Top lawyers are wrong all the time, the governments top lawyers were wrong re A50 for instance
I am not sure that's true.
Just because they argued the A50 case, doesn't mean they ever thought they would win...
Why would the govetnment fight it then? The solution, a short bill, was so simple and they'd already said A50 would not be declared until the spring, so fighting a case the lawyers said was hopeless bought no time or advantage. Plus since 3 justices backed then, I think there's a decent chance the gov lawyers believed their argument.
It was also a lot easier for the government to allow the challenge and react to it early in the process, rather than risk a judgement after A50 had been declared which would have been considerably more complicated.
The one line bill was an elegant solution, especially when accompanied by some heroic whipping in both houses to see it through unamended.
Top lawyers are wrong all the time, the governments top lawyers were wrong re A50 for instance
I am not sure that's true.
Just because they argued the A50 case, doesn't mean they ever thought they would win...
Why would the govetnment fight it then? The solution, a short bill, was so simple and they'd already said A50 would not be declared until the spring, so fighting a case the lawyers said was hopeless bought no time or advantage. Plus since 3 justices backed then, I think there's a decent chance the gov lawyers believed their argument.
It was also a lot easier for the government to allow the challenge and react to it early in the process, rather than risk a judgement after A50 had been declared which would have been considerably more complicated.
The one line bill was an elegant solution, especially when accompanied by some heroic whipping in both houses to see it through unamended.
Not only that but by allowing the challenge the government was able to get the Supreme Court to rule that only Parliament and not the devolved governments had a say. Had the challenge not occurred then there was a possibility of future challenges down the road that were killed off by the clear ruling at the start followed by the bill that Parliament passed as required.
For Mike's sake we shouldn't speculate about names, but this could have serious consequences
A SENIOR Labour MP has vowed to name and shame a fellow comrade as a sex pest.
In an electrifying Commons intervention John Mann hinted a Labour MP had been booted off a foreign trip for bad behaviour towards females.
But the respected backbencher suggested the incident may have been hushed up, as abuse allegations swept Westminster in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal.
Mr Mann, who has a history of campaigning against wrongdoing, used a parliamentary Point of Order to question if MPs had been kept in the dark about an incident believed to have taken place during an official trip.
Separately Mr Mann tweeted: “I will be naming a Labour MP who behaved appalling towards a young woman”.
He added: “Why was her complaint ignored before?”.....
....Westminster insiders said the party chiefs are braced for up to half a dozen serious sleaze cases to emerge in the coming weeks and months.
A Labour source said: “It won’t be quite as many as the expenses crisis but there will definitely be resignations and by-elections if the dam breaks.”
For Mike's sake we shouldn't speculate about names, but this could have serious consequences
A SENIOR Labour MP has vowed to name and shame a fellow comrade as a sex pest.
In an electrifying Commons intervention John Mann hinted a Labour MP had been booted off a foreign trip for bad behaviour towards females.
But the respected backbencher suggested the incident may have been hushed up, as abuse allegations swept Westminster in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal.
Mr Mann, who has a history of campaigning against wrongdoing, used a parliamentary Point of Order to question if MPs had been kept in the dark about an incident believed to have taken place during an official trip.
Separately Mr Mann tweeted: “I will be naming a Labour MP who behaved appalling towards a young woman”.
He added: “Why was her complaint ignored before?”.....
....Westminster insiders said the party chiefs are braced for up to half a dozen serious sleaze cases to emerge in the coming weeks and months.
A Labour source said: “It won’t be quite as many as the expenses crisis but there will definitely be resignations and by-elections if the dam breaks.”
@paulwaugh: Asked about PM view of DD "clarification" on Brexit, No10 "She has full confidence in him."
As bad as that?
It would have been better if she had said 'he's as stable in his position as I am in mine'
Actually I think she is in as stable position today as she has been for a while. The polls are level, GDP is better than expected, she does seem to have made some headway on Brexit, and she is still the only grown up in the room. With a good budget (and that remains to be seen) she may even see an improvement in her polling
Top lawyers are wrong all the time, the governments top lawyers were wrong re A50 for instance
I am not sure that's true.
Just because they argued the A50 case, doesn't mean they ever thought they would win...
Why would the govetnment fight it then? The solution, a short bill, was so simple and they'd already said A50 would not be declared until the spring, so fighting a case the lawyers said was hopeless bought no time or advantage. Plus since 3 justices backed then, I think there's a decent chance the gov lawyers believed their argument.
It clearly wasn't hopeless. The Supreme Court decision was 8-3. That must mean that not only was there an arguable case but there was a persuasive one (if not sufficiently so to win, as it turned out).
Mr. P, if the Government had an ounce of sense it'd cut the foreign aid budget, which would upset very few, and spend it correcting the problems with Universal Credit.
For Mike's sake we shouldn't speculate about names, but this could have serious consequences
A SENIOR Labour MP has vowed to name and shame a fellow comrade as a sex pest.
In an electrifying Commons intervention John Mann hinted a Labour MP had been booted off a foreign trip for bad behaviour towards females.
But the respected backbencher suggested the incident may have been hushed up, as abuse allegations swept Westminster in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal.
Mr Mann, who has a history of campaigning against wrongdoing, used a parliamentary Point of Order to question if MPs had been kept in the dark about an incident believed to have taken place during an official trip.
Separately Mr Mann tweeted: “I will be naming a Labour MP who behaved appalling towards a young woman”.
He added: “Why was her complaint ignored before?”.....
....Westminster insiders said the party chiefs are braced for up to half a dozen serious sleaze cases to emerge in the coming weeks and months.
A Labour source said: “It won’t be quite as many as the expenses crisis but there will definitely be resignations and by-elections if the dam breaks.”
This looks like a cracking opportunity to point at labour and laugh, and not that susceptible to the "come on lads, we've all done this in our teens" defence.
For Mike's sake we shouldn't speculate about names, but this could have serious consequences
A SENIOR Labour MP has vowed to name and shame a fellow comrade as a sex pest.
In an electrifying Commons intervention John Mann hinted a Labour MP had been booted off a foreign trip for bad behaviour towards females.
But the respected backbencher suggested the incident may have been hushed up, as abuse allegations swept Westminster in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal.
Mr Mann, who has a history of campaigning against wrongdoing, used a parliamentary Point of Order to question if MPs had been kept in the dark about an incident believed to have taken place during an official trip.
Separately Mr Mann tweeted: “I will be naming a Labour MP who behaved appalling towards a young woman”.
He added: “Why was her complaint ignored before?”.....
....Westminster insiders said the party chiefs are braced for up to half a dozen serious sleaze cases to emerge in the coming weeks and months.
A Labour source said: “It won’t be quite as many as the expenses crisis but there will definitely be resignations and by-elections if the dam breaks.”
For Mike's sake we shouldn't speculate about names, but this could have serious consequences
A SENIOR Labour MP has vowed to name and shame a fellow comrade as a sex pest.
In an electrifying Commons intervention John Mann hinted a Labour MP had been booted off a foreign trip for bad behaviour towards females.
But the respected backbencher suggested the incident may have been hushed up, as abuse allegations swept Westminster in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal.
