politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joe Walsh – my 130/1 longshot for the Republican nomination
Generally speaking incumbent presidents tend not to have to face a serious primary challenge when they run for a second term. Certainly that’s been the assumption with Donald Trump and until now the possibility of other challengers has not appeared.
20s Republican nominee (the current Betfair price) is too short. The question is not just will he run but can he line up the donors. 800 is available to small money in the next president market.
If Walsh does run then you'd imagine that would open the floodgates for more mainstream Republicans to enter the race.
Another way to look at this is that there is a big ARB if anyone has the bank size for it laying 200 and backing 800 POTUS currently. If he wins the nomination he won't be 3-1 POTUS. I don't have the bank size or betting structure to take advantage age currently
Boostering Johnson's "success" in getting the EU to drop the Backstop is presumably part of Johnson's spin operation. Which means he is setting himself up to fail. I don't think the triumphalism is meant to be a decoy. He wants people to think he's a great statesman
I think Johnson is getting a media honeymoon most PMs get. An editor once remarked to me that they judge a PM who has just attained office on what they do as PM rather than their behaviour before becoming PM. I dont support Boris and I see the media narrotive for what it is a load of propoganda aimed at leading readers toward the newspapers agenda...
I think the papers are essentially doing what the Johnson team are telling them to do. They won't quite see it in those terms of course. I'm really interested in why Johnson is pushing the fake news that EU leaders are conceding to him on the backstop when they are doing the exact opposite. It looks to me like an attempt to waste time.
Which seems to be working. Tory rebels have decided they don't need to rebel just yet.
Not that I think it is particularly good value, but laying Trump at 1.13 for Republican nominee may be a better strategy. It covers all potential rivals, medical mishaps, worsening insanity, impeachment etc, and even the grim reaper.
20s Republican nominee (the current Betfair price) is too short. The question is not just will he run but can he line up the donors. 800 is available to small money in the next president market.
If Walsh does run then you'd imagine that would open the floodgates for more mainstream Republicans to enter the race.
Four or five Republicans have publicly mooted running recently - while acknowledging it would probably be a futile effort - so it’s quite possible.
Kasich would be interesting, and Romney might have one last run at it.
You mentioned Antrim as leading the resistance against the English pre the Protestant settlement
To some extent that is true but it was because the Earl of Tyrone was a devious and untrustworthy little shit rather than any “nationalistic sense” with a meaningful read across to today
Good morning everyone. Only one by-election last night, and while it was a LibDem hold, it wasn't as good as it might have been. Appears to be a LD > Brexit swing, although it could probably be read any of about four ways.
Good morning everyone. Only one by-election last night, and while it was a LibDem hold, it wasn't as good as it might have been. Appears to be a LD > Brexit swing, although it could probably be read any of about four ways.
Labour leavers voted Brexit and Labour remainers and some LibDems voted Green? Rugby was a 57% leave area, and the by-election was caused by the newly elected LibDem resigning after just a few months in office.
Anyhow nearly 60% of the vote is good in anyone’s book.
Good morning everyone. Only one by-election last night, and while it was a LibDem hold, it wasn't as good as it might have been. Appears to be a LD > Brexit swing, although it could probably be read any of about four ways.
While there's a nominal Remain to Leave bloc swing it's unlikely that only 30% now support Leave. Only significant move I think is the repeatedly shown fall in Labour vote share.
Good morning everyone. Only one by-election last night, and while it was a LibDem hold, it wasn't as good as it might have been. Appears to be a LD > Brexit swing, although it could probably be read any of about four ways.
While there's a nominal Remain to Leave bloc swing it's unlikely that only 30% now support Leave. Only significant move I think is the repeatedly shown fall in Labour vote share.
The Brexit Party vote share is significant, of course. We take for granted how much Farage has shaken up the political landscape.
