politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Beto O’Rourke, third favourite for WH2020, gets closer to putt

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Beto O’Rourke, third favourite for WH2020, gets closer to putting his hat into the ring

The biggest UK political betting market continues to be the US presidential election in 2020 and overnight there have been big developments with Beto O’Rourke saying that he isn’t rulling out a bid.

Read the full story here

OldKingCole

First (?)

MarqueeMark

Well, he's got nothing else to do.....

edmundintokyo

I think the value's further down the list.

O'Rourke is a good communicator but he's pretty inexperienced and his main claim to fame is losing a Senate race.

Kamala Harris is mind-numbingly dull. I think she's the dullest person in 1617 people I follow on Twitter. I know there's a tendency to run somebody who's the opposite of the president but I think you need a certain amount of spikiness to compete in the social media era.

I would watch:
- Elizabeth Warren. I wouldn't recommend the Dems did this as she doesn't have great favourables but she's as good as said she's running, and if the Dems want to indulge themselves she's the obvious way to go.
- Kirsten Gillbrand: Sharp and audacious, check out how she turned on Clinton over sexual harassment.
- Amy Klobuchar: Excellent communicator, actually won her Senate race. (Betfair can't spell her name though.)
- Sherrod Brown: Reaches parts the other Dems can't, and they really want to win this time.

OldKingCole

Surely O'Rourke's VPOTUS material at the moment, not POTUS. He needs some'national' experience.

Think Warren's moment has passed, and must admit I'll have to google Mr EiT's other suggestions.

DavidL

Just don't see it myself. To get beaten by lying Ted is no great accomplishment in a state that is trending towards the Democrats (albeit from a long way back). The analysis that I read suggested that he had done no better than a standard democrat this year and hadn't particularly excited the Latinos despite the hype. Of course other numbers and analysis may be available but I would focus on those that won, especially in those highly marginal and critical rust bucket states which swung the election Trump's way.

Beto should have another swing at the Senate next time out where he will have an even weaker opponent than he did this time. I think he will and this is about keeping his profile and funding up.

Pulpstar

Is Michael Fallon #96 ?

DavidL

edmundintokyo said:

I think the value's further down the list.

O'Rourke is a good communicator but he's pretty inexperienced and his main claim to fame is losing a Senate race.

Kamala Harris is mind-numbingly dull. I think she's the dullest person in 1617 people I follow on Twitter. I know there's a tendency to run somebody who's the opposite of the president but I think you need a certain amount of spikiness to compete in the social media era.

I would watch:
- Elizabeth Warren. I wouldn't recommend the Dems did this as she doesn't have great favourables but she's as good as said she's running, and if the Dems want to indulge themselves she's the obvious way to go.
- Kirsten Gillbrand: Sharp and audacious, check out how she turned on Clinton over sexual harassment.
- Amy Klobuchar: Excellent communicator, actually won her Senate race. (Betfair can't spell her name though.)
- Sherrod Brown: Reaches parts the other Dems can't, and they really want to win this time.

Slightly underwhelmed article about Sherrod Brown: https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/sherrod-brown-2020/

He's going to be 68 in 2020. Not as old as Trump but not exactly a fresh face either. Does have a strong base in Ohio though which is obviously important. Maybe a strong VP candidate?

OldKingCole

OldKingCole said:

Surely O'Rourke's VPOTUS material at the moment, not POTUS. He needs some'national' experience.

Think Warren's moment has passed, and must admit I'll have to google Mr EiT's other suggestions.

Having done so, Sherrod Brown looks quite impressive.

rcs1000

edmundintokyo said:

I think the value's further down the list.

O'Rourke is a good communicator but he's pretty inexperienced and his main claim to fame is losing a Senate race.

Kamala Harris is mind-numbingly dull. I think she's the dullest person in 1617 people I follow on Twitter. I know there's a tendency to run somebody who's the opposite of the president but I think you need a certain amount of spikiness to compete in the social media era.

I would watch:
- Elizabeth Warren. I wouldn't recommend the Dems did this as she doesn't have great favourables but she's as good as said she's running, and if the Dems want to indulge themselves she's the obvious way to go.
- Kirsten Gillbrand: Sharp and audacious, check out how she turned on Clinton over sexual harassment.
- Amy Klobuchar: Excellent communicator, actually won her Senate race. (Betfair can't spell her name though.)
- Sherrod Brown: Reaches parts the other Dems can't, and they really want to win this time.

Beto: terrible value here. Simply, has done nothing other than slightly outperformed expectations against a weak opponent. Remember when you watched Obama introduce Kerry; remember how your spine tingled when he said "there's no red america and no blue america... there's the United States of America". Yeah, Beto's not got that. Sell.

Kristen: ok value, no more. I like her. I don't think she has mass appeal.

Amy: probably worth a small punt. She'd be excellent in the debates, but there's a better than even chance she won't make it that far.

Sherrod: pile on. Won a swing state by a big margin. Is economically populist without being obviously racist, corrupt or crazy. I think he'd be terrible for America, but he's hugely mispriced.

rcs1000

As we're on the subject of America, I think the easy money is to be made by just selling Bernie Sanders.

He only went as far as he did in 2016 because he was opposing Hillary (and pretty much just Hillary). 2020 means younger and better opponents. I'll offer any PBer's who's keen a 15% uplift to the bookies 11-1 for Democratic nominee.

MarqueeMark

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

I think the value's further down the list.

O'Rourke is a good communicator but he's pretty inexperienced and his main claim to fame is losing a Senate race.

Kamala Harris is mind-numbingly dull. I think she's the dullest person in 1617 people I follow on Twitter. I know there's a tendency to run somebody who's the opposite of the president but I think you need a certain amount of spikiness to compete in the social media era.

I would watch:
- Elizabeth Warren. I wouldn't recommend the Dems did this as she doesn't have great favourables but she's as good as said she's running, and if the Dems want to indulge themselves she's the obvious way to go.
- Kirsten Gillbrand: Sharp and audacious, check out how she turned on Clinton over sexual harassment.
- Amy Klobuchar: Excellent communicator, actually won her Senate race. (Betfair can't spell her name though.)
- Sherrod Brown: Reaches parts the other Dems can't, and they really want to win this time.

Beto: terrible value here. Simply, has done nothing other than slightly outperformed expectations against a weak opponent. Remember when you watched Obama introduce Kerry; remember how your spine tingled when he said "there's no red america and no blue america... there's the United States of America". Yeah, Beto's not got that. Sell.

Kristen: ok value, no more. I like her. I don't think she has mass appeal.

Amy: probably worth a small punt. She'd be excellent in the debates, but there's a better than even chance she won't make it that far.

Sherrod: pile on. Won a swing state by a big margin. Is economically populist without being obviously racist, corrupt or crazy. I think he'd be terrible for America, but he's hugely mispriced.

"I think he'd be terrible for America"

Surely a shoo-in then?

DavidL

rcs1000 said:

As we're on the subject of America, I think the easy money is to be made by just selling Bernie Sanders.

He only went as far as he did in 2016 because he was opposing Hillary (and pretty much just Hillary). 2020 means younger and better opponents. I'll offer any PBer's who's keen a 15% uplift to the bookies 11-1 for Democratic nominee.

I still find it slightly bizarre that someone who is not even in the party came so close to the nomination. I think he was driven forward by the widespread reservations about Hillary rather than his own strength but he stirred up and mobilised the more left wing radical part of the party. Whoever they get behind this time (and I agree it won't be Sanders) will be a serious contender. That is probably Trump's best chance of winning again.

rcs1000

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

I think the value's further down the list.

