In 2017 over 80% of voters chose candidates standing for parties who supported Brexit. Faisal Islam is just plain wrong - not surprising given how biased he is. Easily the worst political correspondent on our TVs.
I voted Labour for the first time in many years specifically because it was possible it would derail Brexit. In my leafy south eastern constituency Labour came a good second for the first time since the sixties. I think a lot of remainers were thinking the same way as me. How else do you explain Labour winning in Canterbury?
Brexit no longer has majority support.
Staying in the EU probably didn't in the many years of the elite club but then we waited years for a leave say on it.
The EU was way down most people's list of concerns. I hardly gave it a second thought until the referendum. Apart from a few oddballs, nobody was really that bothered one way or the other.
What a bloody sensible comment. Nothing more needs to be added.
It was just the trots who feared the EU as military-industrial oppressive capitalist running dog on the one hand, and the mad anti-foreigner, things have never been the same since Waterloo, cross of st. george flying proud on my flagpole dolts who cared.
And yet you still lost.
Yep I hadn't foreseen that that motley lot would marshall the anti-foreigners also.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
The Dems are looking like making the mistake the Republicans made last time, and running 15 primary candidates. Until they’ve had their debates and started whittling down the numbers, I’ll be laying the favourite - with one exception, not laying Joe Biden if he goes favourite. If he stands I think he wins, and he’s got a better chance than most against Trump.
I tend to agree. The markets have chosen to anoint Harris favourite, but it’s a year until the actual primaries, and it’s entirely possible her record as AG could be successfully used against her. Biden, on the other hand, is a known quantity, warts and all, so a stop Joe campaign is less likely to get traction. (FWIW, I have money on both at more favourable odds than currently offered.)
I said when Trump was elected that the best thing the Dems could do would be to run their primaries a year early, effectively choosing a Leader of the Opposition who would then go against Trump having built a high profile. Right now the ‘voice’ of the Democrats is old Nancy who’s definitely not running, she’s fighting for attention with a dozen others who are going to spend the next 18 months contradicting her and each other, airing their dirty laundry in public for Trump and the Republicans to attack. Of course, this strategy would only have worked if they chose a genuinely clean skin, without a lot of baggage that their opponents could spend a year dragging up.
What’s more interesting is how the Dems go about the primary selection, I think they’ve made a mistake in bringing forward California, as the candidates who appeal there are going to be different to those who appeal to the swing states - and they need to pick the latter if they’re going to beat Trump.
With the exception of the faintly ridiculous Tulsi Gabbard (who, if you've got the cash, is an obvious trading short), I don't think the Democrats are particularly divided - Pelosi is on reasonable terms even with AOC. As the recent congressional votes on the shutdown showed, it is the Republicans who could be the more divided.
But as the primaries and debates start, they’ll be competing with each other, and that’s where the internal negative campaigning will come. If they’d spent last year doing that and ignoring Trump, they’d be in a better position now to challenge him in 2020. All IMHO of course.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
At least some members of the ERG must be feeling down this morning. The mood music is definitely not going their way. Indeed, they may actually have thrown their prize away.
If we end up remaining, it is important that it is clear that the ERG, DUP and other Tories egged on by their membership were the ones who threw the prize in the bin.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
No more than any other group of 10 MPs. The point you made was that the ERG alone wouldn't have got May's deal over the line. That said, I think they have to accept that by voting the deal down they have emboldened their opponents.
O/T question for those more up to date than me on rental law. A friend had a 6-month rental agreement which he'd verbally agreed with the landlord to roll on while he decided where to buy. The landlord has now demanded that he buys the place he's in (at the landlord's exorbitant price, to decide immediately without a survey) or he'll put it on the market and require him to leave as soon as a buyer is found.
I believe that despite the absence of a current rental agreement, the landlord must give him two months' notice - is that still true? Also, the landlord surely can't give him a sort of tentative notice requiring him to leave at once when a buyer is found - doesn't he need to either wait till the buyer appears and then give 2 months' notice, or give 2 months now and risk that he doesn't get a buyer in 2 months' time?
Correct - if there is no contract then the default notice period is 2 rental periods. And as you suggest, a “tentative” notice period is not allowed.
Your friend is actually in a good position to drive a hard bargain with the Landlord. Many solicitors/mortgage lenders will not complete if there is a tenant in situ as the property will not be being sold with vacant possession.
Many thanks, I'll tell him, though Sandpit suggests the period is only 1 month? My friend's AST for 6 months didn't have anything about early notice (unless the tenant failed to pay rent or breached the usual rules on proper tenancy). The landlord claims he'll put it on the market for £10K more than he's asking for.
I’m a UK landlord and my agent said it was one month (maybe a year ago). It’s certainly one month on the tenant’s side, maybe that’s where the confusion lies.
In Dubai, for contrast, it’s three months from the tenant and a year from the landlord - but only if he wants to live there himself or sell it. It’s not allowed to kick out the tenant just because rents in general have gone up, nor is it allowed to put up rents higher than the general inflation rate (which can be way below the rental inflation rate). I’m sure you’d approve of that system.
If it's an AST, it's two months' written notice to expire not before the sixth month of the term for your landlord to kick you out.
It's one month's notice (to expire at the end of a rent payment period) if you wish to terminate.
Ah, I see (it's not me, by the way) - his tenancy was indeed an AST, though it's been allowed to expire and he's just gone on paying the rent as normal. So sounds like 2 months.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
It may well pass parly with a few caveats that the EU would be daft to ignore.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
Only if Labour moderates are happy for the DUP to dictate terms on Brexit. If Labour were being honest, there's nothing to scare the horses in May's Deal. They could accept it without blow-back from their voters.
But Labour MPs would rather play politics than Do The Right Thing.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
At least some members of the ERG must be feeling down this morning. The mood music is definitely not going their way. Indeed, they may actually have thrown their prize away.
If we end up remaining, it is important that it is clear that the ERG, DUP and other Tories egged on by their membership were the ones who threw the prize in the bin.
Actually, the mood music yesterday was the EU getting themselves tied in knots over the Ireland border - and not a little hint of panic from Varadkar.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
At least some members of the ERG must be feeling down this morning. The mood music is definitely not going their way. Indeed, they may actually have thrown their prize away.
If we end up remaining, it is important that it is clear that the ERG, DUP and other Tories egged on by their membership were the ones who threw the prize in the bin.
I agree and it is all so ironic
I expect as they see their dream disappear they will swing behind TM's deal but it may well be too late
The good thing would be to witness the recriminations and in fighting that would erupt between the group
O/T question for those more up to date than me on rental law. A friend had a 6-month rental agreement which he'd verbally agreed with the landlord to roll on while he decided where to buy. The landlord has now demanded that he buys the place he's in (at the landlord's exorbitant price, to decide immediately without a survey) or he'll put it on the market and require him to leave as soon as a buyer is found.
I believe that despite the absence of a current rental agreement, the landlord must give him two months' notice - is that still true? Also, the landlord surely can't give him a sort of tentative notice requiring him to leave at once when a buyer is found - doesn't he need to either wait till the buyer appears and then give 2 months' notice, or give 2 months now and risk that he doesn't get a buyer in 2 months' time?
Not sure about England but Scottish short term assured Tenancy normally has clause that it will roll until either party gives written notice. Notice can be 1 or 2 months depending on contract term. They should still be under the initial contractual terms. PS, on my contract my tenant has 2 months as do I as Landlord.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
Only if Labour moderates are happy for the DUP to dictate terms on Brexit. If Labour were being honest, there's nothing to scare the horses in May's Deal. They could accept it without blow-back from their voters.
But Labour MPs would rather play politics than Do The Right Thing.
Labour don't owe May any pity, favours or mercy and it's certainly not some sort of geas for the opposition to vote for her fucking shit deal when she can't even convince her own party of its merits.
The Dems are looking like making the mistake the Republicans made last time, and running 15 primary candidates. Until they’ve had their debates and started whittling down the numbers, I’ll be laying the favourite - with one exception, not laying Joe Biden if he goes favourite. If he stands I think he wins, and he’s got a better chance than most against Trump.
I tend to agree. The markets have chosen to anoint Harris favourite, but it’s a year until the actual primaries, and it’s entirely possible her record as AG could be successfully used against her. Biden, on the other hand, is a known quantity, warts and all, so a stop Joe campaign is less likely to get traction. (FWIW, I have money on both at more favourable odds than currently offered.)
I said when Trump was elected that the best thing the Dems could do would be to run their primaries a year early, effectively choosing a Leader of the Opposition who would then go against Trump having built a high profile.... What’s more interesting is how the Dems go about the primary selection, I think they’ve made a mistake in bringing forward California, as the candidates who appeal there are going to be different to those who appeal to the swing states - and they need to pick the latter if they’re going to beat Trump.
With the exception of the faintly ridiculous Tulsi Gabbard (who, if you've got the cash, is an obvious trading short), I don't think the Democrats are particularly divided - Pelosi is on reasonable terms even with AOC. As the recent congressional votes on the shutdown showed, it is the Republicans who could be the more divided.
