJohnL

CornishJohn said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

William_H said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

That is not the point. The Conservative Parliamentary Party is made up of raging egos and headless chickens. If May resigns, they'll rip themselves apart.

Does having a weak interim May premiership do anything except extend the fighting?

It gains time.

In exchange for more damage and less time to recover from it.

The damage was the mistake of a manifesto that thought we could dole out hard truths to the electorate because Corbyn was on the other side. The further we get from that mistake, the better we will recover.

As they say in football, form is temporary, talent is permanent. At the heart of it, Theresa May is a hard-working, intelligent woman with strong character. Jeremy Corbyn is a less-than-bright far leftist with questionable sympathies. In due time, the media will get bored of a "Theresa is doomed" narrative and start looking at Corbyn again.

That will happen far sooner if the ardent Remainers in the parliamentary party started respecting the fact they were elected as Conservatives and behaved with some discipline. Of course, from reading the FT article, it sounds like they would rather work with the Labour Party. If that is their preference, they should do the honourable thing, cross the floor and stand for by-elections.

That is not quite right, though. The manifesto's dementia tax was supposed to be a sweetie, at least according to some analyses, because it capped liabilities. Conservatives have fallen for Lynton Crosby's self-interested spin. In fact, the larger problem was Crosby's campaign which comprised Theresa May ducking debates and avoiding voters while parroting "strong and stable". It also relied on targeted attacks on Jeremy Corbyn -- but most voters seem to have disregarded these as irrelevant or ancient history. As before, Crosby's purely negative campaign flopped.

foxinsoxuk

Stark_Dawning said:

CornishJohn said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

William_H said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

That is not the point. The Conservative Parliamentary Party is made up of raging egos and headless chickens. If May resigns, they'll rip themselves apart.

Does having a weak interim May premiership do anything except extend the fighting?

It gains time.

In exchange for more damage and less time to recover from it.

The damage was the mistake of a manifesto that thought we could dole out hard truths to the electorate because Corbyn was on the other side. The further we get from that mistake, the better we will recover.

As they say in football, form is temporary, talent is permanent. At the heart of it, Theresa May is a hard-working, intelligent woman with strong character. Jeremy Corbyn is a less-than-bright far leftist with questionable sympathies. In due time, the media will get bored of a "Theresa is doomed" narrative and start looking at Corbyn again.

That will happen far sooner if the ardent Remainers in the parliamentary party started respecting the fact they were elected as Conservatives and behaved with some discipline. Of course, from reading the FT article, it sounds like they would rather work with the Labour Party. If that is their preference, they should do the honourable thing, cross the floor and stand for by-elections.

Sorry, but if she was the saint you describe what was she doing employing those odious henchmen Hill and Timothy? Gordon's claims to rectitude - 'Son of Manse' and all that - were rightly smashed when we found out about Dolly Draper and McPosion. The Vicar's Daughter seemed similarly besotted with thugs and bully boys.

Inline with TSE's Hitchiker analogy, I see Theresa as a Vogon poet...

TheScreamingEagles

CornishJohn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

Well, there was the time David Cameron himself told Syed Kamall he would ruin his career if he didn't back Remain.

Didn't Syed Kamall said that story was bollocks?

CornishJohn

Stark_Dawning said:

CornishJohn said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

William_H said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

It gains time.

In exchange for more damage and less time to recover from it.

The damage was the mistake of a manifesto that thought we could dole out hard truths to the electorate because Corbyn was on the other side. The further we get from that mistake, the better we will recover.

As they say in football, form is temporary, talent is permanent. At the heart of it, Theresa May is a hard-working, intelligent woman with strong character. Jeremy Corbyn is a less-than-bright far leftist with questionable sympathies. In due time, the media will get bored of a "Theresa is doomed" narrative and start looking at Corbyn again.

That will happen far sooner if the ardent Remainers in the parliamentary party started respecting the fact they were elected as Conservatives and behaved with some discipline. Of course, from reading the FT article, it sounds like they would rather work with the Labour Party. If that is their preference, they should do the honourable thing, cross the floor and stand for by-elections.

Sorry, but if she was the saint you describe what was she doing employing those odious henchmen Hill and Timothy? Gordon's claims to rectitude - 'Son of Manse' and all that - were rightly smashed when we found out about Dolly Draper and McPosion. The Vicar's Daughter seemed similarly besotted with thugs and bully boys.

Draper trying to spread lies about Samantha Cameron's sex life. I don't see Hill and Timothy as anything equivalent.

MyBurningEars

DecrepitJohnL said:

MyBurningEars said:

Mr Hammond is vehemently opposed to Mrs May’s threat — or bluff — that Britain could walk away with no deal at all.

I know this keeps cropping up in the press, but is there more nuance than what we are getting told?

Surely nobody ever walked to the negotiating table and said "I will fight hard for my position, but at the end of the day, when the deadline comes, I will accept anything you put in front of me." Which is what committing to "no walking away in any circumstances" would mean.