O'Rourke is a good communicator but he's pretty inexperienced and his main claim to fame is losing a Senate race.

Kamala Harris is mind-numbingly dull. I think she's the dullest person in 1617 people I follow on Twitter. I know there's a tendency to run somebody who's the opposite of the president but I think you need a certain amount of spikiness to compete in the social media era.

I would watch:
- Elizabeth Warren. I wouldn't recommend the Dems did this as she doesn't have great favourables but she's as good as said she's running, and if the Dems want to indulge themselves she's the obvious way to go.
- Kirsten Gillbrand: Sharp and audacious, check out how she turned on Clinton over sexual harassment.
- Amy Klobuchar: Excellent communicator, actually won her Senate race. (Betfair can't spell her name though.)
- Sherrod Brown: Reaches parts the other Dems can't, and they really want to win this time.

Beto: terrible value here. Simply, has done nothing other than slightly outperformed expectations against a weak opponent. Remember when you watched Obama introduce Kerry; remember how your spine tingled when he said "there's no red america and no blue america... there's the United States of America". Yeah, Beto's not got that. Sell.

Kristen: ok value, no more. I like her. I don't think she has mass appeal.

Amy: probably worth a small punt. She'd be excellent in the debates, but there's a better than even chance she won't make it that far.

Sherrod: pile on. Won a swing state by a big margin. Is economically populist without being obviously racist, corrupt or crazy. I think he'd be terrible for America, but he's hugely mispriced.

"I think he'd be terrible for America"

Surely a shoo-in then?

He's popular in all the areas Trump won by surprise: Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

He'd probably walk the Presidency. But, like Trump, he thinks America's problems are caused by free trade. (There's a certain irony here: populists in the UK think their country needs more free trade; those in the US think theirs needs a lot less.)

Foxy

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

I think the value's further down the list.

O'Rourke is a good communicator but he's pretty inexperienced and his main claim to fame is losing a Senate race.

Kamala Harris is mind-numbingly dull. I think she's the dullest person in 1617 people I follow on Twitter. I know there's a tendency to run somebody who's the opposite of the president but I think you need a certain amount of spikiness to compete in the social media era.

I would watch:
- Elizabeth Warren. I wouldn't recommend the Dems did this as she doesn't have great favourables but she's as good as said she's running, and if the Dems want to indulge themselves she's the obvious way to go.
- Kirsten Gillbrand: Sharp and audacious, check out how she turned on Clinton over sexual harassment.
- Amy Klobuchar: Excellent communicator, actually won her Senate race. (Betfair can't spell her name though.)
- Sherrod Brown: Reaches parts the other Dems can't, and they really want to win this time.

Beto: terrible value here. Simply, has done nothing other than slightly outperformed expectations against a weak opponent. Remember when you watched Obama introduce Kerry; remember how your spine tingled when he said "there's no red america and no blue america... there's the United States of America". Yeah, Beto's not got that. Sell.

Kristen: ok value, no more. I like her. I don't think she has mass appeal.

Amy: probably worth a small punt. She'd be excellent in the debates, but there's a better than even chance she won't make it that far.

Sherrod: pile on. Won a swing state by a big margin. Is economically populist without being obviously racist, corrupt or crazy. I think he'd be terrible for America, but he's hugely mispriced.

"I think he'd be terrible for America"

Surely a shoo-in then?

He's popular in all the areas Trump won by surprise: Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

He'd probably walk the Presidency. But, like Trump, he thinks America's problems are caused by free trade. (There's a certain irony here: populists in the UK think their country needs more free trade; those in the US think theirs needs a lot less.)

Free Trade is a particularly British fetish, conveniently forgetting that we benefitted from it by pointing guns at people.

I am not convinced that the average Populist voter is very keen on it, whether Corbynite or Farageist. It is more a favoirite of the metropolitan elite wolves in sheeps clothing.

Nigelb

Is there a book on VP nominees yet ?
It would make hedging positions more interesting.

Foxy

I have made some longshot bets, so green on Kamala, Klonuchar and Hickenlooper, so will add Sherrod. He works on the weird name factor. Arguably Beto does too...

Nigelb

As far as O'Rourke is concerned, he should run for Senate again, which would give the Democratic Presidential candidate most of the benefit of any positive effect he might have in Texas, without risking picking someone with so little experience for a national run.

And he might well pick up the Senate seat.

Win/win.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

An elastic band I was going to use seemingly vanished this morning. It was there one moment and gone the next. I'm uncertain whether this was due to global warming or Brexit.

Interesting to try and consider who the runners and riders might be. When do the processes actually get underway? I know the contests last a long old time, so is it just months away that the first chaps and ladies announce their desire to personally topple Trump?

OldKingCole

Gather Matthew Hedges has landed back in the UK. What next, I wonder.

DavidL

Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

Beto: terrible value here. Simply, has done nothing other than slightly outperformed expectations against a weak opponent. Remember when you watched Obama introduce Kerry; remember how your spine tingled when he said "there's no red america and no blue america... there's the United States of America". Yeah, Beto's not got that. Sell.

Kristen: ok value, no more. I like her. I don't think she has mass appeal.

Amy: probably worth a small punt. She'd be excellent in the debates, but there's a better than even chance she won't make it that far.

Sherrod: pile on. Won a swing state by a big margin. Is economically populist without being obviously racist, corrupt or crazy. I think he'd be terrible for America, but he's hugely mispriced.

"I think he'd be terrible for America"

Surely a shoo-in then?

He's popular in all the areas Trump won by surprise: Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

He'd probably walk the Presidency. But, like Trump, he thinks America's problems are caused by free trade. (There's a certain irony here: populists in the UK think their country needs more free trade; those in the US think theirs needs a lot less.)

Free Trade is a particularly British fetish, conveniently forgetting that we benefitted from it by pointing guns at people.

I am not convinced that the average Populist voter is very keen on it, whether Corbynite or Farageist. It is more a favoirite of the metropolitan elite wolves in sheeps clothing.

Free trade worked very well for us and then the US when we had strong competitive advantages based on our early adoption of industrialisation and the US adoption of Ford's manufacturing systems. A country which has run a consistent trade deficit since 1979, most of it with those with whom we have the freest trade in the EU, should be giving more thought to it than we usually do.

As Keynes himself pointed out those who espouse economic ideas are all too often in thrall to some dead economist, in this case Adam Smith. Free trade with those who aspire to a far lower standard of living than we currently enjoy and are rather less particular about either pollution or H&S is not necessarily to our advantage.

rcs1000

Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

I think the value's further down the list.

O'Rourke is a good communicator but he's pretty inexperienced and his main claim to fame is losing a Senate race.

Kamala Harris is mind-numbingly dull. I think she's the dullest person in 1617 people I follow on Twitter. I know there's a tendency to run somebody who's the opposite of the president but I think you need a certain amount of spikiness to compete in the social media era.

I would watch:
- Elizabeth Warren. I wouldn't recommend the Dems did this as she doesn't have great favourables but she's as good as said she's running, and if the Dems want to indulge themselves she's the obvious way to go.
- Kirsten Gillbrand: Sharp and audacious, check out how she turned on Clinton over sexual harassment.
- Amy Klobuchar: Excellent communicator, actually won her Senate race. (Betfair can't spell her name though.)
- Sherrod Brown: Reaches parts the other Dems can't, and they really want to win this time.

