politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s council by elections round up

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s council by elections round up

Seven council by-elections today. @andrewteale previews them here: https://t.co/77PsiEh5BM pic.twitter.com/YygXYnndOl

Read the full story here

williamglenn

It will be interesting to see how the Lib Dems do in Didcot.

ThomasNashe

Ayresome Park, Middlesbrough takes me back ...

FF43

What does "free for all" defending mean?

SandyRentool

Britain elects says "Middlesbrough council, North Yorkshire"

I rest my case!

TheScreamingEagles

FF43 said:

What does "free for all" defending mean?

Usually an Independent/Ratepayers Alliance/Residents etc who previously held the seat but are no longer standing in the subsequent by election.

RobbieBox

ThomasNashe said:

Ayresome Park, Middlesbrough takes me back ...

Scene of one of the greatest football upsets in history - North Korea 1 Italy 0 in the1966 World Cup.

The North Koreans qualified for the Quarter Final and at one point led Portugal 3-0 in that before losing 5-3 at Goodison Park.

ThomasNashe

RobbieBox said:

ThomasNashe said:

Ayresome Park, Middlesbrough takes me back ...

Scene of one of the greatest football upsets in history - North Korea 1 Italy 0 in the1966 World Cup.

The North Koreans qualified for the Quarter Final and at one point led Portugal 3-0 in that before losing 5-3 at Goodison Park.

I'm too young for that one, but I remember many great games there - beating Chelsea 2-0 in the 1988 play-off final for one - and how Chelsea have exacted their revenge ever since!

nunuone

Is Elgin city North a SNP vs. Tory fight?

Was watching Swap my council house on Channel 4.....there still seems to be a lot of racism in small town England.

Sunil_Prasannan

SandyRentool said:

Britain elects says "Middlesbrough council, North Yorkshire"

I rest my case!

The Demyansk Teesside Pocket - a bunch of National Rail railways in the Northeast that I haven't done yet:

Northallerton to Sunderland
Bishop Auckland to Saltburn
Stockton to Thornaby
Boro to Whitby

Also North Yorks Moors (Grosmont to Pickering), as it appears on the National Rail map.

ThomasNashe

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SandyRentool said:

Britain elects says "Middlesbrough council, North Yorkshire"

I rest my case!

The Demyansk Teesside Pocket - a bunch of National Rail railways in the Northeast that I haven't done yet:

Northallerton to Sunderland
Bishop Auckland to Saltburn
Stockton to Thornaby
Boro to Whitby

Also North Yorks Moors (Grosmont to Pickering), as it appears on the National Rail map.

Stockton to Thornaby is a 15 minute walk. Not really necessary to take the train!

Danny565

Hmm --- Middlesbrough & North Warwickshire were among the Tories' better results in the election....

viewcode

FPT

Alice_Aforethought said:

...I honestly do not get this idea that £350 million for the NHS was some sort of lie...

I'm trying to observe my self-imposed break from PB until the work eases off, but this remark does require a response. You may wish to know that (former) National Statistician Jil Matheson told Matthew Elliott of Vote Leave to his face[1] that it was a lie.

[1] Well, more three-quarter profile. They were both facing in the same direction

Sunil_Prasannan

ThomasNashe said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SandyRentool said:

Britain elects says "Middlesbrough council, North Yorkshire"

I rest my case!

The Demyansk Teesside Pocket - a bunch of National Rail railways in the Northeast that I haven't done yet:

Northallerton to Sunderland
Bishop Auckland to Saltburn
Stockton to Thornaby
Boro to Whitby

Also North Yorks Moors (Grosmont to Pickering), as it appears on the National Rail map.

Stockton to Thornaby is a 15 minute walk. Not really necessary to take the train!

It is if you want to colour in your Baker Atlas!!

SandyRentool

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SandyRentool said:

Britain elects says "Middlesbrough council, North Yorkshire"

I rest my case!

The Demyansk Teesside Pocket - a bunch of National Rail railways in the Northeast that I haven't done yet:

Northallerton to Sunderland
Bishop Auckland to Saltburn
Stockton to Thornaby
Boro to Whitby

Also North Yorks Moors (Grosmont to Pickering), as it appears on the National Rail map.

The Stockton - Ferryhill freight line *might* be getting a regular passenger service soon (possible Boro - Newcastle service). I've done it as a diversion, back in the day. If you go up to Bishop, you could also try to do the Weardale Railway to Stanhope.