On a similar note, I have never understood the row over "no deal is better than a bad deal". That is surely axiomatic - the very definition of a deal so bad that you simply couldn't accept it, would be a deal whose outcomes are worse than the default situation that arises if the deadline passes without a deal.

The analogy breaks down because in this case, almost uniquely, "no deal" does not mean both sides return to the status quo ante, which is to cancel Article 50 and stay in the EU. Technically that is still possible but not if "Brexit means Brexit".

Dunno about that, I reckon it still works. There was a reason I said "default" not "prior" position, and stated the counterfactual as the "situation that arises if the deadline passes without a deal" rather than the "situation that was the case before".

The type of proposed deal that you would rationally choose to play no-deal to, is precisely one that is worse than the counterfactual - and depending on the nature of negotiations we are talking about, the relevant counterfactual may be a return to the status quo ante, or some legally mandated default position, or a fresh bout of negotiating, or even just a state of chaotic uncertainty. Whichever, a deal so bad that you would decline it is a deal that is worse than no deal.

surbiton

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Sean_F said:

MyBurningEars said:

Mr Hammond is vehemently opposed to Mrs May’s threat — or bluff — that Britain could walk away with no deal at all.

I know this keeps cropping up in the press, but is there more nuance than what we are getting told?

Surely nobody ever walked to the negotiating table and said "I will fight hard for my position, but at the end of the day, when the deadline comes, I will accept anything you put in front of me." Which is what committing to "no walking away in any circumstances" would mean.

On a similar note, I have never understood the row over "no deal is better than a bad deal". That is surely axiomatic - the very definition of a deal so bad that you simply couldn't accept it, would be a deal whose outcomes are worse than the default situation that arises if the deadline passes without a deal.

So what is the row really about? Are the politicians arguing about the metric by which "better" or "worse" outcomes will be assessed? Are they arguing about the public presentation and rhetoric - whether we show strength by posturing that a walk-out is possible, or appear friendlier and more constructive by glossing over the fact that no-deal is a genuine possibility that both sides should be prepared for? Is the argument actually about the practicalities of "no deal" - what circumstances would trigger it, what amount of preparation should be done in case it happens, to what extent should avoiding it be prioritised?

I know there is a briefing war going on, but surely it cannot be as simple as Phil "I would sell my firstborn to Brussels if they so required" Hammond versus Theresa "Only New Labour's ghastly 'human rights' laws prevent me devouring Europeans for breakfast" May. I get that there are disagreements on the shape of the post-Brexit arrangements, the length of any transition, and so on, yet a lot of the briefing war seems to focus on the negotiation process itself in ways that I do not comprehend.

There have been times when I've advised clients to walk away from a deal. I've walked away from a ludicrously bad offer to buy my practice. Sometimes, no deal is the best option.

Ive just lost a deal today other side pulled it

bastards

I just walked away from. $10m fee as I didn't trust the guy I was working with

Why can't you trust Alanbrooke ?

CornishJohn

TheScreamingEagles said:

CornishJohn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

Well, there was the time David Cameron himself told Syed Kamall he would ruin his career if he didn't back Remain.

Didn't Syed Kamall said that story was bollocks?

If so, I must have missed the article. Would you mind linking?

tyson

Sean_F said:

William_H said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

In this circumstance, staying on is the honourable thing to do.

Show me any examples of the way any of Dave's staff acting like the way Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill did.

That is not the point. The Conservative Parliamentary Party is made up of raging egos and headless chickens. If May resigns, they'll rip themselves apart.

Does having a weak interim May premiership do anything except extend the fighting?

It gains time.

Time to do just what exactly?

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/chralie/status/882305059710799872

Richard_Tyndall

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

Mrs May isnt a man

this could explain your problems in night clubs

As my friends in The Village would tell you, the difference between a heterosexual man and a homosexual/bisexual man is six pints.

I believe that many people would also consider that the difference between consent and rape.

Sunil_Prasannan

£1 billion over two years to support fellow UK taxpayers in NI is a complete bargain compared to the £8.5 billion (net) we send per year to Brussels.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/bbchelenalee/status/882340913535750146

Ishmael_Z

FF43 said:

This is a divorce. While theoretically there might be a situation where the only available deal is so bad, it's worth giving up access to your children and losing your half share on the house, you won't get a decent outcome going into negotiations threatening to walk away. You would get a better result being responsible adults, thinking of the children and offering to help out with childcare on the weekend

It isn't like a divorce, because in a divorce there is always a court with jurisdiction over the issues. If there's a court involved there are always three routes to a settlement: either the parties settle on the advice of their lawyers, or they get fed up of dealing with lawyers and come to a deal without involving them, or as a backstop, matters go to trial and you get a judgment. There are incentives to be cooperative and sensible when courts are involved, which don't apply when there aren't. Brexit is more like negotiating a conditional surrender to end a war.

