I was discussing the different combinations with my 12 year old son this morning on my walk to the station.
What did you reckon were the permutations?
@Endillion is right that there's 128 different ways of arranging eight teams, so there must be a rule somewhere that certain matches are not allowed to bring it down to 105 - but I can't see any rules anywhere about it - last year's commentary suggested a completely free draw.
I didnt think at this stage clubs could be drawn against clubs they were in the same group with?
So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
They have been very clear they want more to change, not just the risk of no brexit or no deal, to back it.
And the belief that the Lab MPs are waiting for that seems to fly in the face of the evidence. Even a few more could reasonably have been expected to change their minds if any were even thinking of it, but it has always just been talk.
Male, White - two insuperable handicaps for the current Democrat mindset. He's probably fit as well.
Doesn't seem to be stopping Bernie. I don't think he'll win - what has he done so far? - but his profile from the senate race gives him a good start in a crowded field. I'd watch him as a VP pick though.
Labour need to ditch a second EU vote and get behind the Norway option .
If Norway is sold properly it could get a majority of the public behind it.
I’m a Remainer but would feel more comfortable with this as it leaves the political institutions of the EU.
It’s a version of Brexit that has quite a lot for Leavers but still leaves a few crumbs for Remainers .
Norway would struggle to get a majority of Leavers behind it, which is ultimately why it’s untenable. It’s only a neat solution on paper.
You don't need a majority of leavers; you need a majority of the population, ideally. In truth, you just need a majority of MPs.
You can't push something this consequential through if the majority of people in whose name it's being done think that it is worse than the status quo.
A footnote is that Oliver used to be the thinking man's Brexiteer, to the point that we agreed to write a book together called "Double Vision on Europe", in which we'd agree what the facts were and put our alternative pro- and anti-EU views on what conclusion should be drawn (we spiked it when he was promoted to the Shadow Cabinet and no longer could express independent views). He's now in predominantly Remainer company, presumably because he shares their horror at No Deal.
So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
Every outstanding IRA (And other republican and loyalist paramilitary) killing needs to be properly investigated, prosecuted and all amnesties removed if prosecutions take place here.
But Bloody Sunday pre-dated many of these, no?
GFA amnesties don't apply to pre 1973 activities.
If the 1 PARA psychos who went full My Lai in Bogside had been dealt with at the time instead the standard cover up we wouldn't be in this situation.
I was discussing the different combinations with my 12 year old son this morning on my walk to the station.
What did you reckon were the permutations?
@Endillion is right that there's 128 different ways of arranging eight teams, so there must be a rule somewhere that certain matches are not allowed to bring it down to 105 - but I can't see any rules anywhere about it - last year's commentary suggested a completely free draw.
Amazing that everyone but May already accepts MV3 is not going to succeed.
Not everyone. 80% of the conservative party voted for it
Those two statements are not connected. MV3 is not succeeding despite a large chunk of Tory MPs backing it. Labour will not rescue it. Some Tory MPs seem less keen than they were for MV2. Yes, the DUP switching would make things closer, but the reasoning for them doing so is awfully silly given their reasons for saying no.
So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
They have been very clear they want more to change, not just the risk of no brexit or no deal, to back it.
And the belief that the Lab MPs are waiting for that seems to fly in the face of the evidence. Even a few more could reasonably have been expected to change their minds if any were even thinking of it, but it has always just been talk.
Arlene Foster this morning was quite conciliatory and confirms they are in further discussions with Cox and TM
Calling bullshit on that maths. For the "two all-english games" scenario you have: AvB CvD AvC BvD AvD BvC
I.e. "A" can only play one of three other teams, and the other game is fixed as there are only two english teams left.
And that's it! Even if you double up by switching the orders you're going to end up with an even number, i.e. not 9.
OK smarty pants now let us know the number of permutations of groups of eight MPs tabling amendments to the various debates going on in the house today.
I'm surpriesed that I have not seen anyone mention something which is a huge advantage for O'Rourke in the presidential race, and that is Texas.
The Republicans will have to throw a hunge amount of resources at Texas because they simply cannot risk losing it. If they do lose texas, they loose the presidency.