Sunil_Prasannan

viewcode said:

FPT

Alice_Aforethought said:

...I honestly do not get this idea that £350 million for the NHS was some sort of lie...

I'm trying to observe my self-imposed break from PB until the work eases off, but this remark does require a response. You may wish to know that (former) National Statistician Jil Matheson told Matthew Elliott of Vote Leave to his face[1] that it was a lie.

[1] Well, more three-quarter profile. They were both facing in the same direction

Kirk: You lied!
Spock: I exaggerated!

£8.5 billion a year (net) divided by 52 weeks = £163 million a week.

surbiton

Theresa May trying to put across that she is human.

Danny565

Ha, just seen that Corbyn presented Michel Barnier with a "signed" copy of the Labour manifesto.

williamglenn

surbiton said:

Theresa May trying to put across that she is human.

This bit of the interview was unintentionally hilarious:

Talking for the first time about her reaction to the result, she said it took a "few minutes" for it to sink in but she then got on the phone to Conservative campaign headquarters to "find out what had happened".

nunuone

williamglenn said:

surbiton said:

Theresa May trying to put across that she is human.

This bit of the interview was unintentionally hilarious:

Talking for the first time about her reaction to the result, she said it took a "few minutes" for it to sink in but she then got on the phone to Conservative campaign headquarters to "find out what had happened".

Do you think they told her the truth?

" it was you PM".

NorthernUprising

Looking forward to next week's set of byelections!

viewcode

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Kirk: You lied! Spock: I exaggerated!

Saavik[1], not Kirk...

[1] Kirstie Alley Saavik, not Robin Curtis Saavik

Danny565

Can someone explain this whole Charlie Gard thing to me? If there's an offer of (free?) treatment from a US hospital, why is a court preventing them from doing it? It might turn out to be futile and the poor child might end up passing soon anyway, but surely that should be the parents' choice if they want to try it? Why is it even within the courts' power?

NorthernUprising

Labour seem to be very active in recent council by-elections in the North East. Could be a Corbyn, hung parliament, type of energy.

Richard_Tyndall

Danny565 said:

Can someone explain this whole Charlie Gard thing to me? If there's an offer of (free?) treatment from a US hospital, why is a court preventing them from doing it? It might turn out to be futile and the poor child might end up passing soon anyway, but surely that should be the parents' choice if they want to try it? Why is it even within the courts' power?

The doctors have persuaded the courts that further treatment is constituting continual pain for the baby. They say that he should be allowed to djecto end his suffering. The courts right the way up to the ECHR. have apparently agreed with the doctors.

Personally I agree with you that if there is a chance to save the child's life the courts should not stand in the way but I do also understand the legal principle they are trying to uphold even info think they are we.

RobD

NorthernUprising said:

Labour seem to be very active in recent council by-elections in the North East. Could be a Corbyn, hung parliament, type of energy.

You'll fit right in here.

GIN1138

Is it safe to come back on? Has Scott shut up about the bloody bus for five minutes?

Scott_P

GIN1138 said:

Is it safe to come back on? Has Scott shut up about the bloody bus for five minutes?

@seanjonesqc: That whistling noise is Boris deflating https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/885586131017924612

Danny565

Richard_Tyndall said:

Danny565 said:

Can someone explain this whole Charlie Gard thing to me? If there's an offer of (free?) treatment from a US hospital, why is a court preventing them from doing it? It might turn out to be futile and the poor child might end up passing soon anyway, but surely that should be the parents' choice if they want to try it? Why is it even within the courts' power?

The doctors have persuaded the courts that further treatment is constituting continual pain for the baby. They say that he should be allowed to djecto end his suffering. The courts right the way up to the ECHR. have apparently agreed with the doctors.

Personally I agree with you that if there is a chance to save the child's life the courts should not stand in the way but I do also understand the legal principle they are trying to uphold even info think they are we.

I can totally understand why Great Ormond Street Hospital personally think that it would be better to end his suffering, and think it would be a waste of resources and cruel to him to keep treating him - but what I don't understand is why the parents shouldn't be able to make their own choice if another hospital thinks differently.

Or is the dispute that GOSH need to provide some kind of new treatment just to give him a chance of surviving the journey to the US, which they're not willing to provide?

GIN1138

Danny565 said:

Can someone explain this whole Charlie Gard thing to me? If there's an offer of (free?) treatment from a US hospital, why is a court preventing them from doing it? It might turn out to be futile and the poor child might end up passing soon anyway, but surely that should be the parents' choice if they want to try it? Why is it even within the courts' power?