You also need to remember that Trump has 80-90% approval within the party. That may be because many who dislike Trump but used to be members have since left the party, but it is also because the GOP is a completely crazy political party with no redeemable features. Trump is the symptom, not the cause. Pence or Cruz would be doing a lot of similar stuff as POTUS, just without the stupid gaffes and rhetoric. Arguably Trump only won because Americans thought he was moderate for the GOP in 2016: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-think-trump-has-moved-to-the-right/
Trump is incredibly popular among Republicans, particularly those likely to vote in primaries (his trouble is he's incredibly unpopular with Democrats and pretty unpopular with Independents). In that context, there is next to no chance of successful primary challenge.
There may be some money to be made on the shift in price if he does dive in. But I rather question whether that is likely (he's a radio host and it could well be a bit of PR to suggest he'll enter - doing so is more complex).
And if he does, will the price tighten all that much? You can get 50-1 on Booker and 100-1 on Klobucher for Democrat nominee... they ARE running and , while they are relative outsiders, they have both made the third debate qualifying threshold with relative ease, and there is a credible case that either of them could have a breakthrough in a fairly open race with a frontrunner who (while he has various merits) attracts nowhere near the fanatical devotion Trump does within the GOP.
Good morning everyone. Only one by-election last night, and while it was a LibDem hold, it wasn't as good as it might have been. Appears to be a LD > Brexit swing, although it could probably be read any of about four ways.
Labour leavers voted Brexit and Labour remainers and some LibDems voted Green? Rugby was a 57% leave area, and the by-election was caused by the newly elected LibDem resigning after just a few months in office.
Anyhow nearly 60% of the vote is good in anyone’s book.
Yes, it is. Nonetheless I think the LibDem surge is a bit off the boil - they are clearly third in most polls, though well up on 2017. The obvious thing is simply that the Tories are having a honeymoon, for obvious reasons. Whether that will enable Johnson to either sell a crap deal or no deal we shall see, but it's possible - Brexiteers mostly trust him and the "get it done" bloc will be impressed by any concrete outcome.
Meanwhile, amusing reflection of the British commuter spirit here (read the comments too). Very un-American, I fear.
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
On topic, Donald Trump himself is highly unpredictable. Like OGH, I don't think that he should be so short-priced to run again. There are too many different ways that he might blow up.
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
You didn’t answer my question on why a post No Deal backstop is logical
You said the EU will insist on it (which I agree is possible - it is certainly what they are saying at the moment)
But why is it logical
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
We’ll need to agree terms quickly to regularise an open border. What could that be if not something like the backstop pending a comprehensive agreement?
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Yep - the issue here is (as with HS2, which is about extra capacity not speed) that people let the first argument / comment override any actual debate.
You didn’t answer my question on why a post No Deal backstop is logical
You said the EU will insist on it (which I agree is possible - it is certainly what they are saying at the moment)
But why is it logical
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
We’ll need to agree terms quickly to regularise an open border. What could that be if not something like the backstop pending a comprehensive agreement?
No we won't.
They will because it compromises their Single Market otherwise, which is why they're so desperate to nail us down now. We don't need to care about that though.
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
It's what the DUP (and May) want - they didn't want anything that means Northern Ireland is different to the rest of the UK,
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
Good morning everyone. Only one by-election last night, and while it was a LibDem hold, it wasn't as good as it might have been. Appears to be a LD > Brexit swing, although it could probably be read any of about four ways.
Labour leavers voted Brexit and Labour remainers and some LibDems voted Green? Rugby was a 57% leave area, and the by-election was caused by the newly elected LibDem resigning after just a few months in office.
Anyhow nearly 60% of the vote is good in anyone’s book.
Yes, it is. Nonetheless I think the LibDem surge is a bit off the boil - they are clearly third in most polls, though well up on 2017. The obvious thing is simply that the Tories are having a honeymoon, for obvious reasons. Whether that will enable Johnson to either sell a crap deal or no deal we shall see, but it's possible - Brexiteers mostly trust him and the "get it done" bloc will be impressed by any concrete outcome.
Meanwhile, amusing reflection of the British commuter spirit here (read the comments too). Very un-American, I fear.