O'Rourke has already shown that he can get 48% in Texas and that was running against a popular Texan. Add in the home state bonus when running against a non-Texan and it makes this race very close.
The Republicans will have to divert their attention away from other states which could be enough to win back Wisconsin, Penn, Michigan or Ohio.
So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.
Why do you think so? She's as much a Faragist as she is the DUP member for Vauxhall.
I was discussing the different combinations with my 12 year old son this morning on my walk to the station.
What did you reckon were the permutations?
@Endillion is right that there's 128 different ways of arranging eight teams, so there must be a rule somewhere that certain matches are not allowed to bring it down to 105 - but I can't see any rules anywhere about it - last year's commentary suggested a completely free draw.
makes no reference to any restrictions. I think Simon Gleave's wrong.
There are 105:
Plonk any team at random in one of the boxes. OK, how many teams can they be drawn against? 7 Plonk another, at random in a different tie. Possible opponents, 5. And again, 3. The last tie is fixed, so your number of pair permutations are 7x5x3=105.
Amazing that everyone but May already accepts MV3 is not going to succeed.
Not everyone. 80% of the conservative party voted for it
Those two statements are not connected. MV3 is not succeeding despite a large chunk of Tory MPs backing it. Labour will not rescue it. Some Tory MPs seem less keen than they were for MV2. Yes, the DUP switching would make things closer, but the reasoning for them doing so is awfully silly given their reasons for saying no.
I do respect your views but your certainty is brave in this very uncertain climate.
Labour need to ditch a second EU vote and get behind the Norway option .
If Norway is sold properly it could get a majority of the public behind it.
I’m a Remainer but would feel more comfortable with this as it leaves the political institutions of the EU.
It’s a version of Brexit that has quite a lot for Leavers but still leaves a few crumbs for Remainers .
Norway would struggle to get a majority of Leavers behind it, which is ultimately why it’s untenable. It’s only a neat solution on paper.
You don't need a majority of leavers; you need a majority of the population, ideally. In truth, you just need a majority of MPs.
You can't push something this consequential through if the majority of people in whose name it's being done think that it is worse than the status quo.
So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.
Why do you think so? She's as much a Faragist as she is the DUP member for Vauxhall.
Labour need to ditch a second EU vote and get behind the Norway option .
If Norway is sold properly it could get a majority of the public behind it.
I’m a Remainer but would feel more comfortable with this as it leaves the political institutions of the EU.
It’s a version of Brexit that has quite a lot for Leavers but still leaves a few crumbs for Remainers .
Norway would struggle to get a majority of Leavers behind it, which is ultimately why it’s untenable. It’s only a neat solution on paper.
You don't need a majority of leavers; you need a majority of the population, ideally. In truth, you just need a majority of MPs.
You can't push something this consequential through if the majority of people in whose name it's being done think that it is worse than the status quo.
Norway and May's Deal are the two options that substantial numbers find good/acceptable across the divide.
No Deal, and No Brexit are the two that appeal most to partisans.
It's all very well finding common ground in the middle, but unless you carry the people without whom we wouldn't be doing Brexit at all, it will get stuck. That why May's deal has failed in parliament.
I was discussing the different combinations with my 12 year old son this morning on my walk to the station.
What did you reckon were the permutations?
@Endillion is right that there's 128 different ways of arranging eight teams, so there must be a rule somewhere that certain matches are not allowed to bring it down to 105 - but I can't see any rules anywhere about it - last year's commentary suggested a completely free draw.
So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.
So would enough of the ERG (I think)
The ERG + Kate Hoey + Graham Stringer (probably fair to lump those two in with them) ain't quite enough on their own to flip their vote, I don't think. I make it 313 votes for the deal with them onside, with 320 againast.
You'd have to also get some of the Tory "People's Vote" rebels (I make it 6 - Bebb, Greening, Grieve, Gyimah, Lee, Jo Johnson), OR the DUP, OR some of the Labour soft Brexiteers on board.
So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.