It's a desperately sad situation all round..

Can't imagine what the parents must be going through having to deal with the stress of a terminally ill baby, a legal battle with a hospital and the most unbelievable media scrutiny.

Not sure how they are able to carry on with all that.

Awful!

GIN1138

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

Is it safe to come back on? Has Scott shut up about the bloody bus for five minutes?

@seanjonesqc: That whistling noise is Boris deflating https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/885586131017924612

Nobody ever said we wouldn't have to pay *something* to settle our account with the EU.

It's the outrageous demands from £100bn (which doubled overnight from £50bn) that we're refusing to pay.

#CantPayWontPay

Scott_P

GIN1138 said:

Nobody ever said we wouldn't have to pay *something* to settle our account with the EU.

Are you new here?

Many, many people said we wouldn't have to pay anything.

This guy said we would get a "Brexit dividend"...

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104

NickPalmer

GIN1138 said:

Danny565 said:

Can someone explain this whole Charlie Gard thing to me? If there's an offer of (free?) treatment from a US hospital, why is a court preventing them from doing it? It might turn out to be futile and the poor child might end up passing soon anyway, but surely that should be the parents' choice if they want to try it? Why is it even within the courts' power?

It's a desperately sad situation all round..

Can't imagine what the parents must be going through having to deal with the stress of a terminally ill baby, a legal battle with a hospital and the most unbelievable media scrutiny.

Not sure how they are able to carry on with all that.

Awful!

The principle of law is that the child's interest should come first. If the court decides that the chance of the baby getting a remotely tolerable life from any treatment is effectively zero and the probability that he is suffering intensely is near 100%, then the law requires the court to deny the parents permission to insist that treatments continue to be tried, since that would effectively put the need to satisfy a false hope in the parents at the expense of further suffering..

I think that's the right principle, although the parents' position is entirely understandable. Whether the figures really do seem to be 0 and 100 is something I don't think anyone who hasn't studied it can judge.

RobD

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

Nobody ever said we wouldn't have to pay *something* to settle our account with the EU.

Are you new here?

Many, many people said we wouldn't have to pay anything.

This guy said we would get a "Brexit dividend"...

twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104

Well yeah, we stop paying the subs forever.

GIN1138

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

Nobody ever said we wouldn't have to pay *something* to settle our account with the EU.

Are you new here?

Many, many people said we wouldn't have to pay anything.

This guy said we would get a "Brexit dividend"...

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104

That's right.

We settle up our account with the EU (as long as it's sensible) after which we no longer have to pay any more money to the money-grabbers of Brussels and we can spend that money on other things (like the NHS if we so choose)

It's really not that difficult to follow...

Mortimer

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

Nobody ever said we wouldn't have to pay *something* to settle our account with the EU.

Are you new here?

Many, many people said we wouldn't have to pay anything.

This guy said we would get a "Brexit dividend"...

twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104

Well yeah, we stop paying the subs forever.

Its the Monty Hall problem all over again.

Mortimer

NickPalmer said:

GIN1138 said:

Danny565 said:

Can someone explain this whole Charlie Gard thing to me? If there's an offer of (free?) treatment from a US hospital, why is a court preventing them from doing it? It might turn out to be futile and the poor child might end up passing soon anyway, but surely that should be the parents' choice if they want to try it? Why is it even within the courts' power?

It's a desperately sad situation all round..

Can't imagine what the parents must be going through having to deal with the stress of a terminally ill baby, a legal battle with a hospital and the most unbelievable media scrutiny.

Not sure how they are able to carry on with all that.

Awful!

The principle of law is that the child's interest should come first. If the court decides that the chance of the baby getting a remotely tolerable life from any treatment is effectively zero and the probability that he is suffering intensely is near 100%, then the law requires the court to deny the parents permission to insist that treatments continue to be tried, since that would effectively put the need to satisfy a false hope in the parents at the expense of further suffering..

I think that's the right principle, although the parents' position is entirely understandable. Whether the figures really do seem to be 0 and 100 is something I don't think anyone who hasn't studied it can judge.

Very well put Nick. I can't imagine what pain they must be going through.

I missed a reply to you in a previous thread by the way - I wasn't being funny when I talked about Tories being quick with replacements/depositions of leaders. I was being serious. If there was will for her to be gone, she'd have been gone weeks ago. The fact that she is still in place suggests to me she'll be there at least until Christmas. And likely until 2019, perhaps beyond.

TSE will whinge, but his man left the pitch and decided to become a pundit instead.