But as the primaries and debates start, they’ll be competing with each other, and that’s where the internal negative campaigning will come. If they’d spent last year doing that and ignoring Trump, they’d be in a better position now to challenge him in 2020. All IMHO of course.
But that's true of any presidential campaign, and the idea of bringing the schedule forward by twelve months as a one off is rather fanciful.
What severely damaged Clinton last cycle was Sanders clinging on long beyond the point he had any chance of the nomination. Shades of Kennedy/Carter from 1980... I guess something similar happening again is just about conceivable, but I seriously doubt it.
O/T question for those more up to date than me on rental law. A friend had a 6-month rental agreement which he'd verbally agreed with the landlord to roll on while he decided where to buy. The landlord has now demanded that he buys the place he's in (at the landlord's exorbitant price, to decide immediately without a survey) or he'll put it on the market and require him to leave as soon as a buyer is found.
I believe that despite the absence of a current rental agreement, the landlord must give him two months' notice - is that still true? Also, the landlord surely can't give him a sort of tentative notice requiring him to leave at once when a buyer is found - doesn't he need to either wait till the buyer appears and then give 2 months' notice, or give 2 months now and risk that he doesn't get a buyer in 2 months' time?
Correct - if there is no contract then the default notice period is 2 rental periods. And as you suggest, a “tentative” notice period is not allowed.
Your friend is actually in a good position to drive a hard bargain with the Landlord. Many solicitors/mortgage lenders will not complete if there is a tenant in situ as the property will not be being sold with vacant possession.
Many thanks, I'll tell him, though Sandpit suggests the period is only 1 month? My friend's AST for 6 months didn't have anything about early notice (unless the tenant failed to pay rent or breached the usual rules on proper tenancy). The landlord claims he'll put it on the market for £10K more than he's asking for.
I’m a UK landlord and my agent said it was one month (maybe a year ago). It’s certainly one month on the tenant’s side, maybe that’s where the confusion lies.
In Dubai, for contrast, it’s three months from the tenant and a year from the landlord - but only if he wants to live there himself or sell it. It’s not allowed to kick out the tenant just because rents in general have gone up, nor is it allowed to put up rents higher than the general inflation rate (which can be way below the rental inflation rate). I’m sure you’d approve of that system.
as i understand it: it is one month on tenant's side, two on the landlords side unless there is a longer, say six month, agreement.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
At least some members of the ERG must be feeling down this morning. The mood music is definitely not going their way. Indeed, they may actually have thrown their prize away.
If we end up remaining, it is important that it is clear that the ERG, DUP and other Tories egged on by their membership were the ones who threw the prize in the bin.
Actually, the mood music yesterday was the EU getting themselves tied in knots over the Ireland border - and not a little hint of panic from Varadkar.
It’s gonna be great fun to watch this. The EU have to say there’s going to be a hard border in the event of no deal (because otherwise we don’t need a backstop), but there’s no way Leo’s actually going to build one, or even suggest it gets built.
Given that we won’t be building one either, why don’t they all agree no backstop and get the deal passed tomorrow before the uncertainty causes more chaos?
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
Only if Labour moderates are happy for the DUP to dictate terms on Brexit. If Labour were being honest, there's nothing to scare the horses in May's Deal. They could accept it without blow-back from their voters.
But Labour MPs would rather play politics than Do The Right Thing.
It is the ERG and the DUP who have self destructed on this - labour have not been the main problem
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
Only if Labour moderates are happy for the DUP to dictate terms on Brexit. If Labour were being honest, there's nothing to scare the horses in May's Deal. They could accept it without blow-back from their voters.
But Labour MPs would rather play politics than Do The Right Thing.
If the imbeciles in the ERG hadn't been in open rebellion, the deal would likely have squeaked through by now.
O/T question for those more up to date than me on rental law. A friend had a 6-month rental agreement which he'd verbally agreed with the landlord to roll on while he decided where to buy. The landlord has now demanded that he buys the place he's in (at the landlord's exorbitant price, to decide immediately without a survey) or he'll put it on the market and require him to leave as soon as a buyer is found.
I believe that despite the absence of a current rental agreement, the landlord must give him two months' notice - is that still true? Also, the landlord surely can't give him a sort of tentative notice requiring him to leave at once when a buyer is found - doesn't he need to either wait till the buyer appears and then give 2 months' notice, or give 2 months now and risk that he doesn't get a buyer in 2 months' time?
Not sure about England but Scottish short term assured Tenancy normally has clause that it will roll until either party gives written notice. Notice can be 1 or 2 months depending on contract term. They should still be under the initial contractual terms.
By the sounds of it, its just a rolling contract and the landlord will need to provide formal notice under the appropriate section.
O/T question for those more up to date than me on rental law. A friend had a 6-month rental agreement which he'd verbally agreed with the landlord to roll on while he decided where to buy. The landlord has now demanded that he buys the place he's in (at the landlord's exorbitant price, to decide immediately without a survey) or he'll put it on the market and require him to leave as soon as a buyer is found.
I believe that despite the absence of a current rental agreement, the landlord must give him two months' notice - is that still true? Also, the landlord surely can't give him a sort of tentative notice requiring him to leave at once when a buyer is found - doesn't he need to either wait till the buyer appears and then give 2 months' notice, or give 2 months now and risk that he doesn't get a buyer in 2 months' time?
Correct - if there is no contract then the default notice period is 2 rental periods. And as you suggest, a “tentative” notice period is not allowed.
Your friend is actually in a good position to drive a hard bargain with the Landlord. Many solicitors/mortgage lenders will not complete if there is a tenant in situ as the property will not be being sold with vacant possession.
Many thanks, I'll tell him, though Sandpit suggests the period is only 1 month? My friend's AST for 6 months didn't have anything about early notice (unless the tenant failed to pay rent or breached the usual rules on proper tenancy). The landlord claims he'll put it on the market for £10K more than he's asking for.
I’m a UK landlord and my agent said it was one month (maybe a year ago). It’s certainly one month on the tenant’s side, maybe that’s where the confusion lies.
In Dubai, for contrast, it’s three months from the tenant and a year from the landlord - but only if he wants to live there himself or sell it. It’s not allowed to kick out the tenant just because rents in general have gone up, nor is it allowed to put up rents higher than the general inflation rate (which can be way below the rental inflation rate). I’m sure you’d approve of that system.
as i understand it: it is one month on tenant's side, two on the landlords side unless there is a longer, say six month, agreement.
Mmm okay thanks, I shall definitely remember that for when I return to the UK and need my house back!
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
No more than any other group of 10 MPs. The point you made was that the ERG alone wouldn't have got May's deal over the line. That said, I think they have to accept that by voting the deal down they have emboldened their opponents.
Their whole attitude to the deal, including promoting the idea we can walk away, pocket 39 billion, and sock it to the EU, backfired in a spectacular way. Had they supported TM deal from day 1 it would have passed
If it's an AST, it's two months' written notice to expire not before the sixth month of the term for your landlord to kick you out.
It's one month's notice (to expire at the end of a rent payment period) if you wish to terminate.
Ah, I see (it's not me, by the way) - his tenancy was indeed an AST, though it's been allowed to expire and he's just gone on paying the rent as normal. So sounds like 2 months.
Pretty sure that's the case. A quick chat with solicitor would be in order to be absolutely sure.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
Only if Labour moderates are happy for the DUP to dictate terms on Brexit. If Labour were being honest, there's nothing to scare the horses in May's Deal. They could accept it without blow-back from their voters.
But Labour MPs would rather play politics than Do The Right Thing.
If the imbeciles in the ERG hadn't been in open rebellion, the deal would likely have squeaked through by now.
O/T question for those more up to date than me on rental law. A friend had a 6-month rental agreement which he'd verbally agreed with the landlord to roll on while he decided where to buy. The landlord has now demanded that he buys the place he's in (at the landlord's exorbitant price, to decide immediately without a survey) or he'll put it on the market and require him to leave as soon as a buyer is found.
I believe that despite the absence of a current rental agreement, the landlord must give him two months' notice - is that still true? Also, the landlord surely can't give him a sort of tentative notice requiring him to leave at once when a buyer is found - doesn't he need to either wait till the buyer appears and then give 2 months' notice, or give 2 months now and risk that he doesn't get a buyer in 2 months' time?
Correct - if there is no contract then the default notice period is 2 rental periods. And as you suggest, a “tentative” notice period is not allowed.
Your friend is actually in a good position to drive a hard bargain with the Landlord. Many solicitors/mortgage lenders will not complete if there is a tenant in situ as the property will not be being sold with vacant possession.
Many thanks, I'll tell him, though Sandpit suggests the period is only 1 month? My friend's AST for 6 months didn't have anything about early notice (unless the tenant failed to pay rent or breached the usual rules on proper tenancy). The landlord claims he'll put it on the market for £10K more than he's asking for.