Why do you think so? She's as much a Faragist as she is the DUP member for Vauxhall.
In any case, the DUP have no incentive to switch.
You hope
@Yokel seemed to think the decision was quite finely balanced. The incentive to switch would be the desire not to harm the interests of Unionists. I'm not saying that would be enough.
So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.
So would enough of the ERG (I think)
The ERG + Kate Hoey + Graham Stringer (probably fair to lump those two in with them) ain't quite enough on their own to flip their vote, I don't think. I make it 313 votes for the deal with them onside, with 320 againast.
You'd have to also get some of the Tory "People's Vote" rebels (I make it 6 - Bebb, Greening, Grieve, Gyimah, Lee, Jo Johnson), OR the DUP, OR some of the Labour soft Brexiteers on board.
If you got that close with the 3rd vote I'm sure there would be a 4th vote allowed and it would pass. The danger is if the 3rd vote doesn't get over 300 ayes and then it's dead.
So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.
So would enough of the ERG (I think)
The ERG + Kate Hoey + Graham Stringer (probably fair to lump those two in with them) ain't quite enough on their own to flip their vote, I don't think. I make it 313 votes for the deal with them onside, with 320 againast.
You'd have to also get some of the Tory "People's Vote" rebels (I make it 6 - Bebb, Greening, Grieve, Gyimah, Lee, Jo Johnson), OR the DUP, OR some of the Labour soft Brexiteers on board.
If you got that close with the 3rd vote I'm sure there would be a 4th vote allowed and it would pass. The danger is if the 3rd vote doesn't get over 300 ayes and then it's dead.
How to get the full ERG across? I can't see Francois changing his [tiny] mind, for one.
It's a shame May is so abysmal at messaging that she couldn't stick to this instead of constantly juggling back and forth between "my deal or no deal" and "my deal or no Brexit"
I quoted the entire relevant section of Erskine May yesterday, and frankly it seems that if the House was desiring to vote on the MV again a way could be found within the rules, but that there is a lot of scope for the Speaker to say it is out of order. But as Bercow himself has decided, you don't always follow precedent anyway.
Relying on procedural arcana to avoid voting on it against seems unnecessary
I hope this passes, but I don't really see how it can
Odds on bercow choosing this one...... ...
No idea but from his perspective I imagine he'd much rather be able to point to a decision by parliament on this rather than having to rule on it himself and piss a load of people off.
I quoted the entire relevant section of Erskine May yesterday, and frankly it seems that if the House was desiring to vote on the MV again a way could be found within the rules, but that there is a lot of scope for the Speaker to say it is out of order. But as Bercow himself has decided, you don't always follow precedent anyway.
Relying on procedural arcana to avoid voting on it against seems unnecessary
That's kinda the point though isn't it? Have the decision backed by a vote instead of just procedural arcana
So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.
So would enough of the ERG (I think)
The ERG + Kate Hoey + Graham Stringer (probably fair to lump those two in with them) ain't quite enough on their own to flip their vote, I don't think. I make it 313 votes for the deal with them onside, with 320 againast.
You'd have to also get some of the Tory "People's Vote" rebels (I make it 6 - Bebb, Greening, Grieve, Gyimah, Lee, Jo Johnson), OR the DUP, OR some of the Labour soft Brexiteers on board.
If you got that close with the 3rd vote I'm sure there would be a 4th vote allowed and it would pass. The danger is if the 3rd vote doesn't get over 300 ayes and then it's dead.
How to get the full ERG across? I can't see Francois changing his [tiny] mind, for one.