Beto: terrible value here. Simply, has done nothing other than slightly outperformed expectations against a weak opponent. Remember when you watched Obama introduce Kerry; remember how your spine tingled when he said "there's no red america and no blue america... there's the United States of America". Yeah, Beto's not got that. Sell.

Kristen: ok value, no more. I like her. I don't think she has mass appeal.

Amy: probably worth a small punt. She'd be excellent in the debates, but there's a better than even chance she won't make it that far.

Sherrod: pile on. Won a swing state by a big margin. Is economically populist without being obviously racist, corrupt or crazy. I think he'd be terrible for America, but he's hugely mispriced.

"I think he'd be terrible for America"

Surely a shoo-in then?

He's popular in all the areas Trump won by surprise: Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

He'd probably walk the Presidency. But, like Trump, he thinks America's problems are caused by free trade. (There's a certain irony here: populists in the UK think their country needs more free trade; those in the US think theirs needs a lot less.)

Free Trade is a particularly British fetish, conveniently forgetting that we benefitted from it by pointing guns at people.

I am not convinced that the average Populist voter is very keen on it, whether Corbynite or Farageist. It is more a favoirite of the metropolitan elite wolves in sheeps clothing.

Free trade is simply a belief that the people should be free to make their own mistakes.

Pulpstar

What's happening with my boy Avenatti ?

DavidL

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

An elastic band I was going to use seemingly vanished this morning. It was there one moment and gone the next. I'm uncertain whether this was due to global warming or Brexit.

Interesting to try and consider who the runners and riders might be. When do the processes actually get underway? I know the contests last a long old time, so is it just months away that the first chaps and ladies announce their desire to personally topple Trump?

I am sure that the IFS said something about an elastic band shortage in their latest Brexit report.

kle4

rcs1000 said:

kle4 said:

rcs1000 said:

OK. I know you guys are all off now.

But.

Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

Presumably the party has procedures to amend its, er, procedures quickly if it needs to, so it seems plausible. If the EU say no to an extension (incidentally I think they would say no if the leadership election was on its existing timeframe as it eats up so much time before they even knew if we were committing to no deal or even wanted an extension, but might say yes if they do it quickly) then I think a referendum will definitely get through (obviously the mechanics of agreeing that are complicated still). MPs talk a lot of crap, particularly around fearing no deal when their actions risk it, but I don't think people are entirely wrong to say they will find some way to avoid it, so if the EU does say no and the Tories are somehow still in power, I think there would be enough votes for a referendum to remain or no deal.

Another reason we should just do that now. Wasting another negotiation which would probably have near as much internal dissent seems pointless for us and the EU. Remain or no deal now, as that actually settles things in the short term, and then the fallout from ignoring 2016 can begin.

Remain or No Deal, especially if won marginally by Remain, would be a horrible result for the country and would poison political debate for decades.

I agree. I also think it's the only likely option. Too much standing in the way of a deal.

RobD said:

JosiasJessop said:

Are the leavers who screeched and squealed about Obama's intervention about Brexit responding similarly about Trump's overnight intervention?

Difference is he's not going to sway anyone.

Irrelevant. If the attempt was wrong before it is now.

ydoethur

Nigelb said:

As far as O'Rourke is concerned, he should run for Senate again, which would give the Democratic Presidential candidate most of the benefit of any positive effect he might have in Texas, without risking picking someone with so little experience for a national run.

And he might well pick up the Senate seat.

Win/win.

The next Senate election in Texas is indeed in 2020, but I think the odds of beating the more popular Cornyn are not too high.

DavidL

OldKingCole said:

Gather Matthew Hedges has landed back in the UK. What next, I wonder.

Possibly a visit to Vauxhall Cross?

matt

H

Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

I think the value's further down the list.

O'Rourke is a good communicator but he's pretty inexperienced and his main claim to fame is losing a Senate race.

Kamala Harris is mind-numbingly dull. I think she's the dullest person in 1617 people I follow on Twitter. I know there's a tendency to run somebody who's the opposite of the president but I think you need a certain amount of spikiness to compete in the social media era.

I would watch:
- Elizabeth Warren. I wouldn't recommend the Dems did this as she doesn't have great favourables but she's as good as said she's running, and if the Dems want to indulge themselves she's the obvious way to go.
- Kirsten Gillbrand: Sharp and audacious, check out how she turned on Clinton over sexual harassment.
- Amy Klobuchar: Excellent communicator, actually won her Senate race. (Betfair can't spell her name though.)
- Sherrod Brown: Reaches parts the other Dems can't, and they really want to win this time.

Beto: terrible value here. Simply, has done nothing other than slightly outperformed expectations against a weak opponent. Remember when you watched Obama introduce Kerry; remember how your spine tingled when he said "there's no red america and no blue america... there's the United States of America". Yeah, Beto's not got that. Sell.

Kristen: ok value, no more. I like her. I don't think she has mass appeal.

Amy: probably worth a small punt. She'd be excellent in the debates, but there's a better than even chance she won't make it that far.

Sherrod: pile on. Won a swing state by a big margin. Is economically populist without being obviously racist, corrupt or crazy. I think he'd be terrible for America, but he's hugely mispriced.

"I think he'd be terrible for America"

Surely a shoo-in then?

He's popular in all the areas Trump won by surprise: Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

He'd probably walk the Presidency. But, like Trump, he thinks America's problems are caused by free trade. (There's a certain irony here: populists in the UK think their country needs more free trade; those in the US think theirs needs a lot less.)

Free Trade is a particularly British fetish, conveniently forgetting that we benefitted from it by pointing guns at people.

I am not convinced that the average Populist voter is very keen on it, whether Corbynite or Farageist. It is more a favoirite of the metropolitan elite wolves in sheeps clothing.

It really wasn’t down the barrel of a gun but there’s no point taking it further with a person who believes he’s the greatest polymath that ever was.

Slackbladder

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

edmundintokyo

Morris_Dancer said:

An elastic band I was going to use seemingly vanished this morning. It was there one moment and gone the next. I'm uncertain whether this was due to global warming or Brexit.

Your elastic band snuck off right just as Brexit turned into a total shitshow and global warming causing devastating storms and fires. Sounds like the action of a rubber band that was responsible for both.

AlastairMeeks

edmundintokyo said:

Morris_Dancer said:

An elastic band I was going to use seemingly vanished this morning. It was there one moment and gone the next. I'm uncertain whether this was due to global warming or Brexit.

Your elastic band snuck off right just as Brexit turned into a total shitshow and global warming causing devastating storms and fires. Sounds like the action of a rubber band that was responsible for both.

Not so much the beating of a butterfly's wings as the twanging of Morris Dancer's elastic band.

Philip_Thompson

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

Beto: terrible value here. Simply, has done nothing other than slightly outperformed expectations against a weak opponent. Remember when you watched Obama introduce Kerry; remember how your spine tingled when he said "there's no red america and no blue america... there's the United States of America". Yeah, Beto's not got that. Sell.

Kristen: ok value, no more. I like her. I don't think she has mass appeal.

Amy: probably worth a small punt. She'd be excellent in the debates, but there's a better than even chance she won't make it that far.

Sherrod: pile on. Won a swing state by a big margin. Is economically populist without being obviously racist, corrupt or crazy. I think he'd be terrible for America, but he's hugely mispriced.

"I think he'd be terrible for America"

Surely a shoo-in then?

He's popular in all the areas Trump won by surprise: Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

He'd probably walk the Presidency. But, like Trump, he thinks America's problems are caused by free trade. (There's a certain irony here: populists in the UK think their country needs more free trade; those in the US think theirs needs a lot less.)