Your friend's landlord sounds absolubtely desperate. A tenant in situ is going to make the property a nightmare to sell... unless another landlord wants to buy in which case he'll want the tenant there anyway. As for buying without a survey, absolubtely not !! Slightly different situation, but I sold before I bought at the start of 2018 and did storage + cattery + my other half (and rabbits) living with my parents + informal agreement with a friend whilst my purchase went through (Buying the right house long term overrides all else). In short there are always other options, and your friend has the law too on his side; I think he's in a better position than his landlord actually (Who sounds overly desperate to sell).
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
No more than any other group of 10 MPs. The point you made was that the ERG alone wouldn't have got May's deal over the line. That said, I think they have to accept that by voting the deal down they have emboldened their opponents.
Their whole attitude to the deal, including promoting the idea we can walk away, pocket 39 billion, and sock it to the EU, backfired in a spectacular way. Had they supported TM deal from day 1 it would have passed
You need bigger cullions Big G.
The EU is ready to throw Ireland under the bus - the cracks are forming.
Hold firm for a few more weeks and we will get a better deal than the Robbins-May one.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
Only if Labour moderates are happy for the DUP to dictate terms on Brexit. If Labour were being honest, there's nothing to scare the horses in May's Deal. They could accept it without blow-back from their voters.
But Labour MPs would rather play politics than Do The Right Thing.
If the imbeciles in the ERG hadn't been in open rebellion, the deal would likely have squeaked through by now.
Mrs May's door is always open
I'm sure - but the relentless rhetoric against the deal, adopted wholesale by both Labour and the retainers on the Tory left, have probably poisoned its prospects both in parliament and if it were put to a referendum.
If it's an AST, it's two months' written notice to expire not before the sixth month of the term for your landlord to kick you out.
It's one month's notice (to expire at the end of a rent payment period) if you wish to terminate.
Ah, I see (it's not me, by the way) - his tenancy was indeed an AST, though it's been allowed to expire and he's just gone on paying the rent as normal. So sounds like 2 months.
Pretty sure that's the case. A quick chat with solicitor would be in order to be absolutely sure.
A periodic tenancy has the same terms as the original AST, as I said below.
You clearly don’t fly or travel. The kindle comes into its own then.
Not convinced. I use my laptop on flights, with a lot more flexibility (complex games, for instance), and if I get bored with that I'll read a book.
What games do you play?
Party games...
Hunt the Kindle ?
It'll never gain momentum...
Have a good morning. Yesterday it took me 25 minutes to travel 1.7 miles. I'm hoping for at least a modest improvement today!
Someone who travelled into work an hour later than I did took two hours for the ten miles I managed in 15 minutes. Good luck.
Looking out from my Home Office , commute time 15 seconds, it is blue sky , sunshine and all covered in white frost, stunningly beautiful. Commiserations to all you commuters.
But enjoying all that would entail moving to Scotland...
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
No more than any other group of 10 MPs. The point you made was that the ERG alone wouldn't have got May's deal over the line. That said, I think they have to accept that by voting the deal down they have emboldened their opponents.
Their whole attitude to the deal, including promoting the idea we can walk away, pocket 39 billion, and sock it to the EU, backfired in a spectacular way. Had they supported TM deal from day 1 it would have passed
Exactly. Its about more than the numbers; their opposition has trashed the deal's credibility and emboldened (and panicked) the other parties to work together to head off no deal.
Given Trump has a tendancy hire and fire his cabinet, it might be work putting some money on Azealia Banks for next Secretary of State. She shares the Presidents gift of tact and diplomacy so is ideal for the job. Currently she is on tour in Ireland and empathised with her hosts and Irelands women
“I’ve had enough of y’all oompa-loompa looking, spray-tanned, crazy-looking b****es tonight,” she raged, not-uncharacteristically. “The girls have scurvy, they’re vitamin deficient, need some calcium tablets.”
O/T question for those more up to date than me on rental law. A friend had a 6-month rental agreement which he'd verbally agreed with the landlord to roll on while he decided where to buy. The landlord has now demanded that he buys the place he's in (at the landlord's exorbitant price, to decide immediately without a survey) or he'll put it on the market and require him to leave as soon as a buyer is found.
I believe that despite the absence of a current rental agreement, the landlord must give him two months' notice - is that still true? Also, the landlord surely can't give him a sort of tentative notice requiring him to leave at once when a buyer is found - doesn't he need to either wait till the buyer appears and then give 2 months' notice, or give 2 months now and risk that he doesn't get a buyer in 2 months' time?
Correct - if there is no contract then the default notice period is 2 rental periods. And as you suggest, a “tentative” notice period is not allowed.
Your friend is actually in a good position to drive a hard bargain with the Landlord. Many solicitors/mortgage lenders will not complete if there is a tenant in situ as the property will not be being sold with vacant possession.
Many thanks, I'll tell him, though Sandpit suggests the period is only 1 month? My friend's AST for 6 months didn't have anything about early notice (unless the tenant failed to pay rent or breached the usual rules on proper tenancy). The landlord claims he'll put it on the market for £10K more than he's asking for.
Your friend's landlord sounds absolubtely desperate. A tenant in situ is going to make the property a nightmare to sell... unless another landlord wants to buy in which case he'll want the tenant there anyway. As for buying without a survey, absolubtely not !! Slightly different situation, but I sold before I bought at the start of 2018 and did storage + cattery + my other half (and rabbits) living with my parents + informal agreement with a friend whilst my purchase went through (Buying the right house long term overrides all else). In short there are always other options, and your friend has the law too on his side; I think he's in a better position than his landlord actually (Who sounds overly desperate to sell).
Yeh, sounds desperate. Or just dodgy. Why would you insist on no survey unless you know there's trouble hidden or at the least the price is bonkers.
My £/$ position is now happily blue and I still reckon there is considerable upside as and when either a deal looks more likely or there are concerted moves to delay or head off Brexit.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
No more than any other group of 10 MPs. The point you made was that the ERG alone wouldn't have got May's deal over the line. That said, I think they have to accept that by voting the deal down they have emboldened their opponents.
Their whole attitude to the deal, including promoting the idea we can walk away, pocket 39 billion, and sock it to the EU, backfired in a spectacular way. Had they supported TM deal from day 1 it would have passed
The government have also screwed up thir messaging, with the PM telling anyone who’d listen that no deal was better than a bad deal for the last two years making it seem to be an option.
The govt should have got the deal through on the first attempt by being quite clear it was this deal or no deal, forcing to opposition parties to confront the options rather than play politics. Now we have a right mess, with pretty much everyone outside the payroll thinking the deal sucks.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
No more than any other group of 10 MPs. The point you made was that the ERG alone wouldn't have got May's deal over the line. That said, I think they have to accept that by voting the deal down they have emboldened their opponents.
Their whole attitude to the deal, including promoting the idea we can walk away, pocket 39 billion, and sock it to the EU, backfired in a spectacular way. Had they supported TM deal from day 1 it would have passed
The government have also screwed up thir messaging, with the PM telling anyone who’d listen that no deal was better than a bad deal for the last two years making it seem to be an option.
The govt should have got the deal through on the first attempt by being quite clear it was this deal or no deal, forcing to opposition parties to confront the options rather than play politics. Now we have a right mess, with pretty much everyone outside the payroll thinking the deal sucks.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
No more than any other group of 10 MPs. The point you made was that the ERG alone wouldn't have got May's deal over the line. That said, I think they have to accept that by voting the deal down they have emboldened their opponents.
Their whole attitude to the deal, including promoting the idea we can walk away, pocket 39 billion, and sock it to the EU, backfired in a spectacular way. Had they supported TM deal from day 1 it would have passed
You need bigger cullions Big G.
The EU is ready to throw Ireland under the bus - the cracks are forming.
Hold firm for a few more weeks and we will get a better deal than the Robbins-May one.
Brexiteers June 2016-Jan 2019: The EU is ready to throw Ireland under the bus any minute now.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
No more than any other group of 10 MPs. The point you made was that the ERG alone wouldn't have got May's deal over the line. That said, I think they have to accept that by voting the deal down they have emboldened their opponents.
Their whole attitude to the deal, including promoting the idea we can walk away, pocket 39 billion, and sock it to the EU, backfired in a spectacular way. Had they supported TM deal from day 1 it would have passed
You need bigger cullions Big G.
The EU is ready to throw Ireland under the bus - the cracks are forming.
Hold firm for a few more weeks and we will get a better deal than the Robbins-May one.
Brexiteers June 2016-Jan 2019: The EU is ready to throw Ireland under the bus any minute now.
And yesterday supports your view that nothing has changed? Yeah, right....
The EU's pieces are moving on the board. And not in a way that looks like they are confident of check-mate.....
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
No more than any other group of 10 MPs. The point you made was that the ERG alone wouldn't have got May's deal over the line. That said, I think they have to accept that by voting the deal down they have emboldened their opponents.