Mark Francois responds:-
"Oi! Adolf! Nineteen sixty six! I provide the gas in here, fuck off back to Auschwitz Oi! Adolf! Fuck off back to Belsen I'm not a yid, I'm on the bog, annex something else, son. Oi! Adolf! You talking to me? How come all you krauts can speak German fluently? Oi! Adolf! Nineteen forty five! Don't put that accent on for me, speak English or die. "
That's kinda the point though isn't it? Have the decision backed by a vote instead of just procedural arcana
But their vote is predicted on the belief that the procedural arcana backs them up (which it mostly does, but seems like a way could be found). You're right if it passes then the house will have made its will known, but based on something which it does not need to be based on, and makes them essentially saying it is not us doing it, we're just following the rules.
p397 matters already decided during the same session A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session. Since 1994 this rule has been applied so that, in the case of ten minute rule motions under Standing Order No 23, refusal by the House of leave to introduce a bill should be treated as the rejection of that bill at a substantive stage, with the effect that a bill with the same or a very similar long title could not be presented again in the same season. Attempts have been made made to evade this rule by raising again, with verbal alterations, the essential portions of motions which have been negatived. Whether the second motion is substantially the same as the first is finally a matter for the judgement of the Chair. In some cases the second motion has been ruled to be substantially the same as an earlier motion. The same rule has been applied to an amendment reviewing reviewing a motion which had been already negatived. Some motions, however, have been framed with sufficient ingenuity to avoid the rule. On rare occasions where the House has been offered a series of alternative proposals for its consideration, an order was made specifically directing the Chair to put the questions or later motions notwithstanding any decision of the House on earlier motions.
However, a question which has not been definitely decided may be raised again. Thus, a motion or amendment which has been withdrawn, or on which the Chair has declared the question not decided when it appeared that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in a division, or for some other reason, may be repeated. In such cases a Member may speak again on the second occasion. Where a certain course in relation to the procedure of the House has been rejected on a particular day, it may be revived on a subsequent day.
Other parts may apply as well, but looks to me like it could be possible for another vote on the WA to be allowed, but that the Chair has wide discretion on it. And it is Bercow.
I quoted the entire relevant section of Erskine May yesterday, and frankly it seems that if the House was desiring to vote on the MV again a way could be found within the rules, but that there is a lot of scope for the Speaker to say it is out of order. But as Bercow himself has decided, you don't always follow precedent anyway.
Relying on procedural arcana to avoid voting on it against seems unnecessary
But saying "what part of no means no do you not understand" seems entirely necessary.
Wouldn't this also scupper Cooper/Letwin? I'm unclear if theirplan is for the Commons to agree the way forward before or during an extension, and if the latter then that's a no no.
That's kinda the point though isn't it? Have the decision backed by a vote instead of just procedural arcana
But their vote is predicted on the belief that the procedural arcana backs them up (which it mostly does, but seems like a way could be found). You're right if it passes then the house will have made its will known, but based on something which it does not need to be based on, and makes them essentially saying it is not us doing it, we're just following the rules.
I understand what you mean, but I don't think it matters. It's just a way of saying "and hey, look, it's not some crazy idea we came up with, this very thing was thought about by the rule-makers too". Everyone understands that it's ultimately a political decision.
Agreed. Which is why none of them should be. Ireland has enough history to worry about without dragging up the past for sport. Every peace process involves a putting aside of past atrocities on both sides, which is what the early releases were about in NI, among other things. That principle should be kept here too. Certainly, that will upset some victims' families but I'm afraid that sometimes peace demands that.
The soldiers weren't supposed to be on either side. The military should be held to a higher standard than terrorists. I think the lack of justice for these families risks rather than protects the peace.
I quoted the entire relevant section of Erskine May yesterday, and frankly it seems that if the House was desiring to vote on the MV again a way could be found within the rules, but that there is a lot of scope for the Speaker to say it is out of order. But as Bercow himself has decided, you don't always follow precedent anyway.
Relying on procedural arcana to avoid voting on it against seems unnecessary
But saying "what part of no means no do you not understand" seems entirely necessary.
Doesn't need to justify itself with reference to procedural rules, because as Members have made clear as possibilities to to suspend various rules, they can always find a way if they want. If they want to say 'no means no' it doesn't need to pretend that procedure is the overriding concern.
Seriously, how does he select amendments and how many? He has very wide discretion, but say it was not about Brexit, in which we know for a fact his personal wishes are becoming prominent as he has admitted to not thinking about longer term consequences, what general principles is he meant to apply to inform his discretion?
If Sarah Wollaston's amendment gets voted down (as I expect) then presumably it would have much the same effect as passing the anti-second ref one.