Free Trade is a particularly British fetish, conveniently forgetting that we benefitted from it by pointing guns at people.

I am not convinced that the average Populist voter is very keen on it, whether Corbynite or Farageist. It is more a favoirite of the metropolitan elite wolves in sheeps clothing.

Free trade worked very well for us and then the US when we had strong competitive advantages based on our early adoption of industrialisation and the US adoption of Ford's manufacturing systems. A country which has run a consistent trade deficit since 1979, most of it with those with whom we have the freest trade in the EU, should be giving more thought to it than we usually do.

As Keynes himself pointed out those who espouse economic ideas are all too often in thrall to some dead economist, in this case Adam Smith. Free trade with those who aspire to a far lower standard of living than we currently enjoy and are rather less particular about either pollution or H&S is not necessarily to our advantage.

With free trade I think Ricardo and his theories of comparative advantage are more relevant.

AlastairMeeks

On topic, looks like a good one to lay for now, as others have said. His price is just too short. For all that, he looks to me to have the X factor about him so I wouldn't be too committal about this bet. He could easily catch fire.

DavidL

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

I think that the problem is that too many of them are complete obsessives who, for very good reasons, have never been entrusted with actually running anything. They are therefore more interested in being "right" than in making the necessary compromises to achieve much of what they aspire to. It is not obvious to me how May overcomes this deficiency on their part.

AlastairMeeks

Off topic, the price for "most seats" at the next general election is crossing over again. Labour were last matched at 2.04 and the Conservatives last matched at 2.06.

MarqueeMark

OldKingCole said:

Gather Matthew Hedges has landed back in the UK. What next, I wonder.

Well, he's not short of material for his Ph. D......

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

As far as O'Rourke is concerned, he should run for Senate again, which would give the Democratic Presidential candidate most of the benefit of any positive effect he might have in Texas, without risking picking someone with so little experience for a national run.

And he might well pick up the Senate seat.

Win/win.

The next Senate election in Texas is indeed in 2020, but I think the odds of beating the more popular Cornyn are not too high.

I think you are (unusually) wrong (though it would be correct to think that O'Rourke has not yet expressed enthusiasm for the idea). I think Texas will be in play in 2020.

Here's an article (FWIW) in favour:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/beto-orourke-should-run-for-senate-in-2020-he-could-win/2018/11/09/99263192-e462-11e8-ab2c-b31dcd53ca6b_story.html

OldKingCole

MarqueeMark said:

OldKingCole said:

Gather Matthew Hedges has landed back in the UK. What next, I wonder.

Well, he's not short of material for his Ph. D......

I thought everything had been confiscated. If, of course, he hadn't sent it all back to Durham....

Nigelb

Pulpstar said:

What's happening with my boy Avenatti ?

Nothing ideal for a presidential run...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/21/michael-avenatti-stormy-daniels-lawyer-escapes-felony-charge

tlg86

OldKingCole said:

Gather Matthew Hedges has landed back in the UK. What next, I wonder.

Complete his PhD presumably...

DavidL

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

Beto: terrible value here. Simply, has done nothing other than slightly outperformed expectations against a weak opponent. Remember when you watched Obama introduce Kerry; remember how your spine tingled when he said "there's no red america and no blue america... there's the United States of America". Yeah, Beto's not got that. Sell.

Kristen: ok value, no more. I like her. I don't think she has mass appeal.

Amy: probably worth a small punt. She'd be excellent in the debates, but there's a better than even chance she won't make it that far.

Sherrod: pile on. Won a swing state by a big margin. Is economically populist without being obviously racist, corrupt or crazy. I think he'd be terrible for America, but he's hugely mispriced.

"I think he'd be terrible for America"

Surely a shoo-in then?

He's popular in all the areas Trump won by surprise: Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

He'd probably walk the Presidency. But, like Trump, he thinks America's problems are caused by free trade. (There's a certain irony here: populists in the UK think their country needs more free trade; those in the US think theirs needs a lot less.)

Free Trade is a particularly British fetish, conveniently forgetting that we benefitted from it by pointing guns at people.

I am not convinced that the average Populist voter is very keen on it, whether Corbynite or Farageist. It is more a favoirite of the metropolitan elite wolves in sheeps clothing.

Free trade worked very well for us and then the US when we had strong competitive advantages based on our early adoption of industrialisation and the US adoption of Ford's manufacturing systems. A country which has run a consistent trade deficit since 1979, most of it with those with whom we have the freest trade in the EU, should be giving more thought to it than we usually do.

As Keynes himself pointed out those who espouse economic ideas are all too often in thrall to some dead economist, in this case Adam Smith. Free trade with those who aspire to a far lower standard of living than we currently enjoy and are rather less particular about either pollution or H&S is not necessarily to our advantage.

With free trade I think Ricardo and his theories of comparative advantage are more relevant.

Ok, wouldn't disagree with that.

matt

H

DavidL said:

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

I think that the problem is that too many of them are complete obsessives who, for very good reasons, have never been entrusted with actually running anything. They are therefore more interested in being "right" than in making the necessary compromises to achieve much of what they aspire to. It is not obvious to me how May overcomes this deficiency on their part.

Too many of them seem to have a Trump view of the world - black and white, if you win I lose, no shades of grey (seen here in spades for what it’s worth). Most people don’t think like that but it’s long been clear that people with normal social and intellectual characteristics don’t become MPs.

Morris_Dancer

F1: exciting rubber news!

Ok. Not exciting. But it is sensible.

https://twitter.com/LukeSmithF1/status/1067274384669372419

The idiocy of four compounds (more than half the set) being some variety of 'soft' was irksome.

Also, Raikkonen's driving the Sauber today. He last raced for the team about 17 years ago.

Recidivist

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

And even if they get their wish, we'll simply rejoin a few years down the line.

DavidL

matt said:

H

DavidL said:

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

I think that the problem is that too many of them are complete obsessives who, for very good reasons, have never been entrusted with actually running anything. They are therefore more interested in being "right" than in making the necessary compromises to achieve much of what they aspire to. It is not obvious to me how May overcomes this deficiency on their part.

Too many of them seem to have a Trump view of the world - black and white, if you win I lose, no shades of grey (seen here in spades for what it’s worth). Most people don’t think like that but it’s long been clear that people with normal social and intellectual characteristics don’t become MPs.

This is terrible. 2 responses in a row I have to agree with. Where's the fun in that?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. L, you may also want to consider the other side: the soft Remainers.

Those who thought we were better off out but fairly flexible on how, yet look at May's excoriated deal, look at the prospect of no deal, and think "I don't want to be in the EU, but the 'negotiation' has produced three options, and of these Remain is the least bad."

A lot of attention is given to the noisy fringes on either side but most people are both rather less interested and rather closer to the middle.

HYUFD

O'Rourke is not going to be the nominee in 2020, had he won his Senatorial race that would have been a different matter but he lost and no President since WW2 has been elected without being Vice President, a Governor or Senator first with the exception of Eisenhower who was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe or Trump who was a billionaire and Apprentice celebrity and both were exceptional cases (though O'Rourke does have a billionaire father in law). O'Rourke should aim to win the 2020 Texas Senate race or 2022 Texas Governorship race then he can try for President in 2024. The only way he gets in the ticket in 2020 is in the VP slot.