Another way to look at this is that there is a big ARB if anyone has the bank size for it laying 200 and backing 800 POTUS currently. If he wins the nomination he won't be 3-1 POTUS. I don't have the bank size or betting structure to take advantage age currently
I laid Kasich for the nomination at 25 and backed him for President at 150 on the same reasoning.
Boostering Johnson's "success" in getting the EU to drop the Backstop is presumably part of Johnson's spin operation. Which means he is setting himself up to fail. I don't think the triumphalism is meant to be a decoy. He wants people to think he's a great statesman
I think Johnson is getting a media honeymoon most PMs get. An editor once remarked to me that they judge a PM who has just attained office on what they do as PM rather than their behaviour before becoming PM. I dont support Boris and I see the media narrotive for what it is a load of propoganda aimed at leading readers toward the newspapers agenda...
I think the papers are essentially doing what the Johnson team are telling them to do. They won't quite see it in those terms of course. I'm really interested in why Johnson is pushing the fake news that EU leaders are conceding to him on the backstop when they are doing the exact opposite. It looks to me like an attempt to waste time.
Which seems to be working. Tory rebels have decided they don't need to rebel just yet.
The glowing headlines are a bonus.
It really is bizarre, Johnson and his adoring newspapers are setting him up to fail in two significant ways: failing to find an alternative to the backstop and failing to manage a trouble-free No Deal Brexit. I can see the very short-term advantages of Oomph and Can Do as a means of rallying support, but medium term (ie, six months from here in February/March 2020) I just don’t see how it works. He can’t be so stupid as to have nothing up his sleeves. Can he? Or am I missing something?
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
On topic, Donald Trump himself is highly unpredictable. Like OGH, I don't think that he should be so short-priced to run again. There are too many different ways that he might blow up.
Gosh! I didn't know that OGH was even qualified to run for POTUS!
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
Boostering Johnson's "success" in getting the EU to drop the Backstop is presumably part of Johnson's spin operation. Which means he is setting himself up to fail. I don't think the triumphalism is meant to be a decoy. He wants people to think he's a great statesman
I think Johnson is getting a media honeymoon most PMs get. An editor once remarked to me that they judge a PM who has just attained office on what they do as PM rather than their behaviour before becoming PM. I dont support Boris and I see the media narrotive for what it is a load of propoganda aimed at leading readers toward the newspapers agenda...
I think the papers are essentially doing what the Johnson team are telling them to do. They won't quite see it in those terms of course. I'm really interested in why Johnson is pushing the fake news that EU leaders are conceding to him on the backstop when they are doing the exact opposite. It looks to me like an attempt to waste time.
Which seems to be working. Tory rebels have decided they don't need to rebel just yet.
The glowing headlines are a bonus.
It really is bizarre, Johnson and his adoring newspapers are setting him up to fail in two significant ways: failing to find an alternative to the backstop and failing to manage a trouble-free No Deal Brexit. I can see the very short-term advantages of Oomph and Can Do as a means of rallying support, but medium term (ie, six months from here in February/March 2020) I just don’t see how it works. He can’t be so stupid as to have nothing up his sleeves. Can he? Or am I missing something?
In 6 months he will have a majority to shape UK in an image acceptable to billionaire non-Dom newspaper magnates.
Hmm. Isn't the problem with this, though, that broadly speaking they draw support from the same constituency? One way or another, it will still make the numbers harder, presumably?
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
Good morning everyone. Only one by-election last night, and while it was a LibDem hold, it wasn't as good as it might have been. Appears to be a LD > Brexit swing, although it could probably be read any of about four ways.
Labour leavers voted Brexit and Labour remainers and some LibDems voted Green? Rugby was a 57% leave area, and the by-election was caused by the newly elected LibDem resigning after just a few months in office.
Anyhow nearly 60% of the vote is good in anyone’s book.
Yes, it is. Nonetheless I think the LibDem surge is a bit off the boil - they are clearly third in most polls, though well up on 2017. The obvious thing is simply that the Tories are having a honeymoon, for obvious reasons. Whether that will enable Johnson to either sell a crap deal or no deal we shall see, but it's possible - Brexiteers mostly trust him and the "get it done" bloc will be impressed by any concrete outcome.