Yep it makes sense to only select one of Wollaston/Snell, it should fire up parliament to vote down Wollaston's. I'd imagine she's as unpopular in parliament as she is on PB. Would have made more sense to allow the Snell one instead.
That's kinda the point though isn't it? Have the decision backed by a vote instead of just procedural arcana
But their vote is predicted on the belief that the procedural arcana backs them up (which it mostly does, but seems like a way could be found). You're right if it passes then the house will have made its will known, but based on something which it does not need to be based on, and makes them essentially saying it is not us doing it, we're just following the rules.
I understand what you mean, but I don't think it matters. It's just a way of saying "and hey, look, it's not some crazy idea we came up with, this very thing was thought about by the rule-makers too". Everyone understands that it's ultimately a political decision.
I guess you're right, but I have to fiddle with procedure a lot, and it still annoys when people selectively rely or reject on it to provide even marginal cover for what they simply want to do, or not do.
Well, maybe to cheer us all up we should have a competition where we vote on what we think will happen on 29 March. The winner gets a tin of lentils and some loo rolls.
So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move on
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.
Why do you think so? She's as much a Faragist as she is the DUP member for Vauxhall.
In any case, the DUP have no incentive to switch.
I should have thought that the incentive for the DUP would be avoiding anything that makes a border poll and Irish reunification more likely, which is what be crash-out no-deal Brexit would be.
The anti-referendum amendment had sweet FA to do with the substantive motion. Of course it shouldn't be called.
That may well be sound, but no doubt many examples can be found of allowed amendments which had FA to do with the substantive motion. It could well be another example of right decision for wrong reason.
That's kinda the point though isn't it? Have the decision backed by a vote instead of just procedural arcana
But their vote is predicted on the belief that the procedural arcana backs them up (which it mostly does, but seems like a way could be found). You're right if it passes then the house will have made its will known, but based on something which it does not need to be based on, and makes them essentially saying it is not us doing it, we're just following the rules.
I understand what you mean, but I don't think it matters. It's just a way of saying "and hey, look, it's not some crazy idea we came up with, this very thing was thought about by the rule-makers too". Everyone understands that it's ultimately a political decision.
I guess you're right, but I have to fiddle with procedure a lot, and it still annoys when people selectively rely or reject on it to provide even marginal cover for what they simply want to do, or not do.
To put it as delicately as I can, Soldier F needs to face public questioning and to be confronted by his actions.
Douglas Murray wrote a very good book on the Savile hearing into Bloody Sunday.
I'm not the greatest fan of his politics (ie not at all), but he writes clearly & well even when I don't agree with him.
His views on Savile are not at all what you might assume. He takes the view, rightly, that the state and its functionaries must not break the law and then repeatedly lie about what they have done.
A footnote is that Oliver used to be the thinking man's Brexiteer, to the point that we agreed to write a book together called "Double Vision on Europe", in which we'd agree what the facts were and put our alternative pro- and anti-EU views on what conclusion should be drawn (we spiked it when he was promoted to the Shadow Cabinet and no longer could express independent views). He's now in predominantly Remainer company, presumably because he shares their horror at No Deal.
You and Mr Poll Tax wanted to write a book?
And who exactly did you think would be stupid enough to want to read it nevermind wasting their money buying it?
I should have thought that the incentive for the DUP would be avoiding anything that makes a border poll and Irish reunification more likely, which is what be crash-out no-deal Brexit would be.
Of course the Speaker is biased to remain.... Just another reason why Brexiteers should have bagged the deal on Tuesday and moved on while they could...
The DUP won't just flip because we're running out of time though.
Exactly and the number of Labour rebels seem to be holding steady. There are probably the numbers to pass a soft Brexit in the CU+SM space. May needs to change the Political Statement and she should get two thirds of her MPS and the bulk of Labour to support it. But it would split her party and so she sticks to Plan A to grim death.