Their whole attitude to the deal, including promoting the idea we can walk away, pocket 39 billion, and sock it to the EU, backfired in a spectacular way. Had they supported TM deal from day 1 it would have passed
The government have also screwed up thir messaging, with the PM telling anyone who’d listen that no deal was better than a bad deal for the last two years making it seem to be an option.
The govt should have got the deal through on the first attempt by being quite clear it was this deal or no deal, forcing to opposition parties to confront the options rather than play politics. Now we have a right mess, with pretty much everyone outside the payroll thinking the deal sucks.
The only way May could have got away with her No Deal is Better Than a Bad Deal schtick is if she had PREPARED FOR NO DEAL. So it looked as though she would back it up. Inept doesn't begin to cover what she actually did.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
No more than any other group of 10 MPs. The point you made was that the ERG alone wouldn't have got May's deal over the line. That said, I think they have to accept that by voting the deal down they have emboldened their opponents.
Their whole attitude to the deal, including promoting the idea we can walk away, pocket 39 billion, and sock it to the EU, backfired in a spectacular way. Had they supported TM deal from day 1 it would have passed
The government have also screwed up thir messaging, with the PM telling anyone who’d listen that no deal was better than a bad deal for the last two years making it seem to be an option.
The govt should have got the deal through on the first attempt by being quite clear it was this deal or no deal, forcing to opposition parties to confront the options rather than play politics. Now we have a right mess, with pretty much everyone outside the payroll thinking the deal sucks.
May's strategy of "vote for this or you'll get no deal- I mean no Brexit- I mean no deal- I mean-" was hilariously inept, but I'm not sure it was ever really possible for her to sell the "my deal or no deal" thing. There's no compelling reason for anyone to buy into an ultimatum that she's clearly using as a negotiating tac
There seems to be a view on here that Brexit could be delayed, but does Cooper’s amendment really have the numbers?
Let us hope so, as it may bring the beginnings of sanity back to the policy and the debate.
We need to to defer Brexit until we have a plan that commands both popular and parliamentary support. The alternative is tyranny, not democracy.
Cooper's amendment is the worst of all worlds. It doesn't delay Brexit until we 'have a plan ...', it delays it for a few months. Long enough to mess things around, require the European Elections (hello NUKIP ) and then be right back where we are now with a ticking clock and an ultimatum. For what purpose?
My £/$ position is now happily blue and I still reckon there is considerable upside as and when either a deal looks more likely or there are concerted moves to delay or head off Brexit.
Yeah I too now think we'll avoid a no deal
Bercow is an absolute monarch can only be deposed by a majority in parliament, whilst he is in charge the combination of Bercow + the remain majority can actually usurp the Gov't. Hence push and shove Brexit can/will be delayed If there is a General Election, we either head back to delay; Corbyn's "Jobs first" Brexit (Which would look remarkably similiar to May's, back to May's deal (Possibly presented by someone else); or another referendum - which also creates delay. Basically we're not leaving without a deal. When Cooper's amendment passes next week, it could well swing the ERG behind the deal too as no deal is taken off the table. There's still a range of options, but no deal will become less likely and sterling should rise.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
No more than any other group of 10 MPs. The point you made was that the ERG alone wouldn't have got May's deal over the line. That said, I think they have to accept that by voting the deal down they have emboldened their opponents.
Their whole attitude to the deal, including promoting the idea we can walk away, pocket 39 billion, and sock it to the EU, backfired in a spectacular way. Had they supported TM deal from day 1 it would have passed
You need bigger cullions Big G.
The EU is ready to throw Ireland under the bus - the cracks are forming.
Hold firm for a few more weeks and we will get a better deal than the Robbins-May one.
Brexiteers June 2016-Jan 2019: The EU is ready to throw Ireland under the bus any minute now.
And yesterday supports your view that nothing has changed? Yeah, right....
The EU's pieces are moving on the board. And not in a way that looks like they are confident of check-mate.....
What a pity that there isn't a sentient hand moving the pieces on 'our' side. I suppose the grisly crew might stumble into a crappy stalemate by accident.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
No more than any other group of 10 MPs. The point you made was that the ERG alone wouldn't have got May's deal over the line. That said, I think they have to accept that by voting the deal down they have emboldened their opponents.
Their whole attitude to the deal, including promoting the idea we can walk away, pocket 39 billion, and sock it to the EU, backfired in a spectacular way. Had they supported TM deal from day 1 it would have passed
The government have also screwed up thir messaging, with the PM telling anyone who’d listen that no deal was better than a bad deal for the last two years making it seem to be an option.
The govt should have got the deal through on the first attempt by being quite clear it was this deal or no deal, forcing to opposition parties to confront the options rather than play politics. Now we have a right mess, with pretty much everyone outside the payroll thinking the deal sucks.
The only way May could have got away with her No Deal is Better Than a Bad Deal schtick is if she had PREPARED FOR NO DEAL. So it looked as though she would back it up. Inept doesn't begin to cover what she actually did.
Abso-bloody-lutely! I’m still bewildered as to why she didn’t release say £5bn last week for no deal preparations (to include things like a bridging loan scheme aimed at SMEs). No deal would have been okay, with a little short term disruption, if there had been two years of planning and legislating, but by running so close to the wire with little visible preparation it’s going to make the short term impact of no deal much worse - albeit well short of those predicting shortages of food and medicine.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
No more than any other group of 10 MPs. The point you made was that the ERG alone wouldn't have got May's deal over the line. That said, I think they have to accept that by voting the deal down they have emboldened their opponents.
Their whole attitude to the deal, including promoting the idea we can walk away, pocket 39 billion, and sock it to the EU, backfired in a spectacular way. Had they supported TM deal from day 1 it would have passed
The government have also screwed up thir messaging, with the PM telling anyone who’d listen that no deal was better than a bad deal for the last two years making it seem to be an option.
The govt should have got the deal through on the first attempt by being quite clear it was this deal or no deal, forcing to opposition parties to confront the options rather than play politics. Now we have a right mess, with pretty much everyone outside the payroll thinking the deal sucks.
The only way May could have got away with her No Deal is Better Than a Bad Deal schtick is if she had PREPARED FOR NO DEAL. So it looked as though she would back it up. Inept doesn't begin to cover what she actually did.
Abso-bloody-lutely! I’m still bewildered as to why she didn’t release say £5bn last week for no deal preparations (to include things like a bridging loan scheme aimed at SMEs). No deal would have been okay, with a little short term disruption, if there had been two years of planning and legislating, but by running so close to the wire with little visible preparation it’s going to make the short term impact of no deal much worse - albeit well short of those predicting shortages of food and medicine.
You are forgetting that she told big business right back at the beginning that there would be a deal.
Dele Alli: Tottenham midfielder out until early March with hamstring strain
Striker Harry Kane will also be absent until early March with an ankle injury, while midfielder Moussa Sissoko is out for two weeks with a groin problem.
Brazil forward Lucas Moura has also been sidelined and the club sold midfielder Mousa Dembele to Chinese Super League side Guangzhou R&F for £11m last week.
Meanwhile, Son Heung-min is on Asian Cup duty with South Korea, who are into the quarter-finals after 2-1 extra-time win over Bahrain in Dubai. The final will be played on 1 February.
There seems to be a view on here that Brexit could be delayed, but does Cooper’s amendment really have the numbers?
Let us hope so, as it may bring the beginnings of sanity back to the policy and the debate.
We need to to defer Brexit until we have a plan that commands both popular and parliamentary support. The alternative is tyranny, not democracy.
Cooper's amendment is the worst of all worlds. It doesn't delay Brexit until we 'have a plan ...', it delays it for a few months. Long enough to mess things around, require the European Elections (hello NUKIP ) and then be right back where we are now with a ticking clock and an ultimatum. For what purpose?
And there’s not a cat in Hell’s chance the EU will agree to it, which rather puts a spanner in the works.
There seems to be a view on here that Brexit could be delayed, but does Cooper’s amendment really have the numbers?
Why wouldn't it ? Official Labour is going to vote for it which gives cover for all but about 7 Labour (Hoey, Stringer, Field + 4 others) to vote against. All other opposition more or less will vote it through, you can probably add Lloyd back to those who will vote in favour of it (it doesn't kill May's deal) and there are enough Grieves, Soubrys, Wollastons on the Tory benches to see it through. So yes I think it has the numbers.
There seems to be a view on here that Brexit could be delayed, but does Cooper’s amendment really have the numbers?
Let us hope so, as it may bring the beginnings of sanity back to the policy and the debate.
We need to to defer Brexit until we have a plan that commands both popular and parliamentary support. The alternative is tyranny, not democracy.
Cooper's amendment is the worst of all worlds. It doesn't delay Brexit until we 'have a plan ...', it delays it for a few months. Long enough to mess things around, require the European Elections (hello NUKIP ) and then be right back where we are now with a ticking clock and an ultimatum. For what purpose?
And there’s not a cat in Hell’s chance the EU will agree to it, which rather puts a spanner in the works.