Meanwhile, amusing reflection of the British commuter spirit here (read the comments too). Very un-American, I fear.
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
One of the interesting things I wonder how people who laud the Osborne debt management defend. Specifically:
"So far, the outstanding cost of university tuition loans has added £105bn – around 5 per cent of GDP – to the UK’s debt. By the 2040s, according to Department for Education forecasts, it will have added £460bn, or nearly 12 per cent of GDP. The Office for Budget Responsibility projects that it will remain at above 10 per cent of GDP for decades thereafter.
With low interest rates, such a mountain of debt is manageable. When rates rise, that will change. The precise cost to government may also be underestimated. If university education turns out to be less useful than expected, the IFS points out, and future graduate earnings are even slightly lower than forecast, the taxpayer’s tab will rise rapidly. That seems plausible. In 2011, the government projected that it would end up paying for 30 per cent of the student loan book. That rate has since risen five times. It is now estimated at 54 per cent."
One of the interesting things I wonder how people who laud the Osborne debt management defend. Specifically:
"So far, the outstanding cost of university tuition loans has added £105bn – around 5 per cent of GDP – to the UK’s debt. By the 2040s, according to Department for Education forecasts, it will have added £460bn, or nearly 12 per cent of GDP. The Office for Budget Responsibility projects that it will remain at above 10 per cent of GDP for decades thereafter.
With low interest rates, such a mountain of debt is manageable. When rates rise, that will change. The precise cost to government may also be underestimated. If university education turns out to be less useful than expected, the IFS points out, and future graduate earnings are even slightly lower than forecast, the taxpayer’s tab will rise rapidly. That seems plausible. In 2011, the government projected that it would end up paying for 30 per cent of the student loan book. That rate has since risen five times. It is now estimated at 54 per cent."
By increasing the numbers who go to university the value of being a graduate has been reduced. Which I suspect will ensure the taxpayer's tab will rise rapidly no matter what.
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
Boostering Johnson's "success" in getting the EU to drop the Backstop is presumably part of Johnson's spin operation. Which means he is setting himself up to fail. I don't think the triumphalism is meant to be a decoy. He wants people to think he's a great statesman
I think Johnson is getting a media honeymoon most PMs get. An editor once remarked to me that they judge a PM who has just attained office on what they do as PM rather than their behaviour before becoming PM. I dont support Boris and I see the media narrotive for what it is a load of propoganda aimed at leading readers toward the newspapers agenda...
I think the papers are essentially doing what the Johnson team are telling them to do. They won't quite see it in those terms of course. I'm really interested in why Johnson is pushing the fake news that EU leaders are conceding to him on the backstop when they are doing the exact opposite. It looks to me like an attempt to waste time.
Which seems to be working. Tory rebels have decided they don't need to rebel just yet.
The glowing headlines are a bonus.
It really is bizarre, Johnson and his adoring newspapers are setting him up to fail in two significant ways: failing to find an alternative to the backstop and failing to manage a trouble-free No Deal Brexit. I can see the very short-term advantages of Oomph and Can Do as a means of rallying support, but medium term (ie, six months from here in February/March 2020) I just don’t see how it works. He can’t be so stupid as to have nothing up his sleeves. Can he? Or am I missing something?
Boris is simply showing he took all reasonable steps to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement which as the Brady amendment showed is the only Brexit option with a Commons majority.
If the EU agree to a technical solution for the Irish border great for Boris, if not Boris will go to No Deal on 31st October showing floating voters No Deal was his last resort to ensure Bexit.
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
That's insisting the other elements of the backstop are maintained.
There must be NO backstop. What part of that are you struggling to comprehend?
Your impervious dogmatism.
Yes I've got a dogmatic belief in democracy.
Its tragic in the 21st century that so many here are willing to throw it away so lightly.