Mr Mann, who has a history of campaigning against wrongdoing, used a parliamentary Point of Order to question if MPs had been kept in the dark about an incident believed to have taken place during an official trip.
Separately Mr Mann tweeted: “I will be naming a Labour MP who behaved appalling towards a young woman”.
He added: “Why was her complaint ignored before?”.....
....Westminster insiders said the party chiefs are braced for up to half a dozen serious sleaze cases to emerge in the coming weeks and months.
A Labour source said: “It won’t be quite as many as the expenses crisis but there will definitely be resignations and by-elections if the dam breaks.”
This looks like a cracking opportunity to point at labour and laugh, and not that susceptible to the "come on lads, we've all done this in our teens" defence.
It would be hilarious if Corbyn having achieved a hung parliament in June ended up seeing May get a small majority because of by elections caused by Labour MPs sexual harassment scandals.
For Mike's sake we shouldn't speculate about names, but this could have serious consequences
A SENIOR Labour MP has vowed to name and shame a fellow comrade as a sex pest.
In an electrifying Commons intervention John Mann hinted a Labour MP had been booted off a foreign trip for bad behaviour towards females.
But the respected backbencher suggested the incident may have been hushed up, as abuse allegations swept Westminster in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal.
Mr Mann, who has a history of campaigning against wrongdoing, used a parliamentary Point of Order to question if MPs had been kept in the dark about an incident believed to have taken place during an official trip.
Separately Mr Mann tweeted: “I will be naming a Labour MP who behaved appalling towards a young woman”.
He added: “Why was her complaint ignored before?”.....
....Westminster insiders said the party chiefs are braced for up to half a dozen serious sleaze cases to emerge in the coming weeks and months.
A Labour source said: “It won’t be quite as many as the expenses crisis but there will definitely be resignations and by-elections if the dam breaks.”
For Mike's sake we shouldn't speculate about names, but this could have serious consequences
A SENIOR Labour MP has vowed to name and shame a fellow comrade as a sex pest.
In an electrifying Commons intervention John Mann hinted a Labour MP had been booted off a foreign trip for bad behaviour towards females.
But the respected backbencher suggested the incident may have been hushed up, as abuse allegations swept Westminster in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal.
Mr Mann, who has a history of campaigning against wrongdoing, used a parliamentary Point of Order to question if MPs had been kept in the dark about an incident believed to have taken place during an official trip.
Separately Mr Mann tweeted: “I will be naming a Labour MP who behaved appalling towards a young woman”.
He added: “Why was her complaint ignored before?”.....
....Westminster insiders said the party chiefs are braced for up to half a dozen serious sleaze cases to emerge in the coming weeks and months.
A Labour source said: “It won’t be quite as many as the expenses crisis but there will definitely be resignations and by-elections if the dam breaks.”
For Mike's sake we shouldn't speculate about names, but this could have serious consequences
A SENIOR Labour MP has vowed to name and shame a fellow comrade as a sex pest.
In an electrifying Commons intervention John Mann hinted a Labour MP had been booted off a foreign trip for bad behaviour towards females.
But the respected backbencher suggested the incident may have been hushed up, as abuse allegations swept Westminster in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal.
Mr Mann, who has a history of campaigning against wrongdoing, used a parliamentary Point of Order to question if MPs had been kept in the dark about an incident believed to have taken place during an official trip.
Separately Mr Mann tweeted: “I will be naming a Labour MP who behaved appalling towards a young woman”.
He added: “Why was her complaint ignored before?”.....
....Westminster insiders said the party chiefs are braced for up to half a dozen serious sleaze cases to emerge in the coming weeks and months.
A Labour source said: “It won’t be quite as many as the expenses crisis but there will definitely be resignations and by-elections if the dam breaks.”
Looks like O’Mara is not alone, and not the most serious offender either.
But is the story going to be "The PLP is full of sleazebags" or "The Commons is full of sleazebags"?
It seems improbable that the Tories and others would find themselves free of similar sleazebags entirely. The smaller parties might proportionally have a better chance of not having existing members being sleazebags, but there's bound to be very recent MPs of theirs who were.
It would be unusual for politicians not to be involved in extra-marital affairs. Think of Sir Charles Dilke teaching his lovers every French vice in his 3 in a bed romps. As Henry Kissinger said. "Power is the great aphrodisiac." There is an element of caprice about the way the media don't always bother to look or comment.
Rumours of names and numbers are one thing, and by-elections are another, but perhaps this time it will be a live goat or a dead girl in a MP's bed. That might be worth a resignation.
My impression is that voters will forgive politicians pretty well any vice that took place between enthusiastically consenting adults, but they won't forgive illegality, hypocrisy or anything that sounds abusive or creepy.
@paulwaugh: Asked about PM view of DD "clarification" on Brexit, No10 "She has full confidence in him."
As bad as that?
It would have been better if she had said 'he's as stable in his position as I am in mine'
Actually I think she is in as stable position today as she has been for a while. The polls are level, GDP is better than expected, she does seem to have made some headway on Brexit, and she is still the only grown up in the room. With a good budget (and that remains to be seen) she may even see an improvement in her polling
One poll is level. GDP is 0.1% better than expected, according to a preliminary analysis that is subject to a number of revisions. What's the headway on Brexit supposed to be?
As far as I can see the lack of movement in the current Tory situation isn't stability, it's stagnation. It's the calm after conference failed to deliver any exciting coup attempts. Nothing's been done to address the underlying problems.
The full judgment is an interesting read. A borderline case but on reading I would say the judgments look solid. Ivey wasn't passively taking advantage of weaknesses in the casino's systems but manipulated the croupier into stacking the deck to her employer's detriment when a principle of the game is that the deck is random.
I see actress Heather Lind has said Bush Snr 'touched her from behind and told a dirty joke, in 2014 though his camp has said no offence was intended and it was an attempt at humour. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41752488
My impression is that voters will forgive politicians pretty well any vice that took place between enthusiastically consenting adults, but they won't forgive illegality, hypocrisy or anything that sounds abusive or creepy.
I think that is spot on, but would add 'breach of trust' to the list (hence the intensity of the rancour towards Blair from the Left).
What is deemed creepy or abusive has evolved in my lifetime, but the icky factor has always been there.
The full judgment is an interesting read. A borderline case but on reading I would say the judgments look solid. Ivey wasn't passively taking advantage of weaknesses in the casino's systems but manipulated the croupier into stacking the deck to her employer's detriment when a principle of the game is that the deck is random.
The croupiers only do that sort of carry on to extract more cash from superstitious whales, so its fair game when it backfires to be honest.
My impression is that voters will forgive politicians pretty well any vice that took place between enthusiastically consenting adults, but they won't forgive illegality, hypocrisy or anything that sounds abusive or creepy.
I'd question them not forgiving hypocrisy, since partisan support kind of relies on accepting a level of hypocrisy from our representatives (it would have to be some pretty deeply personal hypocrisy), but the first and third I think encapsulate the public attitude.
For Mike's sake we shouldn't speculate about names, but this could have serious consequences
A SENIOR Labour MP has vowed to name and shame a fellow comrade as a sex pest.
In an electrifying Commons intervention John Mann hinted a Labour MP had been booted off a foreign trip for bad behaviour towards females.