Biden, Sanders, Warren and Harris remain the key contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination in the national and early state polls of Democratic voters

DavidL

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. L, you may also want to consider the other side: the soft Remainers.

Those who thought we were better off out but fairly flexible on how, yet look at May's excoriated deal, look at the prospect of no deal, and think "I don't want to be in the EU, but the 'negotiation' has produced three options, and of these Remain is the least bad."

A lot of attention is given to the noisy fringes on either side but most people are both rather less interested and rather closer to the middle.

They will not support the deal until they are persuaded that the alternative is a no deal Brexit. Not sure how May is going to do that either.

Scott_P

rcs1000 said:

Free trade is simply a belief that the people should be free to make their own mistakes.

https://twitter.com/PaulbernalUK/status/1067141265895112704

MarqueeMark

HYUFD said:

O'Rourke is not going to be the nominee in 2020, had he won his Senatorial race that would have been a different matter but he lost and no President since WW2 has been elected without being Vice President, a Governor or Senator first with the exception of Eisenhower who was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe or Trump who was a billionaire and Apprentice celebrity and both were exceptional cases (though O'Rourke does have a billionaire father in law). O'Rourke should aim to win the 2020 Texas Senate race or 2022 Texas Governorship race then he can try for President in 2024. The only way he gets in the ticket in 2020 is in the VP slot.

Biden, Sanders, Warren and Harris remain the key contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination in the national and early state polls of Democratic voters

Biden, Sanders, Warren and Harris looks about as exciting a set of change candidates as the list to replace Theresa May.....

Big_G_NorthWales

matt said:

H

DavidL said:

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

I think that the problem is that too many of them are complete obsessives who, for very good reasons, have never been entrusted with actually running anything. They are therefore more interested in being "right" than in making the necessary compromises to achieve much of what they aspire to. It is not obvious to me how May overcomes this deficiency on their part.

Too many of them seem to have a Trump view of the world - black and white, if you win I lose, no shades of grey (seen here in spades for what it’s worth). Most people don’t think like that but it’s long been clear that people with normal social and intellectual characteristics don’t become MPs.

Trump - Farage - Boris all connected to the hard right. Trump making his statement last night no doubt orchestrated by Boris and Farage.

They are not my politics and it looks like the brexiteers are going to doom brexit so they can continue a divisive anti EU position for the foreseable future.

Sadly my party is not fit for office if the ERG take over

I still maintain a pivot to Norway is the best option and important to avoid a nasty, spiteful and angry referendum, which if it keeps us in the EU, will break the fabric of out society for decades. Those campaigning for it need to be aware of the consequences if they succeed, irrespective of margin of victory.

If I thought it would put the matter to bed I would support it but I am gravely concerned that it will make a deadful position worse, much worse

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

I think the value's further down the list.

O'Rourke is a good communicator but he's pretty inexperienced and his main claim to fame is losing a Senate race.

Kamala Harris is mind-numbingly dull. I think she's the dullest person in 1617 people I follow on Twitter. I know there's a tendency to run somebody who's the opposite of the president but I think you need a certain amount of spikiness to compete in the social media era.

I would watch:
- Elizabeth Warren. I wouldn't recommend the Dems did this as she doesn't have great favourables but she's as good as said she's running, and if the Dems want to indulge themselves she's the obvious way to go.
- Kirsten Gillbrand: Sharp and audacious, check out how she turned on Clinton over sexual harassment.
- Amy Klobuchar: Excellent communicator, actually won her Senate race. (Betfair can't spell her name though.)
- Sherrod Brown: Reaches parts the other Dems can't, and they really want to win this time.

Beto: terrible value here. Simply, has done nothing other than slightly outperformed expectations against a weak opponent. Remember when you watched Obama introduce Kerry; remember how your spine tingled when he said "there's no red america and no blue america... there's the United States of America". Yeah, Beto's not got that. Sell.

Kristen: ok value, no more. I like her. I don't think she has mass appeal.

Amy: probably worth a small punt. She'd be excellent in the debates, but there's a better than even chance she won't make it that far.

Sherrod: pile on. Won a swing state by a big margin. Is economically populist without being obviously racist, corrupt or crazy. I think he'd be terrible for America, but he's hugely mispriced.

"I think he'd be terrible for America"

Surely a shoo-in then?

He's popular in all the areas Trump won by surprise: Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

He'd probably walk the Presidency. But, like Trump, he thinks America's problems are caused by free trade. (There's a certain irony here: populists in the UK think their country needs more free trade; those in the US think theirs needs a lot less.)

Leavers are not really pro free trade, the number who back leaving our largest market without a trade deal and going to No Deal is testamemt to that. Corbyn too wants more nationalisation and protectionism not free trade.

Remember many Tories were also protectionists at one time or another from Disraeli to Joseph Chamberlain

HYUFD

Big_G_NorthWales said:

matt said:

H

DavidL said:

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

I think that the problem is that too many of them are complete obsessives who, for very good reasons, have never been entrusted with actually running anything. They are therefore more interested in being "right" than in making the necessary compromises to achieve much of what they aspire to. It is not obvious to me how May overcomes this deficiency on their part.

Too many of them seem to have a Trump view of the world - black and white, if you win I lose, no shades of grey (seen here in spades for what it’s worth). Most people don’t think like that but it’s long been clear that people with normal social and intellectual characteristics don’t become MPs.

Trump - Farage - Boris all connected to the hard right. Trump making his statement last night no doubt orchestrated by Boris and Farage.

They are not my politics and it looks like the brexiteers are going to doom brexit so they can continue a divisive anti EU position for the foreseable future.

Sadly my party is not fit for office if the ERG take over

I still maintain a pivot to Norway is the best option and important to avoid a nasty, spiteful and angry referendum, which if it keeps us in the EU, will break the fabric of out society for decades. Those campaigning for it need to be aware of the consequences if they succeed, irrespective of margin of victory.

If I thought it would put the matter to bed I would support it but I am gravely concerned that it will make a deadful position worse, much worse

Labour oppose a pivot to Norway and it does not solve Ireland and requires free movement, permanent Customs Union does solve Ireland and Labour backs that too

felix

OldKingCole said:

Gather Matthew Hedges has landed back in the UK. What next, I wonder.

Debrief by MI6

TheScreamingEagles

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

The default is we fall out of the EU next March, they are happy with that since at least 40 MPs have them have said publicly trading on WTO terms is better than remaining/any deal.

Turns out Brexit means Brexit.

HYUFD

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

O'Rourke is not going to be the nominee in 2020, had he won his Senatorial race that would have been a different matter but he lost and no President since WW2 has been elected without being Vice President, a Governor or Senator first with the exception of Eisenhower who was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe or Trump who was a billionaire and Apprentice celebrity and both were exceptional cases (though O'Rourke does have a billionaire father in law). O'Rourke should aim to win the 2020 Texas Senate race or 2022 Texas Governorship race then he can try for President in 2024. The only way he gets in the ticket in 2020 is in the VP slot.

Biden, Sanders, Warren and Harris remain the key contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination in the national and early state polls of Democratic voters

Biden, Sanders, Warren and Harris looks about as exciting a set of change candidates as the list to replace Theresa May.....

Which is why both Trump and Corbyn should not be ruled out

DavidL

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

O'Rourke is not going to be the nominee in 2020, had he won his Senatorial race that would have been a different matter but he lost and no President since WW2 has been elected without being Vice President, a Governor or Senator first with the exception of Eisenhower who was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe or Trump who was a billionaire and Apprentice celebrity and both were exceptional cases (though O'Rourke does have a billionaire father in law). O'Rourke should aim to win the 2020 Texas Senate race or 2022 Texas Governorship race then he can try for President in 2024. The only way he gets in the ticket in 2020 is in the VP slot.