Scott_P

Mortimer said:

Its the Monty Hall problem all over again.

BoZo was trying to win a car, but instead he found a Gove behind the door...

williamglenn

Mortimer said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

Nobody ever said we wouldn't have to pay *something* to settle our account with the EU.

Are you new here?

Many, many people said we wouldn't have to pay anything.

This guy said we would get a "Brexit dividend"...

twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104

Well yeah, we stop paying the subs forever.

Its the Monty Hall problem all over again.

Behind one door is a plan for a prosperous, influential European country. You pick a door and see 'Brexit'. Do you switch?

FF43

GIN1138 said:

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

Nobody ever said we wouldn't have to pay *something* to settle our account with the EU.

Are you new here?

Many, many people said we wouldn't have to pay anything.

This guy said we would get a "Brexit dividend"...

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104

That's right.

We settle up our account with the EU (as long as it's sensible) after which we no longer have to pay any more money to the money-grabbers of Brussels and we can spend that money on other things (like the NHS if we so choose)

It's really not that difficult to follow...

I am pretty sure we're going to spend a lot of cash with the EU in the years ahead to try to buy influence. You could argue it's discretionary.

Anyway as the OBR said today, the subs money is less than what we could realistically lose in tax on trade due to Brexit.

Ishmael_Z

Danny565 said:

Can someone explain this whole Charlie Gard thing to me? If there's an offer of (free?) treatment from a US hospital, why is a court preventing them from doing it? It might turn out to be futile and the poor child might end up passing soon anyway, but surely that should be the parents' choice if they want to try it? Why is it even within the courts' power?

"Charlie’s rare genetic condition is progressive and incurable and at eight months old he is now blind, deaf and has extensive brain damage, as well as unable to breathe without a ventilator." (The Independent). There is no suggestion that any treatment is going to fix any of that, just enable him to live on in that condition.

surbiton

Ishmael_Z said:

Danny565 said:

Can someone explain this whole Charlie Gard thing to me? If there's an offer of (free?) treatment from a US hospital, why is a court preventing them from doing it? It might turn out to be futile and the poor child might end up passing soon anyway, but surely that should be the parents' choice if they want to try it? Why is it even within the courts' power?

"Charlie’s rare genetic condition is progressive and incurable and at eight months old he is now blind, deaf and has extensive brain damage, as well as unable to breathe without a ventilator." (The Independent). There is no suggestion that any treatment is going to fix any of that, just enable him to live on in that condition.

I really have difficulty with what the parents are trying to do here. Prolong the child's suffering ?

Philip_Thompson

surbiton said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Danny565 said:

Can someone explain this whole Charlie Gard thing to me? If there's an offer of (free?) treatment from a US hospital, why is a court preventing them from doing it? It might turn out to be futile and the poor child might end up passing soon anyway, but surely that should be the parents' choice if they want to try it? Why is it even within the courts' power?

"Charlie’s rare genetic condition is progressive and incurable and at eight months old he is now blind, deaf and has extensive brain damage, as well as unable to breathe without a ventilator." (The Independent). There is no suggestion that any treatment is going to fix any of that, just enable him to live on in that condition.

I really have difficulty with what the parents are trying to do here. Prolong the child's suffering ?

The child's parents will have to bury their child. An unimaginable anguish I wouldn't wish on anyone. They want to try any option to avoid that and I can't blame them for that. The hospital has given up hope. The American doctors and parents haven't. Forlorn hope is better than no hope.

Even if it doesn't work what is the worst that can happen? Let the parents try, fail and Bury their child knowing they tried everything. Not having to live for the rest of their lives wondering what if they'd got to try this treatment?

foxinsoxuk

Ishmael_Z said:

Danny565 said:

Can someone explain this whole Charlie Gard thing to me? If there's an offer of (free?) treatment from a US hospital, why is a court preventing them from doing it? It might turn out to be futile and the poor child might end up passing soon anyway, but surely that should be the parents' choice if they want to try it? Why is it even within the courts' power?

"Charlie’s rare genetic condition is progressive and incurable and at eight months old he is now blind, deaf and has extensive brain damage, as well as unable to breathe without a ventilator." (The Independent). There is no suggestion that any treatment is going to fix any of that, just enable him to live on in that condition.

There is also the issue of a transfer, which would require an air ambulance, with paediatric ventilator and medical team for the duration. The crowdsourcing may cover these costs. There is an opportunity cost in occupying a paediatric intensive care bed, which are in short supply, meaning that the bed is not available for elective surgery such as cardiac or neuro surgery. I don't think cost comes into the legal case.