Maybe it depends on where the EU thinks it might lead?
Its the Brexiters who have been telling us for ages that the EU is terrified of no deal, after all?
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
No more than any other group of 10 MPs. The point you made was that the ERG alone wouldn't have got May's deal over the line. That said, I think they have to accept that by voting the deal down they have emboldened their opponents.
Their whole attitude to the deal, including promoting the idea we can walk away, pocket 39 billion, and sock it to the EU, backfired in a spectacular way. Had they supported TM deal from day 1 it would have passed
The government have also screwed up thir messaging, with the PM telling anyone who’d listen that no deal was better than a bad deal for the last two years making it seem to be an option.
The govt should have got the deal through on the first attempt by being quite clear it was this deal or no deal, forcing to opposition parties to confront the options rather than play politics. Now we have a right mess, with pretty much everyone outside the payroll thinking the deal sucks.
The only way May could have got away with her No Deal is Better Than a Bad Deal schtick is if she had PREPARED FOR NO DEAL. So it looked as though she would back it up. Inept doesn't begin to cover what she actually did.
Abso-bloody-lutely! I’m still bewildered as to why she didn’t release say £5bn last week for no deal preparations (to include things like a bridging loan scheme aimed at SMEs). No deal would have been okay, with a little short term disruption, if there had been two years of planning and legislating, but by running so close to the wire with little visible preparation it’s going to make the short term impact of no deal much worse - albeit well short of those predicting shortages of food and medicine.
You are forgetting that she told big business right back at the beginning that there would be a deal.
There seems to be a view on here that Brexit could be delayed, but does Cooper’s amendment really have the numbers?
Let us hope so, as it may bring the beginnings of sanity back to the policy and the debate.
We need to to defer Brexit until we have a plan that commands both popular and parliamentary support. The alternative is tyranny, not democracy.
In a sane world, we'd defer for a couple of years, and do what should have been done at the start. Treat it as a non-party matter, try to reach a consensus on what kind of deal should be negotiated, and then negotiate it.
Obviously, sanity is now politically impossible, though.
There seems to be a view on here that Brexit could be delayed, but does Cooper’s amendment really have the numbers?
Let us hope so, as it may bring the beginnings of sanity back to the policy and the debate.
We need to to defer Brexit until we have a plan that commands both popular and parliamentary support. The alternative is tyranny, not democracy.
There will never be support for Brexit in Parliament unless there is no alternative. These delays are not meant to produce a better Brexit. They are meant to kill it dead. What you propose is certainly not democracy.
Had the Tory Brexiteers voted for May's deal, it would still have lost. Admittedly they might be on stronger ground when criticizing Tory Remainers, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not sure the ERG can be held responsible for the DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
No more than any other group of 10 MPs. The point you made was that the ERG alone wouldn't have got May's deal over the line. That said, I think they have to accept that by voting the deal down they have emboldened their opponents.
Their whole attitude to the deal, including promoting the idea we can walk away, pocket 39 billion, and sock it to the EU, backfired in a spectacular way. Had they supported TM deal from day 1 it would have passed
You miss the fact they don't want it passed as it is though. With amendments sure but if they'd backed it from day one there wouldn't be a need for amendments.
They did back May originally until she signed up for the awful backstop she said she wouldn't sign.
If the brexiteers and the DUP had come out and endorsed the deal it would have passed through with a small majority
I'm not e DUP.
The point I was making is that the DUP are integral to the deal passing
No more than any other group of 10 MPs. The point you made was that the ERG alone wouldn't have got May's deal over the line. That said, I think they have to accept that by voting the deal down they have emboldened their opponents.
Their whole attitude to the deal, including promoting the idea we can walk away, pocket 39 billion, and sock it to the EU, backfired in a spectacular way. Had they supported TM deal from day 1 it would have passed
The government have also screwed up thir messaging, with the PM telling anyone who’d listen that no deal was better than a bad deal for the last two years making it seem to be an option.
The govt should have got the deal through on the first attempt by being quite clear it was this deal or no deal, forcing to opposition parties to confront the options rather than play politics. Now we have a right mess, with pretty much everyone outside the payroll thinking the deal sucks.
The only way May could have got away with her No Deal is Better Than a Bad Deal schtick is if she had PREPARED FOR NO DEAL. So it looked as though she would back it up. Inept doesn't begin to cover what she actually did.
Abso-bloody-lutely! I’m still bewildered as to why she didn’t release say £5bn last week for no deal preparations (to include things like a bridging loan scheme aimed at SMEs). No deal would have been okay, with a little short term disruption, if there had been two years of planning and legislating, but by running so close to the wire with little visible preparation it’s going to make the short term impact of no deal much worse - albeit well short of those predicting shortages of food and medicine.
You are forgetting that she told big business right back at the beginning that there would be a deal.
How government expected to get away with telling everyone in private that no deal was out of the question, whilst trying to maintain in the political arena that it could be a real possibility, remains a mystery.
Dele Alli: Tottenham midfielder out until early March with hamstring strain
Striker Harry Kane will also be absent until early March with an ankle injury, while midfielder Moussa Sissoko is out for two weeks with a groin problem.
Brazil forward Lucas Moura has also been sidelined and the club sold midfielder Mousa Dembele to Chinese Super League side Guangzhou R&F for £11m last week.
Meanwhile, Son Heung-min is on Asian Cup duty with South Korea, who are into the quarter-finals after 2-1 extra-time win over Bahrain in Dubai. The final will be played on 1 February.
All back in time to win the FA Cup which is lucky because they will be out of everything else: they don't have the depth of squad, and you won't find many world class forwards on the mid-season transfer market.
And there’s not a cat in Hell’s chance the EU will agree to it, which rather puts a spanner in the works.
Hmm, I think there is a good chance they might. Or they'll say they will we'll need to have a General Election.. so we could get one of those.
They’re not going to allow an entention past the EU elections just because our Parliament feels like it, there would have to be an election called (and Parliament dissolved) before they’d agree.
I still don’t see how any of Cooper or Grieve’s amendments can force the government to do something they don’t want to do, and I imagine the last thing the Conservatives want now is an election with a manifesto pledge on the EU relationship.
1. She failed to reach out to Remainers, in fact actively alienated them with her own rhetoric.
2. She enabled the mad wing of Brexitism to continue to promise unicorns push the Ovenden window and did not correct them
3. She exercised A50 with no agreement from the EU on an FTA, and gave into their sequencing (which ultimately is the most unreasonable of EU demands).
4. She ruled out Norway, because she decided on her own it was not Brexit.
5. She offered no comfort to EU residents of the U.K., or relatives/friends/co-workers of EU residents, until far too late in the day
6. She made no attempts at cross-party working until forced into it (and then only entertained it for about two days).
7. She pursued Brexit in a spirit of secrecy and obfuscation, even while the negotiating counterparty publishes all relevant material for all to see.
8. She undermined and undercut key ministers.
9. She fired the country’s #1 EU expert for being inconveniently right.
10. She assembled a Cabinet of duffers and the dishonest, and failed to promote new Tory talent.
11. She made no preparations for No Deal until too late to have any meaningful impact on either negotiations or the country’s readiness.
All of these were identified AT THE TIME, by a cross section of Leavers and Remainers on this very board.
And there’s not a cat in Hell’s chance the EU will agree to it, which rather puts a spanner in the works.
Hmm, I think there is a good chance they might. Or they'll say they will we'll need to have a General Election.. so we could get one of those.
They’re not going to allow an entention past the EU elections just because our Parliament feels like it, there would have to be an election called (and Parliament dissolved) before they’d agree.
I still don’t see how any of Cooper or Grieve’s amendments can force the government to do something they don’t want to do, and I imagine the last thing the Conservatives want now is an election with a manifesto pledge on the EU relationship.
Either they are petrified of a no deal exit, or they are not - leavers really need to make up their mind.
Dele Alli: Tottenham midfielder out until early March with hamstring strain
Striker Harry Kane will also be absent until early March with an ankle injury, while midfielder Moussa Sissoko is out for two weeks with a groin problem.
Brazil forward Lucas Moura has also been sidelined and the club sold midfielder Mousa Dembele to Chinese Super League side Guangzhou R&F for £11m last week.
Meanwhile, Son Heung-min is on Asian Cup duty with South Korea, who are into the quarter-finals after 2-1 extra-time win over Bahrain in Dubai. The final will be played on 1 February.
He may not be but I am still.... was cheering on Bahrain yesterday and even that went to extra time for good measure to knacker Son just that bit more!
And there’s not a cat in Hell’s chance the EU will agree to it, which rather puts a spanner in the works.
Hmm, I think there is a good chance they might. Or they'll say they will we'll need to have a General Election.. so we could get one of those.
If they do the latter then that solves the problem. The Cooper bill to my knowledge requires the UK to ask for an extension it doesn't require the government to meet any demands to get one.
So government asks for an extension, EU says have an election, government says no, EU says no extension, we exit on time. Problem solved
And there’s not a cat in Hell’s chance the EU will agree to it, which rather puts a spanner in the works.