A footnote is that Oliver used to be the thinking man's Brexiteer, to the point that we agreed to write a book together called "Double Vision on Europe", in which we'd agree what the facts were and put our alternative pro- and anti-EU views on what conclusion should be drawn (we spiked it when he was promoted to the Shadow Cabinet and no longer could express independent views). He's now in predominantly Remainer company, presumably because he shares their horror at No Deal.
If Sarah Wollaston's amendment gets voted down (as I expect) then presumably it would have much the same effect as passing the anti-second ref one.
It's a pity the Speaker didn't choose amendment (b) ruling out a second referendum. Amendment (h) calls for a second referendum. If (b) was called as well as (h) I think both would fail to get agreement. Many members want to keep their options open on a second referendum but if (h) goes down, Leavers will argue the house is against a 2nd referendum.
I think the Speaker has done the Leavers a favour here - but they don't yet realise it.
Comments
Team drawn has 7 options
Team drawn has 5 options
Team drawn has 3 options
Team drawn has 1 option
1 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 105
And the belief that the Lab MPs are waiting for that seems to fly in the face of the evidence. Even a few more could reasonably have been expected to change their minds if any were even thinking of it, but it has always just been talk.
If the 1 PARA psychos who went full My Lai in Bogside had been dealt with at the time instead the standard cover up we wouldn't be in this situation.
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/55/82/79/2558279_DOWNLOAD.pdf
makes no reference to any restrictions. I think Simon Gleave's wrong.
Amongst others.
(goes off to read statistics book that's eyeing me up from across the room)
You arrange EFGH in three ways as above, and you have:
AvB CvD (combination 1)
AvC BvD (combination 2)
AvD BvC (combination 3)
And combinations 4,5,6 for the other set. Mixing them up you have
1,4 / 2,5 / 3,6
1,4 / 2,6 / 3,5
1,5 / 2,4 / 3,6
1,5 / 2,6 / 3,4
1,6 / 2,4 / 3,5
1,6 / 2,5 / 3,4
I.e. 6 arrangements. Can get away from the even numbers...
The Republicans will have to throw a hunge amount of resources at Texas because they simply cannot risk losing it. If they do lose texas, they loose the presidency.
O'Rourke has already shown that he can get 48% in Texas and that was running against a popular Texan. Add in the home state bonus when running against a non-Texan and it makes this race very close.
The Republicans will have to divert their attention away from other states which could be enough to win back Wisconsin, Penn, Michigan or Ohio.
In any case, the DUP have no incentive to switch.
Plonk any team at random in one of the boxes. OK, how many teams can they be drawn against? 7
Plonk another, at random in a different tie. Possible opponents, 5.
And again, 3.
The last tie is fixed, so your number of pair permutations are 7x5x3=105.
Anything can still happen
Norway and May's Deal are the two options that substantial numbers find good/acceptable across the divide.
No Deal, and No Brexit are the two that appeal most to partisans.
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1106128676163342337
To put it as delicately as I can, Soldier F needs to face public questioning and to be confronted by his actions.
You'd have to also get some of the Tory "People's Vote" rebels (I make it 6 - Bebb, Greening, Grieve, Gyimah, Lee, Jo Johnson), OR the DUP, OR some of the Labour soft Brexiteers on board.
Relying on procedural arcana to avoid voting on it against seems unnecessary
I think they should face prosecution but, if convicted, should serve one night in prison before being released.
"Oi! Adolf! Nineteen sixty six!
I provide the gas in here, fuck off back to Auschwitz
Oi! Adolf! Fuck off back to Belsen
I'm not a yid, I'm on the bog, annex something else, son.
Oi! Adolf! You talking to me?
How come all you krauts can speak German fluently?
Oi! Adolf! Nineteen forty five!
Don't put that accent on for me, speak English or die. "
City v porto
Liv v man u
Barca v juve.
Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.
Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.
Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.
It should be 68.6% for exactly one all-English tie
The military should be held to a higher standard than terrorists.
I think the lack of justice for these families risks rather than protects the peace.
And who exactly did you think would be stupid enough to want to read it nevermind wasting their money buying it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxpYW_w5pgo
I think the Speaker has done the Leavers a favour here - but they don't yet realise it.
NEW THREAD