The legal case is that further treatment is crueller than death, which does thereby encompass a lot of ethical issues concerning quality of life. How bad does a life have to be to be not worth living? There are also issues around who can make this decision, when parents want to persist in treatment thought cruel by the doctors, hence the involvement of the courts.

Richard_Nabavi

Danny565 said:

Ha, just seen that Corbyn presented Michel Barnier with a "signed" copy of the Labour manifesto.

Blimey, that will terrify them.

Richard_Tyndall

williamglenn said:

Mortimer said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

Nobody ever said we wouldn't have to pay *something* to settle our account with the EU.

Are you new here?

Many, many people said we wouldn't have to pay anything.

This guy said we would get a "Brexit dividend"...

twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104

Well yeah, we stop paying the subs forever.

Its the Monty Hall problem all over again.

Behind one door is a plan for a prosperous, influential European country. You pick a door and see 'Brexit'. Do you switch?

Britain never has been and never will be influential whilst it is in the EU.

slade

Just a comment on the Three Rivers by-election. It was caused by the death of Ann Shaw. She was first elected in 1971 and was the leader of the council for 30 years. The surprising thing was she was a Liberal/Lib Dem. That must be a record.

MarkSenior

Middlesbrough Ayresome Lab hold

Lab 414
Con 252
LD 15
Green 13

Middlesbrough Park End Ind hold

Ind 505
Lab 302
Con 59
Green 12
LD 10

Three Rivers LD hold

LD 1428
Con 597
Lab 162
UKIP 28
Green 27

slade

Why are the voters of Chorleywood so much more intelligent than those in Middlesbrough?

rcs1000

slade said:

Why are the voters of Chorleywood so much more intelligent than those in Middlesbrough?

To my mind, the most interesting thing about these results is that the LDs have become an utter irrelevancy in some places, while being very strong in others.

Beverley_C

GIN1138 said:

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

Is it safe to come back on? Has Scott shut up about the bloody bus for five minutes?

@seanjonesqc: That whistling noise is Boris deflating twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/885586131017924612

Nobody ever said we wouldn't have to pay *something* to settle our account with the EU.

I suggest you check the thread from earlier today from around 2pm. There were plenty of comments that our "net payment" would be zero, i.e. nothing to pay...

And then there is this little gem... "a group of backbench Conservative MPs is ..... insisting Britain owes “zero.”"

http://www.politico.eu/article/tory-mps-britain-owes-zero-brexit-bill-europe/

Beverley_C

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

Nobody ever said we wouldn't have to pay *something* to settle our account with the EU.

Are you new here?

Many, many people said we wouldn't have to pay anything.

This guy said we would get a "Brexit dividend"...

twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104

Well yeah, we stop paying the subs forever.

And we start paying WTO tariffs for a couple of decades instead

Beverley_C

viewcode said:

FPT

Alice_Aforethought said:

...I honestly do not get this idea that £350 million for the NHS was some sort of lie...

I'm trying to observe my self-imposed break from PB until the work eases off, but this remark does require a response. You may wish to know that (former) National Statistician Jil Matheson told Matthew Elliott of Vote Leave to his face[1] that it was a lie.

[1] Well, more three-quarter profile. They were both facing in the same direction

Or this, between 1.00 and 2.00 minutes

https://youtu.be/fEfzJMy2a7g

slade

slade said:

Just a comment on the Three Rivers by-election. It was caused by the death of Ann Shaw. She was first elected in 1971 and was the leader of the council for 30 years. The surprising thing was she was a Liberal/Lib Dem. That must be a record.

Paul Tilsley was elected as a Liberal councillor in Birmingham in 1968 but only made it as far as deputy leader of the council.

RobD

Beverley_C said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

Nobody ever said we wouldn't have to pay *something* to settle our account with the EU.

Are you new here?

Many, many people said we wouldn't have to pay anything.

This guy said we would get a "Brexit dividend"...

twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104

Well yeah, we stop paying the subs forever.

And we start paying WTO tariffs for a couple of decades instead

Offset somewhat by the tariffs we receive.

volcanopete

Key seat Labour must win back.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/15338071.Labour_seat_goes_blue_as_Middlesbrough_South_and_East_Cleveland_elects_Conservative_Simon_Clarke/

viewcode

RobD said:

Beverley_C said:

And we start paying WTO tariffs for a couple of decades instead

Offset somewhat by the tariffs we receive.