Hmm, I think there is a good chance they might. Or they'll say they will we'll need to have a General Election.. so we could get one of those.
They’re not going to allow an entention past the EU elections just because our Parliament feels like it, there would have to be an election called (and Parliament dissolved) before they’d agree.
I still don’t see how any of Cooper or Grieve’s amendments can force the government to do something they don’t want to do, and I imagine the last thing the Conservatives want now is an election with a manifesto pledge on the EU relationship.
Heh, perhaps. I'm also of the opinion that the fears of a 'No deal' brexit are overblown. Plenty of them seem cultural and social - our politicians will soon sign up to all sorts if it really is as economically bad as Project Osborne too
Dele Alli: Tottenham midfielder out until early March with hamstring strain
Striker Harry Kane will also be absent until early March with an ankle injury, while midfielder Moussa Sissoko is out for two weeks with a groin problem.
Brazil forward Lucas Moura has also been sidelined and the club sold midfielder Mousa Dembele to Chinese Super League side Guangzhou R&F for £11m last week.
Meanwhile, Son Heung-min is on Asian Cup duty with South Korea, who are into the quarter-finals after 2-1 extra-time win over Bahrain in Dubai. The final will be played on 1 February.
As a Liverpool fan I am disappointed at all this for Spurs.
Spurs aren't going to rival Liverpool for the title (City are who we need to worry about) but with all these Spurs injuries there's a real risk they'll let United back into the Top 4.
There seems to be a view on here that Brexit could be delayed, but does Cooper’s amendment really have the numbers?
Let us hope so, as it may bring the beginnings of sanity back to the policy and the debate.
We need to to defer Brexit until we have a plan that commands both popular and parliamentary support. The alternative is tyranny, not democracy.
There will never be support for Brexit in Parliament unless there is no alternative. These delays are not meant to produce a better Brexit. They are meant to kill it dead. What you propose is certainly not democracy.
So what you are saying is we should ignore Parliament, or artificially restrict its choices in order to game the decision you want?
No, not my idea of democracy.
At the end of the day, people voted for Brexit. It is up to the government to interpret that in a way that is going to carry support.
May hasn’t done that, and using “No Deal” as a threat is simply bully tactics. Tactics which hopefully will not work.
You and I would both prefer Norway so hope you would continue to advocate for that on here and to your MP.
I have a small Dyson handheld. It’s OK but nothing special and not particularly well-designed. Before that I had a Bosch and a G-tech. Both broke. No-one has made a really good handheld vacuum cleaner, to my mind.
Never gone for the big Dysons: very heavy and overpriced.
If you have cats and a dog as I have you either need to vacuum all the bloody time or learn to put up with a certain amount of mess.
My Sluttish Housewife Tip (there’s a title for a blog or book!) is that you can scrape up quite a lot of pet hair with your slippers, while wearing them, and then just pick up the balls of fluff. A quick way of cleaning for when you can’t be arsed. And good exercise for your calf muscles.
Generally I’m against Turning A Blind Eye. But in a house - unless you want to be a slave to your pinny - it is invaluable.
There seems to be a view on here that Brexit could be delayed, but does Cooper’s amendment really have the numbers?
Let us hope so, as it may bring the beginnings of sanity back to the policy and the debate.
We need to to defer Brexit until we have a plan that commands both popular and parliamentary support. The alternative is tyranny, not democracy.
There will never be support for Brexit in Parliament unless there is no alternative. These delays are not meant to produce a better Brexit. They are meant to kill it dead. What you propose is certainly not democracy.
1. She failed to reach out to Remainers, in fact actively alienated them with her own rhetoric.
2. She enabled the mad wing of Brexitism to continue to promise unicorns push the Ovenden window and did not correct them
3. She exercised A50 with no agreement from the EU on an FTA, and gave into their sequencing (which ultimately is the most unreasonable of EU demands).
4. She ruled out Norway, because she decided on her own it was not Brexit.
5. She offered no comfort to EU residents of the U.K., or relatives/friends/co-workers of EU residents, until far too late in the day
6. She made no attempts at cross-party working until forced into it (and then only entertained it for about two days).
7. She pursued Brexit in a spirit of secrecy and obfuscation, even while the negotiating counterparty publishes all relevant material for all to see.
8. She undermined and undercut key ministers.
9. She fired the country’s #1 EU expert for being inconveniently right.
10. She assembled a Cabinet of duffers and the dishonest, and failed to promote new Tory talent.
11. She made no preparations for No Deal until too late to have any meaningful impact on either negotiations or the country’s readiness.
All of these were identified AT THE TIME, by a cross section of Leavers and Remainers on this very board.
A very good summation. It is a disgrace. the rise of an unpleasant form of populism was an opportunity for the British political system to demonstrate what it was made of. Unfortunately it has done just that and made matters considerably worse.
Dele Alli: Tottenham midfielder out until early March with hamstring strain
Striker Harry Kane will also be absent until early March with an ankle injury, while midfielder Moussa Sissoko is out for two weeks with a groin problem.
Brazil forward Lucas Moura has also been sidelined and the club sold midfielder Mousa Dembele to Chinese Super League side Guangzhou R&F for £11m last week.
Meanwhile, Son Heung-min is on Asian Cup duty with South Korea, who are into the quarter-finals after 2-1 extra-time win over Bahrain in Dubai. The final will be played on 1 February.
He may not be but I am still.... was cheering on Bahrain yesterday and even that went to extra time for good measure to knacker Son just that bit more!
I feel your pain.
I’d be inconsolable if Salah and Bobby were out for a couple of months.
How government expected to get away with telling everyone in private that no deal was out of the question, whilst trying to maintain in the political arena that it could be a real possibility, remains a mystery.
It's not a mystery at all. Contradictory lies to multiple audiences is very much the May style. She does it all the time.
I know we are all living longer these days but surely Sanders and Biden are too old for this gig now. They are about Mick Jagger's age for heaven's sake. Can you imagine Sir Mick thinking he can still hack it up on stage at 75? Don't make me laugh.
No, forget those two. In any case I've made my decision on the Dem nominee and I am not for turning. Kamala Harris. I'm financially invested (at 8/1) and emotionally invested too. Really do like her.
In fact in my mind she is actually now the president, which is great news since it means that Trump isn't. This knowledge - that President Harris is right now embarking on her first 100 days and each one of them is bringing something fresh and exciting and laudable - boosts my spirits every morning when I wake up. It never fails.
You are forgetting that she told big business right back at the beginning that there would be a deal.
The NS also unearthed this gem from July 2017 from Boris Johnson when he declared: “There is no plan for no deal because we are going to get a great deal.”
So not just the "removers" fault. Now of course he's gung ho for no deal and anything he said to the contrary will be "fake news".
I know we are all living longer these days but surely Sanders and Biden are too old for this gig now. They are about Mick Jagger's age for heaven's sake. Can you imagine Sir Mick thinking he can still hack it up on stage at 75? Don't make me laugh.
I have a small Dyson handheld. It’s OK but nothing special and not particularly well-designed. Before that I had a Bosch and a G-tech. Both broke. No-one has made a really good handheld vacuum cleaner, to my mind.
Never gone for the big Dysons: very heavy and overpriced.
If you have cats and a dog as I have you either need to vacuum all the bloody time or learn to put up with a certain amount of mess.
My Sluttish Housewife Tip (there’s a title for a blog or book!) is that you can scrape up quite a lot of pet hair with your slippers, while wearing them, and then just pick up the balls of fluff. A quick way of cleaning for when you can’t be arsed. And good exercise for your calf muscles.
Generally I’m against Turning A Blind Eye. But in a house - unless you want to be a slave to your pinny - it is invaluable.
Alternatively, put down wooden floors. Then you can use a simple brush.
The only candidate likely to run left enough for Sanders to endorse would be Warren but he polls better than she does so there is no point him dropping out to endorse a weaker candidate
I don't think the evidence is suggesting that Warren is a weaker candidate than Sanders. I know other people are always telling you that you can't read early polling directly as the eternal truth and that won't stop you doing it but they both have quite weak numbers considering their name recognition. Worse, Sanders has *exceptionally* weak numbers for his situation: If you got maybe 40% of the vote last time, and you're polling 15% now against a bunch of competitors the voters haven't heard of yet, you're not on a good trajectory.
Since when is an 11% lead for Sanders v Trump 'exceptionally weak numbers'?
Plus Sanders is still generally second in the polls after Biden, a former VP.
At the end of the day the Democrats should be focused on the rustbelt and nothing but the rustbelt to beat Trump, if they pick another elitist coastal liberal they will likely lose
He's strong against Trump (on current polling, it wouldn't last through a campaign), but that's not the question, it's how he does against Dems. He comes second but that's mostly name recognition, and what's weak is that all his *previous* supporters should recognize him since they voted for him before, but he's already losing most of the people who voted for him in 2016 - and that's before most of the potential competitors have even announced, let alone campaigned.