But the respected backbencher suggested the incident may have been hushed up, as abuse allegations swept Westminster in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal.
Mr Mann, who has a history of campaigning against wrongdoing, used a parliamentary Point of Order to question if MPs had been kept in the dark about an incident believed to have taken place during an official trip.
Separately Mr Mann tweeted: “I will be naming a Labour MP who behaved appalling towards a young woman”.
He added: “Why was her complaint ignored before?”.....
....Westminster insiders said the party chiefs are braced for up to half a dozen serious sleaze cases to emerge in the coming weeks and months.
A Labour source said: “It won’t be quite as many as the expenses crisis but there will definitely be resignations and by-elections if the dam breaks.”
This looks like a cracking opportunity to point at labour and laugh, and not that susceptible to the "come on lads, we've all done this in our teens" defence.
It would be hilarious if Corbyn having achieved a hung parliament in June ended up seeing May get a small majority because of by elections caused by Labour MPs sexual harassment scandals.
Wait, threatening not to trigger A50 would have the EU quaking in it's boots?
It's better than threatening to walk away when walking away is guaranteed to damage you more than any deal offered and everyone knows that to be the case. Refusing to budge and being generally uncooperative until you get what you want would have had an effect. You also lock in your current benefits whereas walking away discards them. That's why the EU were VERY anxious for Article 50 to be triggered as quickly as possible. Problem was, Mrs May was more anxious to appease her hardliners who also wanted to get on with it, than to get a good deal.
Not that either tactic is a good way of pursuing a relationship negotiation IMO, but refusing to budge has logic to it.
Wait, threatening not to trigger A50 would have the EU quaking in it's boots?
The EU did insist that without triggering A50, nothing could happen. She could have made a counter proposal basically saying "Ok, in that case.."
In fact, she was eager to trigger A50 herself and gave a 31st March deadline so that there would be no EU elections here in summer 2019. That deadline was of UK's making.
For Mike's sake we shouldn't speculate about names, but this could have serious consequences
A SENIOR Labour MP has vowed to name and shame a fellow comrade as a sex pest.
In an electrifying Commons intervention John Mann hinted a Labour MP had been booted off a foreign trip for bad behaviour towards females.
But the respected backbencher suggested the incident may have been hushed up, as abuse allegations swept Westminster in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal.
Mr Mann, who has a history of campaigning against wrongdoing, used a parliamentary Point of Order to question if MPs had been kept in the dark about an incident believed to have taken place during an official trip.
Separately Mr Mann tweeted: “I will be naming a Labour MP who behaved appalling towards a young woman”.
He added: “Why was her complaint ignored before?”.....
....Westminster insiders said the party chiefs are braced for up to half a dozen serious sleaze cases to emerge in the coming weeks and months.
A Labour source said: “It won’t be quite as many as the expenses crisis but there will definitely be resignations and by-elections if the dam breaks.”
I see actress Heather Lind has said Bush Snr 'touched her from behind and told a dirty joke, in 2014 though his camp has said no offence was intended and it was an attempt at humour. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41752488
It's better than threatening to walk away when walking away is guaranteed to damage you more than any deal offered and everyone knows that to be the case. Refusing to budge and being generally uncooperative would have had an effect. You also lock in your current benefits whereas walking away discards them. That's why the EU were VERY anxious for Article 50 to be triggered as quickly as possible. Problem was, Mrs May was more anxious to appease her hardliners who also wanted to get on with it, than to get a good deal.
Not that either tactic is a good way of pursuing a relationship negotiation IMO, but refusing to budge has logic to it.
The Eurosceptics overplayed their hand because they thought it was the only chance they'd ever get for a clean break.
I see actress Heather Lind has said Bush Snr 'touched her from behind and told a dirty joke, in 2014 though his camp has said no offence was intended and it was an attempt at humour. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41752488
Hmmm. He was 90 at the time.
In a wheelchair.
It's not exactly the next Harvey Weinstein
Fair to say she is being slated for her comments on Instagram, I don't think he is even the next Bill Clinton or Donald Trump never mind Harvey Weinstein.
I'm not a card player but it does seem rather unfair on the chap.
I think you need to read the judgment. The key to me seems to be:
"It may be that it would not be cheating if a player spotted that some cards had a detectably different back from others, and took advantage of that observation, but Mr Ivey did much more than observe; he took positive steps to fix the deck. That, in a game which depends on random delivery of unknown cards, is inevitably cheating. That it was clever and skilful, and must have involved remarkably sharp eyes, cannot alter that truth."
What he and his associate had done was to persuade the croupier to turn around some of the packs of cards having identified very small differences on the high value cards. The detail is extensive and set out in the judgment: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0213-judgment.pdf
The test for cheating is a deliberate act or course of conduct to gain an unfair advantage. That is what he did. The judgment raises interesting questions as to whether card counting is also "cheating" in a way that would entitle a casino not to pay if they established it had occurred.
For Mike's sake we shouldn't speculate about names, but this could have serious consequences
A SENIOR Labour MP has vowed to name and shame a fellow comrade as a sex pest.
In an electrifying Commons intervention John Mann hinted a Labour MP had been booted off a foreign trip for bad behaviour towards females.
But the respected backbencher suggested the incident may have been hushed up, as abuse allegations swept Westminster in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal.
Mr Mann, who has a history of campaigning against wrongdoing, used a parliamentary Point of Order to question if MPs had been kept in the dark about an incident believed to have taken place during an official trip.
Separately Mr Mann tweeted: “I will be naming a Labour MP who behaved appalling towards a young woman”.
He added: “Why was her complaint ignored before?”.....
....Westminster insiders said the party chiefs are braced for up to half a dozen serious sleaze cases to emerge in the coming weeks and months.
A Labour source said: “It won’t be quite as many as the expenses crisis but there will definitely be resignations and by-elections if the dam breaks.”
This looks like a cracking opportunity to point at labour and laugh, and not that susceptible to the "come on lads, we've all done this in our teens" defence.
It would be hilarious if Corbyn having achieved a hung parliament in June ended up seeing May get a small majority because of by elections caused by Labour MPs sexual harassment scandals.
The full judgment is an interesting read. A borderline case but on reading I would say the judgments look solid. Ivey wasn't passively taking advantage of weaknesses in the casino's systems but manipulated the croupier into stacking the deck to her employer's detriment when a principle of the game is that the deck is random.
The croupiers only do that sort of carry on to extract more cash from superstitious whales, so its fair game when it backfires to be honest.
It's a point of view. The Law Lords came up with an example of what they reckoned was cheating without dishonesty (the case turned on whether that is possible). Someone deliberately starves a racehorse of water and then bloats it immediately before the race. Would you count that as cheating or is it all in the game?
On sopping wet lettuce Grieve's legal challenge wibbling: to what end?
Let's say time runs out, and there's no vote in the Commons. What does a legal challenge lead to? Do we stay in? Because that's contrary to Article 50 or any deal signed. Does it annul any deal agreed?
I was not aware that your legal expertise is greater than Dominic Grieve's. Then again, you know more about F1 racing - probably.