Tariffs on goods coming into the UK are paid by British taxpayers. They do not "offset" anything. They are not an income, they are a tax. If one person cuts off their left leg, and you cut off your left leg in retaliation, you have not offset anything: you have made things worse, not better.

Dura_Ace

slade said:

Why are the voters of Chorleywood so much more intelligent than those in Middlesbrough?

Chemicals.

RobD

viewcode said:

RobD said:

Beverley_C said:

And we start paying WTO tariffs for a couple of decades instead

Offset somewhat by the tariffs we receive.

Tariffs on goods coming into the UK are paid by British taxpayers. They do not "offset" anything. They are not an income, they are a tax. If one person cuts off their left leg, and you cut off your left leg in retaliation, you have not offset anything: you have made things worse, not better.

I thought tariffs were a tax on imports/exports?

RobD

Beverley_C said:

GIN1138 said:

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

Is it safe to come back on? Has Scott shut up about the bloody bus for five minutes?

@seanjonesqc: That whistling noise is Boris deflating twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/885586131017924612

Nobody ever said we wouldn't have to pay *something* to settle our account with the EU.

I suggest you check the thread from earlier today from around 2pm. There were plenty of comments that our "net payment" would be zero, i.e. nothing to pay...

And then there is this little gem... "a group of backbench Conservative MPs is ..... insisting Britain owes “zero.”"

http://www.politico.eu/article/tory-mps-britain-owes-zero-brexit-bill-europe/

Legally they may be correct as we'd no longer be bound by the treaties. Politically, on the other hand....

nunuone

RobD said:

Beverley_C said:

GIN1138 said:

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

Is it safe to come back on? Has Scott shut up about the bloody bus for five minutes?

@seanjonesqc: That whistling noise is Boris deflating twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/885586131017924612

Nobody ever said we wouldn't have to pay *something* to settle our account with the EU.

I suggest you check the thread from earlier today from around 2pm. There were plenty of comments that our "net payment" would be zero, i.e. nothing to pay...

And then there is this little gem... "a group of backbench Conservative MPs is ..... insisting Britain owes “zero.”"

http://www.politico.eu/article/tory-mps-britain-owes-zero-brexit-bill-europe/

Legally they may be correct as we'd no longer be bound by the treaties. Politically, on the other hand....

In any case since we are a massive net importer of goods that relies heavily on consumers buying cheap tat, tarrifs on goods would be an absolute disaster for the U.K.

CarlottaVance

GIN1138 said:

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

Is it safe to come back on? Has Scott shut up about the bloody bus for five minutes?

@seanjonesqc: That whistling noise is Boris deflating https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/885586131017924612

Nobody ever said we wouldn't have to pay *something* to settle our account with the EU.

It's the outrageous demands from £100bn (which doubled overnight from £50bn) that we're refusing to pay.

#CantPayWontPay

Usual FT Spin - May has been clear from the start that there would be a settlement - it was the House of Lords that said legally the 'bill' would be zero - but politically we might be wise to contribute something.

What I can see as sticking points:

- Commitments after we have left
- The Euro Turkish refugee fund - when we're providing more aid than anyone else bar the US
- Paying to relocate the EU agencies from London - their decision, their bill.

CarlottaVance

nunuone said:

RobD said:

Beverley_C said:

GIN1138 said:

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

Is it safe to come back on? Has Scott shut up about the bloody bus for five minutes?

@seanjonesqc: That whistling noise is Boris deflating twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/885586131017924612

Nobody ever said we wouldn't have to pay *something* to settle our account with the EU.

I suggest you check the thread from earlier today from around 2pm. There were plenty of comments that our "net payment" would be zero, i.e. nothing to pay...

And then there is this little gem... "a group of backbench Conservative MPs is ..... insisting Britain owes “zero.”"

http://www.politico.eu/article/tory-mps-britain-owes-zero-brexit-bill-europe/

Legally they may be correct as we'd no longer be bound by the treaties. Politically, on the other hand....

In any case since we are a massive net importer of goods that relies heavily on consumers buying cheap tat, tarrifs on goods would be an absolute disaster for the U.K.

Why? It would depress demand for cheap tat and might help improve the balance of payments - the government collects the tariffs which would help the public finances...

CarlottaVance

The Conservatives are finished....part 976....

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/885627426738507776
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/885623358074875905
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/885623127727800320

Meanwhile, back in the real world.....

CarlottaVance

NEW THREAD