Yeah - the problem Bernie has is that, essentially, his supporters don't need him anymore to further their cause. Pretty much every top tier Dem candidate other than Biden and maybe Klobuchar is guaranteed to put forward universal healthcare, tax reform reversing cuts to the wealthy, and a version of the green new deal. Added to that, the ultra-progressive wing now has a reasonably sized caucus - one that is likely to keep growing - that will be able to hold any president's feet to the fire should they fail to try and implement that agenda. So some of the smarter Bernie people have realised there's more to gain from freelancing and shifting the party's centre of gravity to the left than tying themselves to a candidate who inspires popularity among some, but is also disliked by a significant part of the Democratic coalition.
Incidentally, there's a Ladbrokes F1 special. It's 9 on Mick Schumacher getting a title before 2024 (not sure if it's inclusive). However, I'm reasonably sure it's impossible for him to join the sport next year due to superlicence points, which would've counted this year, expiring. So 2020 is likely his first year, at the earliest.
That gives a maximum of 5 seasons. He's a Ferrari chap. It's 12 years since Ferrari had a title-winning driver, although they're pretty competitive now.
I've decided against backing it. A credible bet, but there's also a massive rule change coming in a couple of years which may not help the Prancing Horse.
I much prefer the 9 I got on Hamilton getting to 92 wins or more. Given he's under evens for over 9 wins this season, which is about half the number he needs to add, I'm hopeful that'll come off in 2020 or 2021.
There seems to be a view on here that Brexit could be delayed, but does Cooper’s amendment really have the numbers?
Let us hope so, as it may bring the beginnings of sanity back to the policy and the debate.
We need to to defer Brexit until we have a plan that commands both popular and parliamentary support. The alternative is tyranny, not democracy.
There will never be support for Brexit in Parliament unless there is no alternative. These delays are not meant to produce a better Brexit. They are meant to kill it dead. What you propose is certainly not democracy.
So what you are saying is we should ignore Parliament, or artificially restrict its choices in order to game the decision you want?
No, not my idea of democracy.
At the end of the day, people voted for Brexit. It is up to the government to interpret that in a way that is going to carry support.
May hasn’t done that, and using “No Deal” as a threat is simply bully tactics. Tactics which hopefully will not work.
You and I would both prefer Norway so hope you would continue to advocate for that on here and to your MP.
"Democracy" keeps being mentioned by posters such as Mr. Tyndall. The slight problem is that trying to nail the democracy jelly to the wall is somewhat problematic. There are many different interpretations of what it means. Communists have a very different interpretation from those in liberal western "democracies".
Our own democracy is highly flawed. We have an hereditary Head of State. We have an unelected upper chamber in parliament. However, it largely works, mainly because it is founded on the basis of law, with a distinct separation of powers between the judiciary (remember those traitors of The People!) and the legislature. The executive is unfortunately too heavily entwined with the legislature in my opinion, but that is another matter.
So what of Brexit? Is what is happening democratic or undemocratic? My own reading, which I accept is not entirely impartial is that parliament is doing its job to some extent. We have a representative democracy based on delegated responsibility to MPs. The electorate chose Brexit by a small margin. It then decided, in its collective wisdom to give us a hung parliament, rather than overwhelming power to Mrs May, who, at the time of the election at least, very much gave the impression of being a convert to Brexit as a concept. So there we have it, the people decided, but they them decided to make it difficult. As Churchill might have said "The people have spoken, the bastards... but they don't seem to know what they want"
On the Cooper amendment that defers brexit until the 31st December does anyone think the public will be pleased to have this indecision continuing until the end of this year ? It is plainly silly and of course the EU will only agree an extension for a definitive purpose, not so we can get our ducks in a row
Reading the thread it seems the general opinion is that labour will support it but the last I heard was that John McDonnell was in discussion to reduce the time to 3 and a half months.
But ultimately this is the mps can kicking in their own attempt to prevent brexit
And there’s not a cat in Hell’s chance the EU will agree to it, which rather puts a spanner in the works.
Hmm, I think there is a good chance they might. Or they'll say they will we'll need to have a General Election.. so we could get one of those.
What would be the downside for the EU in agreeing that we could have another few weeks until the EU elections, even if it was just to give Parliament another few weeks to come to some agreement?
There seems to be a view on here that Brexit could be delayed, but does Cooper’s amendment really have the numbers?
Let us hope so, as it may bring the beginnings of sanity back to the policy and the debate.
We need to to defer Brexit until we have a plan that commands both popular and parliamentary support. The alternative is tyranny, not democracy.
There will never be support for Brexit in Parliament unless there is no alternative. These delays are not meant to produce a better Brexit. They are meant to kill it dead. What you propose is certainly not democracy.
So what you are saying is we should ignore Parliament, or artificially restrict its choices in order to game the decision you want?
No, not MP.
"Democracy" keeps being mentioned by posters such as Mr. Tyndall. The slight problem is that trying to nail the democracy jelly to the wall is somewhat problematic. There are many different interpretations of what it means. Communists have a very different interpretation from those in liberal western "democracies".
Our own democracy is highly flawed. We have an hereditary Head of State. We have an unelected upper chamber in parliament. However, it largely works, mainly because it is founded on the basis of law, with a distinct separation of powers between the judiciary (remember those traitors of The People!) and the legislature. The executive is unfortunately too heavily entwined with the legislature in my opinion, but that is another matter.
So what of Brexit? Is what is happening democratic or undemocratic? My own reading, which I accept is not entirely impartial is that parliament is doing its job to some extent. We have a representative democracy based on delegated responsibility to MPs. The electorate chose Brexit by a small margin. It then decided, in its collective wisdom to give us a hung parliament, rather than overwhelming power to Mrs May, who, at the time of the election at least, very much gave the impression of being a convert to Brexit as a concept. So there we have it, the people decided, but they them decided to make it difficult. As Churchill might have said "The people have spoken, the bastards... but they don't seem to know what they want"
Entirely agree.
I would go further and say that democracy *must* include safeguards for minorities and minority opinion to protect against simple majoritarianism.
Our elected representatives need to ensure that it is protecting the interests of the 48% of the country who voted Remain, and the 5-10% more who wished they had.
You clearly don’t fly or travel. The kindle comes into its own then.
Not convinced. I use my laptop on flights, with a lot more flexibility (complex games, for instance), and if I get bored with that I'll read a book.
What games do you play?
Strategy games of all kinds (I wrote three books about games which sold 100K a couple of decades ago, and have kept up the interest) - typically at the moment Stellaris (space opera, exceptionally good writing and events) and Civ VI; just finished Tyranny. They are immersive and long enough to make a flight to the US seem tiresomely short! I don't care much about physical comfort beyond the basic, so quite happy carrying my laptop and having it on my knees in tourist class for 6 hours or so. .
Great. We should play games together!
I love Civ VI although I expect you’d thrash me at it.
Me too. What I don't understand is why I could get excellent scores in Civ 5 but usually end up as Nero in Civ6.
Me too. What I don't understand is why I could get excellent scores in Civ 5 but usually end up as Nero in Civ6.
I sucked at Civ 6 until I realised that I was still using the Civ 5 mindset that big empires get punished with terrible side-effects. In Civ 6, growth is good.
Maybe we can get a little PB Civ offshoot (devoid of party politics!) - anyone interested in some weekend sessions do drop me an email (nickmp1@aol.com) and we can discuss it off-forum.
Comments
If we end up remaining, it is important that it is clear that the ERG, DUP and other Tories egged on by their membership were the ones who threw the prize in the bin.
In Dubai, for contrast, it’s three months from the tenant and a year from the landlord - but only if he wants to live there himself or sell it. It’s not allowed to kick out the tenant just because rents in general have gone up, nor is it allowed to put up rents higher than the general inflation rate (which can be way below the rental inflation rate). I’m sure you’d approve of that system.
But Labour MPs would rather play politics than Do The Right Thing.
I expect as they see their dream disappear they will swing behind TM's deal but it may well be too late
The good thing would be to witness the recriminations and in fighting that would erupt between the group
They should still be under the initial contractual terms.
PS, on my contract my tenant has 2 months as do I as Landlord.
What severely damaged Clinton last cycle was Sanders clinging on long beyond the point he had any chance of the nomination. Shades of Kennedy/Carter from 1980...
I guess something similar happening again is just about conceivable, but I seriously doubt it.
Given that we won’t be building one either, why don’t they all agree no backstop and get the deal passed tomorrow before the uncertainty causes more chaos?
https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/private_renting/renewing_your_private_tenancy seems to show that the landlord needs to give 2 months notice and an correctly completed section 21.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1087995357865353216
As for buying without a survey, absolubtely not !! Slightly different situation, but I sold before I bought at the start of 2018 and did storage + cattery + my other half (and rabbits) living with my parents + informal agreement with a friend whilst my purchase went through (Buying the right house long term overrides all else).
In short there are always other options, and your friend has the law too on his side; I think he's in a better position than his landlord actually (Who sounds overly desperate to sell).