Biden, Sanders, Warren and Harris remain the key contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination in the national and early state polls of Democratic voters

Biden, Sanders, Warren and Harris looks about as exciting a set of change candidates as the list to replace Theresa May.....

Its the outing of a somewhat understaffed nursing home with only 1 nurse on duty.

Jonathan

Big_G_NorthWales said:

matt said:

H

DavidL said:

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

I think that the problem is that too many of them are complete obsessives who, for very good reasons, have never been entrusted with actually running anything. They are therefore more interested in being "right" than in making the necessary compromises to achieve much of what they aspire to. It is not obvious to me how May overcomes this deficiency on their part.

Too many of them seem to have a Trump view of the world - black and white, if you win I lose, no shades of grey (seen here in spades for what it’s worth). Most people don’t think like that but it’s long been clear that people with normal social and intellectual characteristics don’t become MPs.

Trump - Farage - Boris all connected to the hard right. Trump making his statement last night no doubt orchestrated by Boris and Farage.

They are not my politics and it looks like the brexiteers are going to doom brexit so they can continue a divisive anti EU position for the foreseable future.

Sadly my party is not fit for office if the ERG take over

I still maintain a pivot to Norway is the best option and important to avoid a nasty, spiteful and angry referendum, which if it keeps us in the EU, will break the fabric of out society for decades. Those campaigning for it need to be aware of the consequences if they succeed, irrespective of margin of victory.

If I thought it would put the matter to bed I would support it but I am gravely concerned that it will make a deadful position worse, much worse

Look around you. The fabric of our society is already broken, ripped to shreds. Nastiness, spite and anger is already here.

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

The default is we fall out of the EU next March, they are happy with that since at least 40 MPs have them have said publicly trading on WTO terms is better than remaining/any deal.

Turns out Brexit means Brexit.

Except with only 32% backing No Deal with Survation it likely means either permanent Single Market and Customs Union soon enough or EUref2 and Remain

Jonathan

TheScreamingEagles said:

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

The default is we fall out of the EU next March, they are happy with that since at least 40 MPs have them have said publicly trading on WTO terms is better than remaining/any deal.

Turns out Brexit means Brexit.

“No deal is better than a bad deal”

Scott_P

This is because Brexit is not really British. It is English, and always has been, and merely uses the wrong flag. It dreams of English independence from the EU but seems to forget that England is inconveniently shackled onto a whole bunch of other places. Brexit’s vision is of a single island with a single people on it, or at least perhaps with a wall in the north like Westeros. Only this is not what we are. In a sense, each and every Brexit compromise has been the consequence of a belated acceptance that, even once England has left the European Union, it will still be firmly entangled in a British one. So compromises must still be made and sovereignty must still be pooled. At least until you leave that one, too.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/we-need-to-stop-being-so-english-aboutbrexit-290jjfkmp

JosiasJessop

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

matt said:

H

DavidL said:

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

I think that the problem is that too many of them are complete obsessives who, for very good reasons, have never been entrusted with actually running anything. They are therefore more interested in being "right" than in making the necessary compromises to achieve much of what they aspire to. It is not obvious to me how May overcomes this deficiency on their part.

Too many of them seem to have a Trump view of the world - black and white, if you win I lose, no shades of grey (seen here in spades for what it’s worth). Most people don’t think like that but it’s long been clear that people with normal social and intellectual characteristics don’t become MPs.

Trump - Farage - Boris all connected to the hard right. Trump making his statement last night no doubt orchestrated by Boris and Farage.

They are not my politics and it looks like the brexiteers are going to doom brexit so they can continue a divisive anti EU position for the foreseable future.

Sadly my party is not fit for office if the ERG take over

I still maintain a pivot to Norway is the best option and important to avoid a nasty, spiteful and angry referendum, which if it keeps us in the EU, will break the fabric of out society for decades. Those campaigning for it need to be aware of the consequences if they succeed, irrespective of margin of victory.

If I thought it would put the matter to bed I would support it but I am gravely concerned that it will make a deadful position worse, much worse

Look around you. The fabric of our society is already broken, ripped to shreds. Nastiness, spite and anger is already here.

But that's enough about the Labour party. What about society in general?

Jonathan

JosiasJessop said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

matt said:

H

DavidL said:

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

I think that the problem is that too many of them are complete obsessives who, for very good reasons, have never been entrusted with actually running anything. They are therefore more interested in being "right" than in making the necessary compromises to achieve much of what they aspire to. It is not obvious to me how May overcomes this deficiency on their part.

Too many of them seem to have a Trump view of the world - black and white, if you win I lose, no shades of grey (seen here in spades for what it’s worth). Most people don’t think like that but it’s long been clear that people with normal social and intellectual characteristics don’t become MPs.

Trump - Farage - Boris all connected to the hard right. Trump making his statement last night no doubt orchestrated by Boris and Farage.

They are not my politics and it looks like the brexiteers are going to doom brexit so they can continue a divisive anti EU position for the foreseable future.

Sadly my party is not fit for office if the ERG take over

I still maintain a pivot to Norway is the best option and important to avoid a nasty, spiteful and angry referendum, which if it keeps us in the EU, will break the fabric of out society for decades. Those campaigning for it need to be aware of the consequences if they succeed, irrespective of margin of victory.

If I thought it would put the matter to bed I would support it but I am gravely concerned that it will make a deadful position worse, much worse

Look around you. The fabric of our society is already broken, ripped to shreds. Nastiness, spite and anger is already here.

But that's enough about the Labour party. What about society in general?

Nice crack, it works less well these days. Even Lib Dem’s hate each other.

MarqueeMark

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

The default is we fall out of the EU next March, they are happy with that since at least 40 MPs have them have said publicly trading on WTO terms is better than remaining/any deal.

Turns out Brexit means Brexit.

No deal is better than a bad deal.

No deal is better than the PMs bad deal....

TheScreamingEagles

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

The default is we fall out of the EU next March, they are happy with that since at least 40 MPs have them have said publicly trading on WTO terms is better than remaining/any deal.

Turns out Brexit means Brexit.

Except with only 32% backing No Deal with Survation it likely means either permanent Single Market and Customs Union soon enough or EUref2 and Remain

We don’t run this country by opinion poll.

Plus there’s no guarantee we can revoke/extend Article 50.

Who knows, Spain might demand Gibraltar as the price for extending/revoking A50, every country has a veto in that situation

felix

Scott_P said:

rcs1000 said:

Free trade is simply a belief that the people should be free to make their own mistakes.

https://twitter.com/PaulbernalUK/status/1067141265895112704

Yes they are opposed to unlimited immigration - wonder why he doesn't wish to say that. If that's the pitch for a second referendum I'd vote for it but I doubt it would win.

Jonathan

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

The default is we fall out of the EU next March, they are happy with that since at least 40 MPs have them have said publicly trading on WTO terms is better than remaining/any deal.

Turns out Brexit means Brexit.

Except with only 32% backing No Deal with Survation it likely means either permanent Single Market and Customs Union soon enough or EUref2 and Remain

We don’t run this country by opinion poll.

Plus there’s no guarantee we can revoke/extend Article 50.

Who knows, Spain might demand Gibraltar as the price for extending/revoking A50, every country has a veto in that situation

Brexit on the rocks?