The test for cheating is a deliberate act or course of conduct to gain an unfair advantage. That is what he did. The judgment raises interesting questions as to whether card counting is also "cheating" in a way that would entitle a casino not to pay if they established it had occurred.
For Mike's sake we shouldn't speculate about names, but this could have serious consequences
A SENIOR Labour MP has vowed to name and shame a fellow comrade as a sex pest.
In an electrifying Commons intervention John Mann hinted a Labour MP had been booted off a foreign trip for bad behaviour towards females.
But the respected backbencher suggested the incident may have been hushed up, as abuse allegations swept Westminster in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal.
Mr Mann, who has a history of campaigning against wrongdoing, used a parliamentary Point of Order to question if MPs had been kept in the dark about an incident believed to have taken place during an official trip.
Separately Mr Mann tweeted: “I will be naming a Labour MP who behaved appalling towards a young woman”.
He added: “Why was her complaint ignored before?”.....
....Westminster insiders said the party chiefs are braced for up to half a dozen serious sleaze cases to emerge in the coming weeks and months.
A Labour source said: “It won’t be quite as many as the expenses crisis but there will definitely be resignations and by-elections if the dam breaks.”
On ivey edge sorting case...In order for their advantage play to work it requires a number of confessions by the casino. Ivey is know not only for high stakes poker but in the past a huge craps player (which is definitely a negative ev game). The woman who accompanied him has been involved in this in the past all around he world. Neither her or most normal punters would have been able to secure the concessions required, but ivey could because of his public reputation and his private one as a massive loser at craps.
The full judgment is an interesting read. A borderline case but on reading I would say the judgments look solid. Ivey wasn't passively taking advantage of weaknesses in the casino's systems but manipulated the croupier into stacking the deck to her employer's detriment when a principle of the game is that the deck is random.
The croupiers only do that sort of carry on to extract more cash from superstitious whales, so its fair game when it backfires to be honest.
It's a point of view. The Law Lords came up with an example of what they reckoned was cheating without dishonesty (the case turned on whether that is possible). Someone deliberately starves a racehorse of water and then bloats it immediately before the race. Would you count that as cheating or is it all in the game?
The test for cheating is a deliberate act or course of conduct to gain an unfair advantage. That is what he did. The judgment raises interesting questions as to whether card counting is also "cheating" in a way that would entitle a casino not to pay if they established it had occurred.
It gets really complicated at those sort of margins. What is cheating and what is skill? I think getting the croupier to change around the packs to help you identify the cards is cheating but counting how many face cards were left and what the odds were on another turning up seems to me to be a skill.
I'm not a card player but it does seem rather unfair on the chap.
I think you need to read the judgment. The key to me seems to be:
"It may be that it would not be cheating if a player spotted that some cards had a detectably different back from others, and took advantage of that observation, but Mr Ivey did much more than observe; he took positive steps to fix the deck. That, in a game which depends on random delivery of unknown cards, is inevitably cheating. That it was clever and skilful, and must have involved remarkably sharp eyes, cannot alter that truth."
What he and his associate had done was to persuade the croupier to turn around some of the packs of cards having identified very small differences on the high value cards. The detail is extensive and set out in the judgment: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0213-judgment.pdf
The test for cheating is a deliberate act or course of conduct to gain an unfair advantage. That is what he did. The judgment raises interesting questions as to whether card counting is also "cheating" in a way that would entitle a casino not to pay if they established it had occurred.
The Casino didn't realise they were offering a game of skill which required them to train their staff. It's not the punters fault that the casino was too thick to realise this until it resulted in a huge loss.
The guy found and exploited a completely legitimate edge, IMO.
The full judgment is an interesting read. A borderline case but on reading I would say the judgments look solid. Ivey wasn't passively taking advantage of weaknesses in the casino's systems but manipulated the croupier into stacking the deck to her employer's detriment when a principle of the game is that the deck is random.
The croupiers only do that sort of carry on to extract more cash from superstitious whales, so its fair game when it backfires to be honest.
It's a point of view. The Law Lords came up with an example of what they reckoned was cheating without dishonesty (the case turned on whether that is possible). Someone deliberately starves a racehorse of water and then bloats it immediately before the race. Would you count that as cheating or is it all in the game?
That's animal cruelty.
Next.
It was a genuine question, but never mind. It seems to me there needs to be some level of trust. You wouldn't want the casino to stack the cards against you (which doesn't mean it never happens). But people will also push the envelope to gain advantage. And why not? It's a game.
You realise, of course, that Mark Price was Minister of State for Trade Policy until last month. And that he claims that, on behalf of the government, he visited these 60 countries who have agreed to roll over the current deal and are working through the details.
Does that realisation:
a) Fill you with confidence that Liam Fox's department is on top of things and fully grounded in reality, or b) Fill you with horror that Liam Fox's department is wholly divorced from reality and believes that warm words are sufficient?
To make one obvious point, how on earth should anyone believe that 60-odd countries are currently 'working through the details' when even our own government has no idea what will happen and regards 'no deal' merely as a negotiating position?
To provide the blindingly obvious answer, the details of a trade agreement between us and a non-EU country has nothing to do with the deal we get with the EU. If that country wants to enter into a deal that allows it to continue to trade with us on the same terms as it trades with the EU it can do so, provided we agree. That applies regardless of the outcome of our negotiations with the EU unless we allow the EU to have a veto over our trade deals (which would clearly be unacceptable).
I am not saying Mark Price is right. I don't have any knowledge. But he is in a position to know and there is nothing inherently unbelievable about his claims, whatever you may think. If you currently trade with the UK on EU terms you may think Brexit is an opportunity to get a better deal, but equally you may think that continuing on EU terms is the easiest possible solution to cause minimum disruption to your country's trade with the UK and avoids having to enter into negotiations with the UK that could take years.
And of course no deal has to be an option. One must always be willing to walk away from any negotiation if it is not possible to achieve an outcome that is better than not having a deal at all. I hope we don't end up in that position but it should not be ruled out at this stage. See my post on negotiating 101 a few weeks ago.
OK so let's suppose we have, post-Brexit, the following:
Intra-EU widget mutual tariff: zero EU - UK widget mutual tariff: zero EU - Farland widget mutual tariff: 10% UK - Farland widget mutual tariff: 5%
What would happen?
Ans: It couldn't happen. The EU-UK trade deal would have a approx. 5% tariff to compensate for the differential between EU-Farland and UK-Farland.
I'm not a card player but it does seem rather unfair on the chap.
I think you need to read the judgment. The key to me seems to be:
"It may be that it would not be cheating if a player spotted that some cards had a detectably different back from others, and took advantage of that observation, but Mr Ivey did much more than observe; he took positive steps to fix the deck. That, in a game which depends on random delivery of unknown cards, is inevitably cheating. That it was clever and skilful, and must have involved remarkably sharp eyes, cannot alter that truth."
What he and his associate had done was to persuade the croupier to turn around some of the packs of cards having identified very small differences on the high value cards. The detail is extensive and set out in the judgment: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0213-judgment.pdf
The test for cheating is a deliberate act or course of conduct to gain an unfair advantage. That is what he did. The judgment raises interesting questions as to whether card counting is also "cheating" in a way that would entitle a casino not to pay if they established it had occurred.