Richard_Tyndall

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/chralie/status/882305059710799872

The idea that Heath provided strong and stable leadership is laughable.

TheScreamingEagles

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

Mrs May isnt a man

this could explain your problems in night clubs

As my friends in The Village would tell you, the difference between a heterosexual man and a homosexual/bisexual man is six pints.

I believe that many people would also consider that the difference between consent and rape.

You've so misread that.

tyson

Sunil_Prasannan said:

£1 billion over two years to support fellow UK taxpayers in NI is a complete bargain compared to the £8.5 billion (net) we send per year to Brussels.

Thanks goodness you have used all your qualifications to effect to make such a good argument. Education works.

Ishmael_Z

foxinsoxuk said:

Inline with TSE's Hitchiker analogy, I see Theresa as a Vogon poet...

I think she was in thrall to Nick n Fi in some sort of sinister Rasputin way. If she could not tell from one look at Timothy's beard that he was a complete and utter chump, she must have been bewitched in some way.

TheScreamingEagles

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/chralie/status/882305059710799872

The idea that Heath provided strong and stable leadership is laughable.

He's very likely to end up serving as Prime Minister longer than Theresa May though.

TheScreamingEagles

I've been saying this for years.

Build more houses in rural England.

https://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/882343117659267073

FrancisUrquhart

Cavendish has a broken shoulder blade - out of tour de france

PClipp

Sean_F said:

That is not the point. The Conservative Parliamentary Party is made up of raging egos and headless chickens. If May resigns, they'll rip themselves apart.

I think Mrs May ought to resign immediately. For the future good of the country.

CornishJohn

DecrepitJohnL said:

CornishJohn said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

William_H said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

That is not the point. The Conservative Parliamentary Party is made up of raging egos and headless chickens. If May resigns, they'll rip themselves apart.

Does having a weak interim May premiership do anything except extend the fighting?

It gains time.

In exchange for more damage and less time to recover from it.

That will happen far sooner if the ardent Remainers in the parliamentary party started respecting the fact they were elected as Conservatives and behaved with some discipline. Of course, from reading the FT article, it sounds like they would rather work with the Labour Party. If that is their preference, they should do the honourable thing, cross the floor and stand for by-elections.

That is not quite right, though. The manifesto's dementia tax was supposed to be a sweetie, at least according to some analyses, because it capped liabilities. Conservatives have fallen for Lynton Crosby's self-interested spin. In fact, the larger problem was Crosby's campaign which comprised Theresa May ducking debates and avoiding voters while parroting "strong and stable". It also relied on targeted attacks on Jeremy Corbyn -- but most voters seem to have disregarded these as irrelevant or ancient history. As before, Crosby's purely negative campaign flopped.

The so-called dementia tax was the main error, but there is something to what you said. The trouble with the Lynton Crosby style of politics is that it has diminishing marginal returns. It hurts the other guy more, but it also hurts you as voters are turned off by the negativity. By the time you get to your third election, you've hurt yourself three times and nobody really believes you any more.

In the next offer we need a bold, positive vision for both young people and workers.

Beverley_C

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Ishmael_Z said:

"On June 9 party grandees trooped into Downing Street to tell the emotional prime minister that she had a duty to party and country to stay" is not something we knew before, is it?

chortle

so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?

Actually Dave resigned before anyone could persuade him otherwise, he's an honourable man, unlike Mrs May.

Mrs May isnt a man

this could explain your problems in night clubs

As my friends in The Village would tell you, the difference between a heterosexual man and a homosexual/bisexual man is six pints.

I believe that many people would also consider that the difference between consent and rape.

Maybe you should make more tea .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjPMsjphCUU

Ishmael_Z

PClipp said:

Sean_F said:

That is not the point. The Conservative Parliamentary Party is made up of raging egos and headless chickens. If May resigns, they'll rip themselves apart.

I think Mrs May ought to resign immediately. For the future good of the country.

In favour of a coronated successor, and if so whom; or so that we can fritter away 3 of our remaining 19 months in a leadership contest between, I would imagine, opposing views on how to brexit?

Alistair

Scott_P said:

Alistair said:

Most devastating result in Sevco's short history.

https://twitter.com/momentumtrumpt1/status/882337115392143362

That's the funniest tweet not about Green Day's cancelled gig I've read all day.

FrancisUrquhart

The group was set up by local campaigners, including a veteran activist Ismahil Blagrove who called for a revolution in the wake of the fire and Sue Caro, a former BBC diversity manager and a staunch Corbyn supporter, who posted on Twitter that Adolf Hitler was “inspired by US racist laws”, which explains America’s ‘guilty conscience and support for Israel”.

None of the Justice4Grenfell’s key organisers was a resident in the high rise building.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/04/justice4grenfell-agitators-campaign-group-tries-push-tower-enquiry/

Some very "interesting" individuals appear to have hijacked the campaign.