The EU is ready to throw Ireland under the bus - the cracks are forming.
Hold firm for a few more weeks and we will get a better deal than the Robbins-May one.
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1087988204999974912
Btw, many happy return of yesterday.
Given Trump has a tendancy hire and fire his cabinet, it might be work putting some money on Azealia Banks for next Secretary of State. She shares the Presidents gift of tact and diplomacy so is ideal for the job. Currently she is on tour in Ireland and empathised with her hosts and Irelands women
“I’ve had enough of y’all oompa-loompa looking, spray-tanned, crazy-looking b****es tonight,” she raged, not-uncharacteristically. “The girls have scurvy, they’re vitamin deficient, need some calcium tablets.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/music/us-rapper-azealia-banks-calls-irish-women-ugly-after-aer-lingus-flight-incident-1.3765860
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/music/azealia-banks-i-want-to-dedicate-this-to-all-the-beautiful-irish-women-1.3767685
The govt should have got the deal through on the first attempt by being quite clear it was this deal or no deal, forcing to opposition parties to confront the options rather than play politics. Now we have a right mess, with pretty much everyone outside the payroll thinking the deal sucks.
Trump’s Lawyer Said There Were “No Plans” For Trump Tower Moscow. Here They Are.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/azeenghorayshi/here-are-the-trump-moscow-plans
https://twitter.com/SophiaGrene/status/1087991187955466240
The EU's pieces are moving on the board. And not in a way that looks like they are confident of check-mate.....
EU mounts pressure on Ireland to make a deal happen.
Varadkar jodido ?
https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/eu-now-looks-set-to-ask-ireland-to-accept-concessions-37739911.html
Let us hope so, as it may bring the beginnings of sanity back to the policy and the debate.
We need to to defer Brexit until we have a plan that commands both popular and parliamentary support. The alternative is tyranny, not democracy.
Bercow is an absolute monarch can only be deposed by a majority in parliament, whilst he is in charge the combination of Bercow + the remain majority can actually usurp the Gov't.
Hence push and shove Brexit can/will be delayed
If there is a General Election, we either head back to delay; Corbyn's "Jobs first" Brexit (Which would look remarkably similiar to May's, back to May's deal (Possibly presented by someone else); or another referendum - which also creates delay. Basically we're not leaving without a deal.
When Cooper's amendment passes next week, it could well swing the ERG behind the deal too as no deal is taken off the table.
There's still a range of options, but no deal will become less likely and sterling should rise.
Dele Alli: Tottenham midfielder out until early March with hamstring strain
Striker Harry Kane will also be absent until early March with an ankle injury, while midfielder Moussa Sissoko is out for two weeks with a groin problem.
Brazil forward Lucas Moura has also been sidelined and the club sold midfielder Mousa Dembele to Chinese Super League side Guangzhou R&F for £11m last week.
Meanwhile, Son Heung-min is on Asian Cup duty with South Korea, who are into the quarter-finals after 2-1 extra-time win over Bahrain in Dubai. The final will be played on 1 February.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/46965388
Official Labour is going to vote for it which gives cover for all but about 7 Labour (Hoey, Stringer, Field + 4 others) to vote against. All other opposition more or less will vote it through, you can probably add Lloyd back to those who will vote in favour of it (it doesn't kill May's deal) and there are enough Grieves, Soubrys, Wollastons on the Tory benches to see it through. So yes I think it has the numbers.
Its the Brexiters who have been telling us for ages that the EU is terrified of no deal, after all?
Obviously, sanity is now politically impossible, though.
They did back May originally until she signed up for the awful backstop she said she wouldn't sign.
I still don’t see how any of Cooper or Grieve’s amendments can force the government to do something they don’t want to do, and I imagine the last thing the Conservatives want now is an election with a manifesto pledge on the EU relationship.
1. She failed to reach out to Remainers, in fact actively alienated them with her own rhetoric.
2. She enabled the mad wing of Brexitism to continue to promise unicorns push the Ovenden window and did not correct them
3. She exercised A50 with no agreement from the EU on an FTA, and gave into their sequencing (which ultimately is the most unreasonable of EU demands).
4. She ruled out Norway, because she decided on her own it was not Brexit.
5. She offered no comfort to EU residents of the U.K., or relatives/friends/co-workers of EU residents, until far too late in the day
6. She made no attempts at cross-party working until forced into it (and then only entertained it for about two days).
7. She pursued Brexit in a spirit of secrecy and obfuscation, even while the negotiating counterparty publishes all relevant material for all to see.
8. She undermined and undercut key ministers.
9. She fired the country’s #1 EU expert for being inconveniently right.
10. She assembled a Cabinet of duffers and the dishonest, and failed to promote new Tory talent.
11. She made no preparations for No Deal until too late to have any meaningful impact on either negotiations or the country’s readiness.
All of these were identified AT THE TIME, by a cross section of Leavers and Remainers on this very board.
So government asks for an extension, EU says have an election, government says no, EU says no extension, we exit on time. Problem solved
Spurs aren't going to rival Liverpool for the title (City are who we need to worry about) but with all these Spurs injuries there's a real risk they'll let United back into the Top 4.
No, not my idea of democracy.
At the end of the day, people voted for Brexit.
It is up to the government to interpret that in a way that is going to carry support.
May hasn’t done that, and using “No Deal” as a threat is simply bully tactics. Tactics which hopefully will not work.
You and I would both prefer Norway so hope you would continue to advocate for that on here and to your MP.
Never gone for the big Dysons: very heavy and overpriced.
If you have cats and a dog as I have you either need to vacuum all the bloody time or learn to put up with a certain amount of mess.
My Sluttish Housewife Tip (there’s a title for a blog or book!) is that you can scrape up quite a lot of pet hair with your slippers, while wearing them, and then just pick up the balls of fluff. A quick way of cleaning for when you can’t be arsed. And good exercise for your calf muscles.
Generally I’m against Turning A Blind Eye. But in a house - unless you want to be a slave to your pinny - it is invaluable.
His products aren’t particularly beautiful, he could do with a Jonny Ives.
Hopefully he loses all his money on his ill-advised idea to get into auto.
I’d be inconsolable if Salah and Bobby were out for a couple of months.
No, forget those two. In any case I've made my decision on the Dem nominee and I am not for turning. Kamala Harris. I'm financially invested (at 8/1) and emotionally invested too. Really do like her.
In fact in my mind she is actually now the president, which is great news since it means that Trump isn't. This knowledge - that President Harris is right now embarking on her first 100 days and each one of them is bringing something fresh and exciting and laudable - boosts my spirits every morning when I wake up. It never fails.
https://twitter.com/OnnMel/status/1087980109192142849
So not just the "removers" fault. Now of course he's gung ho for no deal and anything he said to the contrary will be "fake news".
That gives a maximum of 5 seasons. He's a Ferrari chap. It's 12 years since Ferrari had a title-winning driver, although they're pretty competitive now.
I've decided against backing it. A credible bet, but there's also a massive rule change coming in a couple of years which may not help the Prancing Horse.
I much prefer the 9 I got on Hamilton getting to 92 wins or more. Given he's under evens for over 9 wins this season, which is about half the number he needs to add, I'm hopeful that'll come off in 2020 or 2021.
This thread is now OLD
Our own democracy is highly flawed. We have an hereditary Head of State. We have an unelected upper chamber in parliament. However, it largely works, mainly because it is founded on the basis of law, with a distinct separation of powers between the judiciary (remember those traitors of The People!) and the legislature. The executive is unfortunately too heavily entwined with the legislature in my opinion, but that is another matter.
So what of Brexit? Is what is happening democratic or undemocratic? My own reading, which I accept is not entirely impartial is that parliament is doing its job to some extent. We have a representative democracy based on delegated responsibility to MPs. The electorate chose Brexit by a small margin. It then decided, in its collective wisdom to give us a hung parliament, rather than overwhelming power to Mrs May, who, at the time of the election at least, very much gave the impression of being a convert to Brexit as a concept. So there we have it, the people decided, but they them decided to make it difficult. As Churchill might have said "The people have spoken, the bastards... but they don't seem to know what they want"
Wonder what takes most out of you, running for president or prancing furiously around a stage for two hours and gurning at Keith Richards?
Reading the thread it seems the general opinion is that labour will support it but the last I heard was that John McDonnell was in discussion to reduce the time to 3 and a half months.
But ultimately this is the mps can kicking in their own attempt to prevent brexit
Adam Boulton on Sky this morning said it costs a CEO $250,000 to attend
I would go further and say that democracy *must* include safeguards for minorities and minority opinion to protect against simple majoritarianism.
Our elected representatives need to ensure that it is protecting the interests of the 48% of the country who voted Remain, and the 5-10% more who wished they had.
Maybe we can get a little PB Civ offshoot (devoid of party politics!) - anyone interested in some weekend sessions do drop me an email (nickmp1@aol.com) and we can discuss it off-forum.