The Casino didn't realise they were offering a game of skill which required them to train their staff.
It's not the punters fault that the casino was too thick to realise this until it resulted in a huge loss.
The guy had a completely legitimate edge, IMO.
Aye, and the requests were acquisced to try and extract more cash from Ivey. He's probably one of the most recognisable gamblers in the entire world ! This is like Aiden O Brien heading into a bookmakers and trying to place bets on a Godolphin nag.
The only way the casino would agree to this is if they knew they weren't going to pay out when he won and they reasoned they'd probably win the relevant court cases. Which is definitely cheating beyond the regular house edge...
I'm not a card player but it does seem rather unfair on the chap.
I think you need to read the judgment. The key to me seems to be:
"It may be that it would not be cheating if a player spotted that some cards had a detectably different back from others, and took advantage of that observation, but Mr Ivey did much more than observe; he took positive steps to fix the deck. That, in a game which depends on random delivery of unknown cards, is inevitably cheating. That it was clever and skilful, and must have involved remarkably sharp eyes, cannot alter that truth."
What he and his associate had done was to persuade the croupier to turn around some of the packs of cards having identified very small differences on the high value cards. The detail is extensive and set out in the judgment: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0213-judgment.pdf
The test for cheating is a deliberate act or course of conduct to gain an unfair advantage. That is what he did. The judgment raises interesting questions as to whether card counting is also "cheating" in a way that would entitle a casino not to pay if they established it had occurred.
The Casino didn't realise they were offering a game of skill which required them to train their staff. It's not the punters fault that the casino was too thick to realise this until it resulted in a huge loss.
The guy found and exploited a completely legitimate edge, IMO.
Its not a game I've ever played but from the description in the Judgment it doesn't seem to be a game of skill at all. But effectively fixing the deck is cheating, not skill. In this case the casino had not allowed Ivey to touch the cards but supposing he had and had made small indentations on them so that he could identify the cards next time around? That would be cheating. Effectively, without touching the cards, that is what he did.
OK so let's suppose we have, post-Brexit, the following:
Intra-EU widget mutual tariff: zero EU - UK widget mutual tariff: zero EU - Farland widget mutual tariff: 10% UK - Farland widget mutual tariff: 5%
What would happen?
And would the EU-Farland dispute resolution mechanism be responsible for adjudicating?
Based on Mark Price's statement, the assumption is that UK-Farland would be the same as EU-Farland since they would continue trading with the UK on the terms they currently have with the EU. But what you are describing is not an unusual situation in international trade. Farland would be able to export to the UK, paying the 5% tariff. The UK importer could then sell to the EU without tariff. Of course, the additional transport and processing costs may mean it isn't worth it. But indirect trade like this is a common approach to tariff evasion. A lot of exports to China go via Hong Kong for exactly this reason.
The full judgment is an interesting read. A borderline case but on reading I would say the judgments look solid. Ivey wasn't passively taking advantage of weaknesses in the casino's systems but manipulated the croupier into stacking the deck to her employer's detriment when a principle of the game is that the deck is random.
An interesting question is where more casual punters' sympathies should lie. Personally I dislike professional gamblers finding cunning ways to rip off casinos, since, as with insurance fraudsters, the indirect effect is to make the casinos worsen the deal for everyone else. But a more common view is to see the pros as somehow representative of us peons, and to cheer when they succeed at finding a way through. By contrast, very few people like poker bots, because they're competing with them directly.
Aye, and the requests were acquisced to try and extract more cash from Ivey. He's probably one of the most recognisable gamblers in the entire world ! This is like Aiden O Brien heading into a bookmakers and trying to place bets on a Godolphin nag.
The only way the casino would agree to this is if they knew they weren't going to pay out when he won and they reasoned they'd probably win the relevant court cases. Which is definitely cheating beyond the regular house edge...
If you accept the Law Lords know their law, it turns out Ivey wasn't quite as smart as he thought he was* because he didn't come up with a scheme that was legally watertight. I assume he has access to good lawyers.
* Although I don't think he lost any money because the whole transaction was voided. On the basis he might have won, it was a decent prospect.
I'm not a card player but it does seem rather unfair on the chap.
I think you need to read the judgment. The key to me seems to be:
"It may be that it would not be cheating if a player spotted that some cards had a detectably different back from others, and took advantage of that observation, but Mr Ivey did much more than observe; he took positive steps to fix the deck. That, in a game which depends on random delivery of unknown cards, is inevitably cheating. That it was clever and skilful, and must have involved remarkably sharp eyes, cannot alter that truth."
What he and his associate had done was to persuade the croupier to turn around some of the packs of cards having identified very small differences on the high value cards. The detail is extensive and set out in the judgment: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0213-judgment.pdf
The test for cheating is a deliberate act or course of conduct to gain an unfair advantage. That is what he did. The judgment raises interesting questions as to whether card counting is also "cheating" in a way that would entitle a casino not to pay if they established it had occurred.
The Casino didn't realise they were offering a game of skill which required them to train their staff.
It's not the punters fault that the casino was too thick to realise this until it resulted in a huge loss.
The guy had a completely legitimate edge, IMO.
Aye, and the requests were acquisced to try and extract more cash from Ivey. He's probably one of the most recognisable gamblers in the entire world ! This is like Aiden O Brien heading into a bookmakers and trying to place bets on a Godolphin nag.
The only way the casino would agree to this is if they knew they weren't going to pay out when he won and they reasoned they'd probably win the relevant court cases. Which is definitely cheating beyond the regular house edge...
The evidence was that they did not work out what he had done until afterwards when investigators were brought in.
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages that indicate that white people are bad/evil and non-white are good/virtuous. Diversity is a codeword for non-white and is celebrated whilst the opposite is seen as insular, non-inclusive and a bit racist.
Teaching of the slave trade at school concentrates on that carried out by Europeans and doesn't even mention the Arab slave trade or the role Britain had in ending the practice entirely.
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Surely for most white and BME Britons it is the transatlantic triangle trade that is relevant.
There are other aspects. The leading teacher training college in the West Indies is Lady Mico University College. Lady Mico had originally intended her charity for the rehabilitation of freed British and Irish galley slaves recaptured or ransomed from the Moors, before expanding into the education of freed slaves in the 19th Century. My Gr Gr Gr Grandfather was one of the original teachers there.
Yes it's most relevant, but context of that awful business as, regrettably, not in a historical sense especially, uniquely heinous is an important detail to at least note.
I think what makes the Atlantic slave trade stand out for its horror is precisely the attempt to give it a scientific basis in racial difference, which the Arab slave trade didn't have. There are plenty of works from the time about how black people literally lacked something of what it was to be human - they didn't have a soul, they didn't have emotions, only the kind of animal instincts which Descartes saw as just a kind of mechanic reflex, rather than 'passions of the soul', etc.
From what I gather, the Arab slave trade (for all its horrors) at least saw slaves as being a human of the same kind, with the same faculties, feelings, even legal rights within the context of that system.
They were non-believers and thus inferior.
Yes, but they weren't therefore 'not human' by some natural difference that meant they were literally unfeeling objects.