JosiasJessop

Jonathan said:

JosiasJessop said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

matt said:

H

DavidL said:

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

I think that the problem is that too many of them are complete obsessives who, for very good reasons, have never been entrusted with actually running anything. They are therefore more interested in being "right" than in making the necessary compromises to achieve much of what they aspire to. It is not obvious to me how May overcomes this deficiency on their part.

Too many of them seem to have a Trump view of the world - black and white, if you win I lose, no shades of grey (seen here in spades for what it’s worth). Most people don’t think like that but it’s long been clear that people with normal social and intellectual characteristics don’t become MPs.

Trump - Farage - Boris all connected to the hard right. Trump making his statement last night no doubt orchestrated by Boris and Farage.

They are not my politics and it looks like the brexiteers are going to doom brexit so they can continue a divisive anti EU position for the foreseable future.

Sadly my party is not fit for office if the ERG take over

I still maintain a pivot to Norway is the best option and important to avoid a nasty, spiteful and angry referendum, which if it keeps us in the EU, will break the fabric of out society for decades. Those campaigning for it need to be aware of the consequences if they succeed, irrespective of margin of victory.

If I thought it would put the matter to bed I would support it but I am gravely concerned that it will make a deadful position worse, much worse

Look around you. The fabric of our society is already broken, ripped to shreds. Nastiness, spite and anger is already here.

But that's enough about the Labour party. What about society in general?

Nice crack, it works less well these days. Even Lib Dem’s hate each other.

The thing is, I see the opposite. The obsessives hate each other - just look at McDonnell's recent comments about the Conservatives - but most of us just try to get on with our lives and each other.

Sometimes it's good to get your head out of the bubble.

malcolmg

tlg86 said:

OldKingCole said:

Gather Matthew Hedges has landed back in the UK. What next, I wonder.

Complete his PhD presumably...

Need to as he is crap at his chosen career of spying.

felix

Scott_P said:

This is because Brexit is not really British. It is English, and always has been, and merely uses the wrong flag. It dreams of English independence from the EU but seems to forget that England is inconveniently shackled onto a whole bunch of other places. Brexit’s vision is of a single island with a single people on it, or at least perhaps with a wall in the north like Westeros. Only this is not what we are. In a sense, each and every Brexit compromise has been the consequence of a belated acceptance that, even once England has left the European Union, it will still be firmly entangled in a British one. So compromises must still be made and sovereignty must still be pooled. At least until you leave that one, too.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/we-need-to-stop-being-so-english-aboutbrexit-290jjfkmp

What about Wales?

TheKitchenCabinet

HYUFD said:

O'Rourke is not going to be the nominee in 2020, had he won his Senatorial race that would have been a different matter but he lost and no President since WW2 has been elected without being Vice President, a Governor or Senator first with the exception of Eisenhower who was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe or Trump who was a billionaire and Apprentice celebrity and both were exceptional cases (though O'Rourke does have a billionaire father in law). O'Rourke should aim to win the 2020 Texas Senate race or 2022 Texas Governorship race then he can try for President in 2024. The only way he gets in the ticket in 2020 is in the VP slot.

Biden, Sanders, Warren and Harris remain the key contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination in the national and early state polls of Democratic voters

I remember someone posted on here a link to a poll that showed Cruz, surprisingly, had outperformed when it came to newcomers to Texas when the expectation was it was people who were migrating to Texas who were partly responsible for turning the state more purple.

If that is the case, then it maybe that the GOP in states such as Texas and Florida, which are low tax, might have more structural protection due to these new voters than is assumed. It also raises the question as to whether the recent SALT changes will accelerate internal migration in the States and the flight from high tax to low tax states.

As an aside, I also wonder whether some of the weakness of the GOP in the House in areas such as Orange County in CA and New Jersey / New York is also being driven by the internal migration issue. Seems to me that, if you are fleeing a state because of high taxes, you are more likely to vote for the GOP.

Jonathan

JosiasJessop said:

Jonathan said:

JosiasJessop said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

matt said:

H

DavidL said:

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

I think that the problem is that too many of them are complete obsessives who, for very good reasons, have never been entrusted with actually running anything. They are therefore more interested in being "right" than in making the necessary compromises to achieve much of what they aspire to. It is not obvious to me how May overcomes this deficiency on their part.

Too many of them seem to have a Trump view of the world - black and white, if you win I lose, no shades of grey (seen here in spades for what it’s worth). Most people don’t think like that but it’s long been clear that people with normal social and intellectual characteristics don’t become MPs.

Trump - Farage - Boris all connected to the hard right. Trump making his statement last night no doubt orchestrated by Boris and Farage.

They are not my politics and it looks like the brexiteers are going to doom brexit so they can continue a divisive anti EU position for the foreseable future.

Sadly my party is not fit for office if the ERG take over

I still maintain a pivot to Norway is the best option and important to avoid a nasty, spiteful and angry referendum, which if it keeps us in the EU, will break the fabric of out society for decades. Those campaigning for it need to be aware of the consequences if they succeed, irrespective of margin of victory.

If I thought it would put the matter to bed I would support it but I am gravely concerned that it will make a deadful position worse, much worse

Look around you. The fabric of our society is already broken, ripped to shreds. Nastiness, spite and anger is already here.

But that's enough about the Labour party. What about society in general?

Nice crack, it works less well these days. Even Lib Dem’s hate each other.

The thing is, I see the opposite. The obsessives hate each other - just look at McDonnell's recent comments about the Conservatives - but most of us just try to get on with our lives and each other.

Sometimes it's good to get your head out of the bubble.

It is necessary for breathing. I completely agree, a second vote brings no further division and could clear the air by removing the parties from the equation. We know the parties can’t deal with Brexit.

Dura_Ace

Jonathan said:

Look around you. The fabric of our society is already broken, ripped to shreds. Nastiness, spite and anger is already here.

Brexit has caused the nation to retch up a great deal of putrid nationalist bile. And there is no swallowing it back down now.

The Yugoslav civil war started with a punch up at a wedding reception...

felix

Jonathan said:

JosiasJessop said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

matt said:

H

DavidL said:

Slackbladder said:

I wonder when the Brexiteers are going to realise that they're increasing losing any chance of Brexit at all....

I think that the problem is that too many of them are complete obsessives who, for very good reasons, have never been entrusted with actually running anything. They are therefore more interested in being "right" than in making the necessary compromises to achieve much of what they aspire to. It is not obvious to me how May overcomes this deficiency on their part.

Too many of them seem to have a Trump view of the world - black and white, if you win I lose, no shades of grey (seen here in spades for what it’s worth). Most people don’t think like that but it’s long been clear that people with normal social and intellectual characteristics don’t become MPs.

Trump - Farage - Boris all connected to the hard right. Trump making his statement last night no doubt orchestrated by Boris and Farage.

They are not my politics and it looks like the brexiteers are going to doom brexit so they can continue a divisive anti EU position for the foreseable future.

Sadly my party is not fit for office if the ERG take over

I still maintain a pivot to Norway is the best option and important to avoid a nasty, spiteful and angry referendum, which if it keeps us in the EU, will break the fabric of out society for decades. Those campaigning for it need to be aware of the consequences if they succeed, irrespective of margin of victory.

If I thought it would put the matter to bed I would support it but I am gravely concerned that it will make a deadful position worse, much worse

Look around you. The fabric of our society is already broken, ripped to shreds. Nastiness, spite and anger is already here.

But that's enough about the Labour party. What about society in general?