No, you have a bizarre, absolutist and partial view of what democracy is.
Voting for the people who set your laws?
Voting for the Parliament that sets your laws?
How bizarre (!)
Straw manning, yet again.
Your understanding of the backstop is beyond flawed.
Yes, Philip believes 58% of the population of Northern Ireland are Republican bigots and that voting is a universal human right - except for those who he believes should not have the vote. But, this is the young man who believes you achieve freedom by being less free and take control by handing it to others. He has a very individual way of looking at the world.
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
That's insisting the other elements of the backstop are maintained.
There must be NO backstop. What part of that are you struggling to comprehend?
Your impervious dogmatism.
Yes I've got a dogmatic belief in democracy.
Its tragic in the 21st century that so many here are willing to throw it away so lightly.
No, you have a bizarre, absolutist and partial view of what democracy is.
Voting for the people who set your laws?
Voting for the Parliament that sets your laws?
How bizarre (!)
How do you feel democracies should deal with the tensions of their mandates? If one democratic state votes for "trade deal with state y" and state y votes "don't allow that trade deal", democracy would be disallowed for one of those states. And is democracy just tyranny of the majority, or something more? Can 52% of people vote to remove voting rights for 48%? Considering that leaving the EU is removing many rights I currently have, I don't see that as an extreme comparison...
Good morning everyone. Only one by-election last night, and while it was a LibDem hold, it wasn't as good as it might have been. Appears to be a LD > Brexit swing, although it could probably be read any of about four ways.
Labour leavers voted Brexit and Labour remainers and some LibDems voted Green? Rugby was a 57% leave area, and the by-election was caused by the newly elected LibDem resigning after just a few months in office.
Anyhow nearly 60% of the vote is good in anyone’s book.
Yes, it is. Nonetheless I think the LibDem surge is a bit off the boil - they are clearly third in most polls, though well up on 2017. The obvious thing is simply that the Tories are having a honeymoon, for obvious reasons. Whether that will enable Johnson to either sell a crap deal or no deal we shall see, but it's possible - Brexiteers mostly trust him and the "get it done" bloc will be impressed by any concrete outcome.
Meanwhile, amusing reflection of the British commuter spirit here (read the comments too). Very un-American, I fear.
FFS can we please either refer to him as the PM, Johnson or even ABDP Johnson or at least show some consistency within a single post mixing first and surnames is down right rude.
One of the interesting things I wonder how people who laud the Osborne debt management defend. Specifically:
"So far, the outstanding cost of university tuition loans has added £105bn – around 5 per cent of GDP – to the UK’s debt. By the 2040s, according to Department for Education forecasts, it will have added £460bn, or nearly 12 per cent of GDP. The Office for Budget Responsibility projects that it will remain at above 10 per cent of GDP for decades thereafter.
With low interest rates, such a mountain of debt is manageable. When rates rise, that will change. The precise cost to government may also be underestimated. If university education turns out to be less useful than expected, the IFS points out, and future graduate earnings are even slightly lower than forecast, the taxpayer’s tab will rise rapidly. That seems plausible. In 2011, the government projected that it would end up paying for 30 per cent of the student loan book. That rate has since risen five times. It is now estimated at 54 per cent."
By increasing the numbers who go to university the value of being a graduate has been reduced. Which I suspect will ensure the taxpayer's tab will rise rapidly no matter what.
I mean that isn't necessarily true if you raised teaching standards and invested in education, but yes, it does seem to be the case in England. But what I'm wondering is more why people who think that the debt is under control and wasn't the coalition a great model for fiscal conservatism, when they've put this time bomb in the debt figures that could go off whenever. This is just setting up for in 20 years time another argument for the necessity of austerity due to government debt, despite the fact it was all artificially hidden by the same people who originally argued for austerity now.
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
That's insisting the other elements of the backstop are maintained.
There must be NO backstop. What part of that are you struggling to comprehend?
Your impervious dogmatism.
Yes I've got a dogmatic belief in democracy.
Its tragic in the 21st century that so many here are willing to throw it away so lightly.