The pb punt on Brexitmeansbrexit in the 5.50 at Kempton did not come off. Bookies could not give her away, so perhaps something was amiss. She ran promisingly enough but did not seem to get home. King And Empire won.
Also also, Mr. Sulphate, a few months ago I had some demented fools attacking me on Twitter for suggesting authors should be judged by quality not the demography of the author. Apparently, that stance was too pro-male and pro-white.
Young people are constantly being bombarded with messages that indicate that white people are bad/evil and non-white are good/virtuous. Diversity is a codeword for non-white and is celebrated whilst the opposite is seen as insular, non-inclusive and a bit racist.
Teaching of the slave trade at school concentrates on that carried out by Europeans and doesn't even mention the Arab slave trade or the role Britain had in ending the practice entirely.
This is not going to have good long term consequences.
Source please or is it just another one of your deranged fantasies?
Surely for most white and BME Britons it is the transatlantic triangle trade that is relevant.
Yes it's most relevant, but context of that awful business as, regrettably, not in a historical sense especially, uniquely heinous is an important detail to at least note.
I think what makes the Atlantic slave trade stand out for its horror is precisely the attempt to give it a scientific basis in racial difference, which the Arab slave trade didn't have. There are plenty of works from the time about how black people literally lacked something of what it was to be human - they didn't have a soul, they didn't have emotions, only the kind of animal instincts which Descartes saw as just a kind of mechanic reflex, rather than 'passions of the soul', etc.
From what I gather, the Arab slave trade (for all its horrors) at least saw slaves as being a human of the same kind, with the same faculties, feelings, even legal rights within the context of that system.
They were non-believers and thus inferior.
Yes, but they weren't therefore 'not human' by some natural difference that meant they were literally unfeeling objects.
It was 200 years ago , time they got over it
What a pointless way to blunder into an interesting running discussion from hours ago.
On sopping wet lettuce Grieve's legal challenge wibbling: to what end?
Let's say time runs out, and there's no vote in the Commons. What does a legal challenge lead to? Do we stay in? Because that's contrary to Article 50 or any deal signed. Does it annul any deal agreed?
I was not aware that your legal expertise is greater than Dominic Grieve's. Then again, you know more about F1 racing - probably.
The appeal to authority is almost always a fallacy, especially so in legal matters, which are rarely resolved on the basis that "my QC is bigger than your QC, so there!
You realise, of course, that Mark Price was Minister of State for Trade Policy until last month. And that he claims that, on behalf of the government, he visited these 60 countries who have agreed to roll over the current deal and are working through the details.
The point is they have to be new agreements because the UK on its own is a different beast from the UK as part of the EU, let alone the EU itself which is the party these agreements were struck with. So the UK can propose to the other party that the agreements can stick as closely as possible to the EU originals for simplicity and shortcut some of the negotiation. But they can't be the same or even very similar. For example we can't offer the Single Market, which is the key attraction for many of these countries. The US Commerce Department asked exporting companies what they wanted from a potential trade deal with the UK. The only thing they were interested in was the UK remaining in the SIngle Market because that protects their investments.
Yes, of course it has to be a new agreement. But it is very simple to draw up the agreement if the parties agree that they will continue to trade on the EU terms.
I struggle to understand why you think a new trade agreement with, say, Vietnam could not be very similar to the agreement it currently has with the EU. The fact that we can't offer the single market does not mean the trade agreement has to change. It may affect their willingness to trade with us but if they are happy to trade with us on the same terms despite the fact that we can't offer the single market then the new agreement could be very similar to their agreement with the EU. The EU/Vietnam agreement does not mention the single market once as far as I can see. And, having taken a look at it, it is clear that large swathes of that agreement could be copied into a UK/Vietnam agreement with very little alteration beyond substituting "UK" for "EU".
The pb punt on Brexitmeansbrexit in the 5.50 at Kempton did not come off. Bookies could not give her away, so perhaps something was amiss. She ran promisingly enough but did not seem to get home. King And Empire won.
To be honest, John, it wasn't a bad run from a novice filly. I feared the worst when I saw how it drifted but it wasn't a fix. The horse was run on its merits and on that performance I'd expect it to win a race or two, I've certainly backed worse 16/1 shots.
Would that our other Brexit representatives performed as honestly and creditably.
The full judgment is an interesting read. A borderline case but on reading I would say the judgments look solid. Ivey wasn't passively taking advantage of weaknesses in the casino's systems but manipulated the croupier into stacking the deck to her employer's detriment when a principle of the game is that the deck is random.
An interesting question is where more casual punters' sympathies should lie. Personally I dislike professional gamblers finding cunning ways to rip off casinos, since, as with insurance fraudsters, the indirect effect is to make the casinos worsen the deal for everyone else. But a more common view is to see the pros as somehow representative of us peons, and to cheer when they succeed at finding a way through. By contrast, very few people like poker bots, because they're competing with them directly.
As a punter, my initial view is that Ivey was bang to rights. On reflection, what disturbs me though is that the casino was happy to take a million quid off him while they thought he was a mug, and also while they may have considered that if he did win, they'd find a reason not to pay later (which they did).
The pb punt on Brexitmeansbrexit in the 5.50 at Kempton did not come off. Bookies could not give her away, so perhaps something was amiss. She ran promisingly enough but did not seem to get home. King And Empire won.
To be honest, John, it wasn't a bad run from a novice filly. I feared the worst when I saw how it drifted but it wasn't a fix. The horse was run on its merits and on that performance I'd expect it to win a race or two, I've certainly backed worse 16/1 shots.
Would that our other Brexit representatives performed as honestly and creditably.
The nature of snap elections is that candidates have to be found at short notice. This sort of thing is bound to happen.
But they an excellent candidate from 2015, why not use him?
And if he wasn't willing or available, then some more care should have been taken particularly given the high profile of the constituency due to the incumbent former party leader...
The full judgment is an interesting read. A borderline case but on reading I would say the judgments look solid. Ivey wasn't passively taking advantage of weaknesses in the casino's systems but manipulated the croupier into stacking the deck to her employer's detriment when a principle of the game is that the deck is random.
An interesting question is where more casual punters' sympathies should lie. Personally I dislike professional gamblers finding cunning ways to rip off casinos, since, as with insurance fraudsters, the indirect effect is to make the casinos worsen the deal for everyone else. But a more common view is to see the pros as somehow representative of us peons, and to cheer when they succeed at finding a way through. By contrast, very few people like poker bots, because they're competing with them directly.
Its very difficult to have any sympathy with casinos who live by exploiting the naivety, stupidity and greed of the less skilled. Here the casino has been stupid and just a tad careless in the production of its cards and they are they ones that have been taken advantage of. And the law has helped them out. I can easily see why people might find that asymmetric.
But I still think their Lordships have called this one right.
The nature of snap elections is that candidates have to be found at short notice. This sort of thing is bound to happen.
But they an excellent candidate from 2015, why not use him?
And if he wasn't willing or available, then some more care should have been taken particularly given the high profile of the constituency due to the incumbent former party leader...
I think in truth Labour were worried about how many seats they were going to lose, not about possible gains.
The nature of snap elections is that candidates have to be found at short notice. This sort of thing is bound to happen.
But they an excellent candidate from 2015, why not use him?