Nice crack, it works less well these days. Even Lib Dem’s hate each other.

They all do.

TheScreamingEagles

malcolmg said:

tlg86 said:

OldKingCole said:

Gather Matthew Hedges has landed back in the UK. What next, I wonder.

Complete his PhD presumably...

Need to as he is crap at his chosen career of spying.

If he wanted to be a top spy he should have gone to Cambridge, we’ve produced the world’s finest spies, cf Christopher Steele as the most recent example.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. P, two points about that Times nonsense:

Wales also voted to leave.

In a national referendum, votes all count the same. Or does the author think a Scottish vote should be worth more than an English or Welsh one? The alternative flavour of drunken madness would be to give subordinate political bodies the right to veto foreign policy, the right for a minority to dictate policy to the majority.

It's also worth noting the people of Scotland voted to remain British knowing that such a referendum was in the Conservative manifesto for 2015.

Knocking the English is fashionable in some quarters. That doesn't make it intelligent.

NickPalmer

HYUFD said:

Labour oppose a pivot to Norway and it does not solve Ireland and requires free movement, permanent Customs Union does solve Ireland and Labour backs that too

HYUFD and I are in rare cross-party agreement on this. I think that commitment to a permanent customs union would produce quite significant Labour backbench support and abstentions, whereas the current deal really won't. And I say that as someone who has no problem with FOM and personally would be glad to support Norway.

MarqueeMark

Dura_Ace said:

The Yugoslav civil war started with a punch up at a wedding reception...

Amazing Ireland isn't in a permanent civil war then.....

Scott_P

felix said:

Yes they are opposed to unlimited immigration - wonder why he doesn't wish to say that. If that's the pitch for a second referendum I'd vote for it but I doubt it would win.

https://twitter.com/SebDance/status/1067136996328525824

https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1067328759290826752

https://twitter.com/martincuff/status/1067330887837237249

RobD

Scott_P said:

felix said:

Yes they are opposed to unlimited immigration - wonder why he doesn't wish to say that. If that's the pitch for a second referendum I'd vote for it but I doubt it would win.

https://twitter.com/SebDance/status/1067136996328525824

https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1067328759290826752

https://twitter.com/martincuff/status/1067330887837237249

Good lord, that second tweet. Don't they remember how oppressive living in Eastern Europe was? You needed an exit visa in a lot of those places for starters.

HYUFD

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Labour oppose a pivot to Norway and it does not solve Ireland and requires free movement, permanent Customs Union does solve Ireland and Labour backs that too

HYUFD and I are in rare cross-party agreement on this. I think that commitment to a permanent customs union would produce quite significant Labour backbench support and abstentions, whereas the current deal really won't. And I say that as someone who has no problem with FOM and personally would be glad to support Norway.

I agree Nick P. Plus customs union only lost by 6 votes in the Commons in July, EEA by 200 votes

Scott_P

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. P, two points about that Times nonsense:

You should read the article. The central point is unavoidable. For Brexiteers, their dream of Brexit is being stymied by places that are not England (Gibraltar, Northern Ireland, Scotland)

Scott_P

RobD said:

Good lord, that second tweet. Don't they remember how oppressive living in Eastern Europe was? You needed an exit visa in a lot of those places for starters.

And now those people don't need visas.

And we will.

That's the point.

RobD

Scott_P said:

RobD said:

Good lord, that second tweet. Don't they remember how oppressive living in Eastern Europe was? You needed an exit visa in a lot of those places for starters.

And now those people don't need visas.

And we will.

That's the point.

Ah yes, that makes much more sense. I thought it was a rather bizarre thing to bring up.

I wonder how things would be if the immigration figures were reversed? And also wonder if some in certain countries think unfettered emigration may not have been such a great idea.

Mortimer

Scott_P said:

RobD said:

Good lord, that second tweet. Don't they remember how oppressive living in Eastern Europe was? You needed an exit visa in a lot of those places for starters.

And now those people don't need visas.

And we will.

That's the point.

Exit visas? Give over, Scott.

felix

Scott_P said:

felix said:

Yes they are opposed to unlimited immigration - wonder why he doesn't wish to say that. If that's the pitch for a second referendum I'd vote for it but I doubt it would win.

https://twitter.com/SebDance/status/1067136996328525824

https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1067328759290826752

https://twitter.com/martincuff/status/1067330887837237249

Not me you have to convert.

SandyRentool

TheScreamingEagles said:

malcolmg said:

tlg86 said:

OldKingCole said:

Gather Matthew Hedges has landed back in the UK. What next, I wonder.

Complete his PhD presumably...

Need to as he is crap at his chosen career of spying.

If he wanted to be a top spy he should have gone to Cambridge, we’ve produced the world’s finest spies, cf Christopher Steele as the most recent example.

Surely if you can name them, they weren't that successful???

Jonathan

Scott_P said:

RobD said:

Good lord, that second tweet. Don't they remember how oppressive living in Eastern Europe was? You needed an exit visa in a lot of those places for starters.

And now those people don't need visas.

And we will.

That's the point.

Just think of the control, all that lovely control we have. Masters, behemoths commanding our destiny. Astride the world.

AlastairMeeks

Another day, another award for Carole Cadwalladr:

https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/1067340429081890816

I'm sure the diehard Leavers who want to wave her work away will come up with some good reasons why her work is unaccountably winning so many awards.

TheScreamingEagles

On topic my legendary modesty prevents me from reminding you all that I tipped Beto for the Presidency/Dem nomination for 2020, 2024, or 2028 at silly odds.

I’d not back him at current odds.

PS - It is fake news if Tissue Price says he backed Beto at even longer odds for 2020.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/andywightman/status/1067341523673600005

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/GuitarMoog/status/1067096221335064576

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1067316550703693824?s=21

CarlottaVance

For those interested in the A50 case:

https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1067335420449570816

RobD

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/GuitarMoog/status/1067096221335064576

Well, duh. Surely Parliament can pass a law saying the government must attempt to revoke Article 50?

RobD

CarlottaVance said:

For those interested in the A50 case:

twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1067335420449570816

Any idea when judgement is due?

Scott_P

Mortimer said:

Exit visas? Give over, Scott.

No

Read the thread. People from former Eastern European states (some of whom had exit visas in the past) will have greater freedom of movement than we will.

tlg86

Scott_P said:

RobD said:

Good lord, that second tweet. Don't they remember how oppressive living in Eastern Europe was? You needed an exit visa in a lot of those places for starters.

And now those people don't need visas.

And we will.

That's the point.

The horror. Perhaps if your mob had extolled the virtues of FoM during the referendum you'd have won.

TheScreamingEagles

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/GuitarMoog/status/1067096221335064576

Well, duh. Surely Parliament can pass a law saying the government must attempt to revoke Article 50?

Yup, that’s what Parliamentary Sovereignty is all about.

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/GuitarMoog/status/1067096221335064576

Well, duh. Surely Parliament can pass a law saying the government must attempt to revoke Article 50?

Yup, that’s what Parliamentary Sovereignty is all about.

I'm amazed that a QC is amazed by this simple fact.

It's also interesting that the HMG and the EU Council and Commission are on the same side in the ECJ case.

another_richard

Scott_P said:

RobD said:

Good lord, that second tweet. Don't they remember how oppressive living in Eastern Europe was? You needed an exit visa in a lot of those places for starters.

And now those people don't need visas.

And we will.

That's the point.

So you're saying that British people will need exit visas to leave this country are you ?