And if he wasn't willing or available, then some more care should have been taken particularly given the high profile of the constituency due to the incumbent former party leader...
I think in truth Labour were worried about how many seats they were going to lose, not about possible gains.
Even so, you need a credible candidate against a former deputy PM.
I do wonder whether his disability might have meant that affirmative action/positive discrimination might have come into the decision-making process
The nature of snap elections is that candidates have to be found at short notice. This sort of thing is bound to happen.
But they an excellent candidate from 2015, why not use him?
And if he wasn't willing or available, then some more care should have been taken particularly given the high profile of the constituency due to the incumbent former party leader...
I think in truth Labour were worried about how many seats they were going to lose, not about possible gains.
Labour were clearly massive value at around 25-1 before the election - both myself and @Election_Data realised this. I even pointed it out here
The point is they have to be new agreements because the UK on its own is a different beast from the UK as part of the EU, let alone the EU itself which is the party these agreements were struck with. So the UK can propose to the other party that the agreements can stick as closely as possible to the EU originals for simplicity and shortcut some of the negotiation. But they can't be the same or even very similar. For example we can't offer the Single Market, which is the key attraction for many of these countries. The US Commerce Department asked exporting companies what they wanted from a potential trade deal with the UK. The only thing they were interested in was the UK remaining in the SIngle Market because that protects their investments.
Yes, of course it has to be a new agreement. But it is very simple to draw up the agreement if the parties agree that they will continue to trade on the EU terms.
I struggle to understand why you think a new trade agreement with, say, Vietnam could not be very similar to the agreement it currently has with the EU. The fact that we can't offer the single market does not mean the trade agreement has to change. It may affect their willingness to trade with us but if they are happy to trade with us on the same terms despite the fact that we can't offer the single market then the new agreement could be very similar to their agreement with the EU. The EU/Vietnam agreement does not mention the single market once as far as I can see. And, having taken a look at it, it is clear that large swathes of that agreement could be copied into a UK/Vietnam agreement with very little alteration beyond substituting "UK" for "EU".
I could see Vietnam signing up on a least effort basis. But let's take Korea, a much more important trading partner. Korea made significant concessions with its EU deal and in fact went from a net exporter to a net importer. Access to the EU market was a prize they were willing to pay for in a somewhat unfavourable agreement. Trade relations are largely driven by relative power. We are offering them less so they will reduce what they give us. The EU doesn't have preferential trade deals with the US and China largely because they are of equivalent power. Trade deals happen most easily between unequals. Trade deals with countries less powerful than us will probably look like the ones the EU has already signed. Those with more powerful trading blocks - in particular the EU itself,but also possibly China and the US, will favour the other party. Those with economies that are broadly equivalent - Korea, Canada etc - will no longer favour us but will be more balanced.
The nature of snap elections is that candidates have to be found at short notice. This sort of thing is bound to happen.
But they an excellent candidate from 2015, why not use him?
And if he wasn't willing or available, then some more care should have been taken particularly given the high profile of the constituency due to the incumbent former party leader...
I think in truth Labour were worried about how many seats they were going to lose, not about possible gains.
Even so, you need a credible candidate against a former deputy PM.
I do wonder whether his disability might have meant that affirmative action/positive discrimination might have come into the decision-making process
Is being a plonker now a recognised disability?*
The chap has repulsive manners and attitudes, but idiots need representation too.
If we only have ultra-vetted SPADs as candidates then we exclude far too much of the population.
The nature of snap elections is that candidates have to be found at short notice. This sort of thing is bound to happen.
But they an excellent candidate from 2015, why not use him?
And if he wasn't willing or available, then some more care should have been taken particularly given the high profile of the constituency due to the incumbent former party leader...
I think in truth Labour were worried about how many seats they were going to lose, not about possible gains.
Even so, you need a credible candidate against a former deputy PM.
I do wonder whether his disability might have meant that affirmative action/positive discrimination might have come into the decision-making process
In this Guardian piece it's presented as a big surprise he won the seat, and had been aiming to keep Labour in second. Interestingly, given that he's been so strongly defined as a Momentum person in the recent furore:
'(Momentum has, incidentally, tried to claim Hallam for one of its victories. But O’Mara isn’t having this. “No, no. I reject that entirely. I was grateful for their help, but it was a victory for every shade of red in the party. There are some really good eggs in there, but there are also a few people that… well, I maybe want to put a bit of distance between them and myself.”)'
I feel for the previous Labour PPC, having closed the gap by so much in 2015 for O'Mara to get in on a 2% increase in the Labour vote and immediately being part of a scandal.
The nature of snap elections is that candidates have to be found at short notice. This sort of thing is bound to happen.
But they an excellent candidate from 2015, why not use him?
And if he wasn't willing or available, then some more care should have been taken particularly given the high profile of the constituency due to the incumbent former party leader...
I think in truth Labour were worried about how many seats they were going to lose, not about possible gains.
Even so, you need a credible candidate against a former deputy PM.
I do wonder whether his disability might have meant that affirmative action/positive discrimination might have come into the decision-making process
I would have thought so, which is a noble aim , to have representatives in parliament who have disabilities.
To provide the blindingly obvious answer, the details of a trade agreement between us and a non-EU country has nothing to do with the deal we get with the EU. If that country wants to enter into a deal that allows it to continue to trade with us on the same terms as it trades with the EU it can do so, provided we agree. That applies regardless of the outcome of our negotiations with the EU unless we allow the EU to have a veto over our trade deals (which would clearly be unacceptable).
I am not saying Mark Price is right. I don't have any knowledge. But he is in a position to know and there is nothing inherently unbelievable about his claims, whatever you may think. If you currently trade with the UK on EU terms you may think Brexit is an opportunity to get a better deal, but equally you may think that continuing on EU terms is the easiest possible solution to cause minimum disruption to your country's trade with the UK and avoids having to enter into negotiations with the UK that could take years.
And of course no deal has to be an option. One must always be willing to walk away from any negotiation if it is not possible to achieve an outcome that is better than not having a deal at all. I hope we don't end up in that position but it should not be ruled out at this stage. See my post on negotiating 101 a few weeks ago.
I do have a small amount of knowledge of the DfIT, and I am not filled with confidence.
Unless we remain in the customs union during the transition period, then we will automatically drop out of existing agreement, because - by and large - it is the EU that is party to those treaties rather than the UK.
I would suggest you take a look at the EU-EFTA (EEA) treaty to understand the complexity of the issue (here). It is not just a matter of substituting the word "EU" with the word "UK" and resigning because:
- there are issues around dispute resolution mechanisms that will need to negotiated - treaties, in almost all instances, require the assents of national parliaments. Even where countries are very willing, this requires time - our other trading partners are likely to use the opportunity to make changes to their advantage. The South Korean government has already stated this publicly
Now, do I think that (almost) all the 60 odd agreements will end up being replicated. Yes. And I think that a two year transition period is probably sufficient for 90% of them. But I think there is a tendency to underestimate the amount of disruption that would be caused by a disorganised cliff edge Brexit; something that would be ruthlessly exploited by not just the EU, but by other countries. What's the old saying? Ah yes: nations don't have friends, they have interests.
The nature of snap elections is that candidates have to be found at short notice. This sort of thing is bound to happen.
But they an excellent candidate from 2015, why not use him?
And if he wasn't willing or available, then some more care should have been taken particularly given the high profile of the constituency due to the incumbent former party leader...
I think in truth Labour were worried about how many seats they were going to lose, not about possible gains.
Even so, you need a credible candidate against a former deputy PM.
I do wonder whether his disability might have meant that affirmative action/positive discrimination might have come into the decision-making process
I would have thought so, which is a noble aim , to have representatives in parliament who have disabilities.
It is only a noble aim if you pick a noble candidate - rather than a complete knob.
Comments
It would have been better if she had said 'he's as stable in his position as I am in mine'
The one line bill was an elegant solution, especially when accompanied by some heroic whipping in both houses to see it through unamended.
We know how well that worked out last time...
A SENIOR Labour MP has vowed to name and shame a fellow comrade as a sex pest.
In an electrifying Commons intervention John Mann hinted a Labour MP had been booted off a foreign trip for bad behaviour towards females.
But the respected backbencher suggested the incident may have been hushed up, as abuse allegations swept Westminster in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal.
Mr Mann, who has a history of campaigning against wrongdoing, used a parliamentary Point of Order to question if MPs had been kept in the dark about an incident believed to have taken place during an official trip.
Separately Mr Mann tweeted: “I will be naming a Labour MP who behaved appalling towards a young woman”.
He added: “Why was her complaint ignored before?”.....
....Westminster insiders said the party chiefs are braced for up to half a dozen serious sleaze cases to emerge in the coming weeks and months.
A Labour source said: “It won’t be quite as many as the expenses crisis but there will definitely be resignations and by-elections if the dam breaks.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4760275/labour-mp-john-mann-promises-to-name-and-shame-sex-pest-politician/
https://twitter.com/mikercarpenter/status/923202006470266880
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!! We've not supposed to have notice that - It's all about David Davis this afternoon.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/21/uk_defamation_law_reforms_take_effect_from_start_of_2014/
This looks like a cracking opportunity to point at labour and laugh, and not that susceptible to the "come on lads, we've all done this in our teens" defence.
Cross party shit storm.
Rumours of names and numbers are one thing, and by-elections are another, but perhaps this time it will be a live goat or a dead girl in a MP's bed. That might be worth a resignation.
As far as I can see the lack of movement in the current Tory situation isn't stability, it's stagnation. It's the calm after conference failed to deliver any exciting coup attempts. Nothing's been done to address the underlying problems.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41752488
What is deemed creepy or abusive has evolved in my lifetime, but the icky factor has always been there.
Not that either tactic is a good way of pursuing a relationship negotiation IMO, but refusing to budge has logic to it.
In fact, she was eager to trigger A50 herself and gave a 31st March deadline so that there would be no EU elections here in summer 2019. That deadline was of UK's making.
In a wheelchair.
It's not exactly the next Harvey Weinstein
https://www.instagram.com/p/BZW2I_ClOOm/
"It may be that it would not be cheating if a player spotted that some cards had a detectably different back from others, and took advantage of that observation, but Mr Ivey did much more than observe; he took positive steps to fix the deck. That, in a game which depends on random delivery of unknown cards, is inevitably cheating. That it was clever and skilful, and must have involved remarkably sharp eyes, cannot alter that truth."
What he and his associate had done was to persuade the croupier to turn around some of the packs of cards having identified very small differences on the high value cards. The detail is extensive and set out in the judgment: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0213-judgment.pdf
The test for cheating is a deliberate act or course of conduct to gain an unfair advantage. That is what he did. The judgment raises interesting questions as to whether card counting is also "cheating" in a way that would entitle a casino not to pay if they established it had occurred.
https://twitter.com/AP/status/923222907328884738
[In Star Wars' now defunct extended universe, after the Battle of Endor a New Republic was founded].
Next.
It gets really complicated at those sort of margins. What is cheating and what is skill? I think getting the croupier to change around the packs to help you identify the cards is cheating but counting how many face cards were left and what the odds were on another turning up seems to me to be a skill.
The guy found and exploited a completely legitimate edge, IMO.
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/923213985566089221
You know two sides have to agree a deal.
This is like Aiden O Brien heading into a bookmakers and trying to place bets on a Godolphin nag.
The only way the casino would agree to this is if they knew they weren't going to pay out when he won and they reasoned they'd probably win the relevant court cases.
Which is definitely cheating beyond the regular house edge...
* Although I don't think he lost any money because the whole transaction was voided. On the basis he might have won, it was a decent prospect.
So why not answer Mr Dancer's question?
I struggle to understand why you think a new trade agreement with, say, Vietnam could not be very similar to the agreement it currently has with the EU. The fact that we can't offer the single market does not mean the trade agreement has to change. It may affect their willingness to trade with us but if they are happy to trade with us on the same terms despite the fact that we can't offer the single market then the new agreement could be very similar to their agreement with the EU. The EU/Vietnam agreement does not mention the single market once as far as I can see. And, having taken a look at it, it is clear that large swathes of that agreement could be copied into a UK/Vietnam agreement with very little alteration beyond substituting "UK" for "EU".
Would that our other Brexit representatives performed as honestly and creditably.
But I still think their Lordships have called this one right.
I would have voted Clegg, were I in the seat.
I do wonder whether his disability might have meant that affirmative action/positive discrimination might have come into the decision-making process
The chap has repulsive manners and attitudes, but idiots need representation too.
If we only have ultra-vetted SPADs as candidates then we exclude far too much of the population.
* I am aware that he has CP too!
In this Guardian piece it's presented as a big surprise he won the seat, and had been aiming to keep Labour in second. Interestingly, given that he's been so strongly defined as a Momentum person in the recent furore:
'(Momentum has, incidentally, tried to claim Hallam for one of its victories. But O’Mara isn’t having this. “No, no. I reject that entirely. I was grateful for their help, but it was a victory for every shade of red in the party. There are some really good eggs in there, but there are also a few people that… well, I maybe want to put a bit of distance between them and myself.”)'
I feel for the previous Labour PPC, having closed the gap by so much in 2015 for O'Mara to get in on a 2% increase in the Labour vote and immediately being part of a scandal.
Unless we remain in the customs union during the transition period, then we will automatically drop out of existing agreement, because - by and large - it is the EU that is party to those treaties rather than the UK.
I would suggest you take a look at the EU-EFTA (EEA) treaty to understand the complexity of the issue (here). It is not just a matter of substituting the word "EU" with the word "UK" and resigning because:
- there are issues around dispute resolution mechanisms that will need to negotiated
- treaties, in almost all instances, require the assents of national parliaments. Even where countries are very willing, this requires time
- our other trading partners are likely to use the opportunity to make changes to their advantage. The South Korean government has already stated this publicly
Now, do I think that (almost) all the 60 odd agreements will end up being replicated. Yes. And I think that a two year transition period is probably sufficient for 90% of them. But I think there is a tendency to underestimate the amount of disruption that would be caused by a disorganised cliff edge Brexit; something that would be ruthlessly exploited by not just the EU, but by other countries. What's the old saying? Ah yes: nations don't have friends, they have interests.