No, you have a bizarre, absolutist and partial view of what democracy is.
Voting for the people who set your laws?
Voting for the Parliament that sets your laws?
How bizarre (!)
Straw manning, yet again.
Your understanding of the backstop is beyond flawed.
Yes, Philip believes 58% of the population of Northern Ireland are Republican bigots and that voting is a universal human right - except for those who he believes should not have the vote. But, this is the young man who believes you achieve freedom by being less free and take control by handing it to others. He has a very individual way of looking at the world.
I never said "Republican bigots" that is your words not my words or view.
I don't believe any free adult citizens should not have the vote.
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
That's insisting the other elements of the backstop are maintained.
There must be NO backstop. What part of that are you struggling to comprehend?
Your impervious dogmatism.
Yes I've got a dogmatic belief in democracy.
Its tragic in the 21st century that so many here are willing to throw it away so lightly.
No, you have a bizarre, absolutist and partial view of what democracy is.
Voting for the people who set your laws?
Voting for the Parliament that sets your laws?
How bizarre (!)
Straw manning, yet again.
Your understanding of the backstop is beyond flawed.
Yes, Philip believes 58% of the population of Northern Ireland are Republican bigots and that voting is a universal human right - except for those who he believes should not have the vote. But, this is the young man who believes you achieve freedom by being less free and take control by handing it to others. He has a very individual way of looking at the world.
I never said "Republican bigots" that is your words not my words or view.
I don't believe any free adult citizens should not have the vote.
You want to take away my right to vote in European elections.
Good morning everyone. Only one by-election last night, and while it was a LibDem hold, it wasn't as good as it might have been. Appears to be a LD > Brexit swing, although it could probably be read any of about four ways.
Labour leavers voted Brexit and Labour remainers and some LibDems voted Green? Rugby was a 57% leave area, and the by-election was caused by the newly elected LibDem resigning after just a few months in office.
Anyhow nearly 60% of the vote is good in anyone’s book.
Yes, it is. Nonetheless I think the LibDem surge is a bit off the boil - they are clearly third in most polls, though well up on 2017. The obvious thing is simply that the Tories are having a honeymoon, for obvious reasons. Whether that will enable Johnson to either sell a crap deal or no deal we shall see, but it's possible - Brexiteers mostly trust him and the "get it done" bloc will be impressed by any concrete outcome.
Meanwhile, amusing reflection of the British commuter spirit here (read the comments too). Very un-American, I fear.
In the circumstances of the by-election and with the intervention of a Green candidate, unlike last time, I think you're struggling to read that into this result.
Nevertheless I agree with the general position that Bozo is getting his widely expected honeymoon and people are trusting him, at the moment, to deliver on his extravagant promises. The honeymoon itself is no longer gathering speed; people are watching and waiting.
You didn’t answer my question on why a post No Deal backstop is logical
You said the EU will insist on it (which I agree is possible - it is certainly what they are saying at the moment)
But why is it logical
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
It's not up to the UK to say what the EU and Ireland's negotiating priorities should be, as it affects them, any more than they should do to us. The UK government needs to realise the Backstop is the reddest of EU red lines and deal with it to its best advantage or least disadvantage.
But if we on this forum aim to take a more detached view, I would say Ireland is correct that on balance it's better for Northern Ireland to have an enforced sea border than a land border should the UK as a whole diverge from the EU. For practical reasons and reasons of visibility - there are ferry controls already on the sea border. Neither border might desirable - I would argue that - but if the UK is going to create a de facto hard border with the EU through divergence, it's better for Northern Ireland if it's the sea border. People in Northern Ireland agree with me, by a big margin.
How do you feel democracies should deal with the tensions of their mandates? If one democratic state votes for "trade deal with state y" and state y votes "don't allow that trade deal", democracy would be disallowed for one of those states. And is democracy just tyranny of the majority, or something more? Can 52% of people vote to remove voting rights for 48%? Considering that leaving the EU is removing many rights I currently have, I don't see that as an extreme comparison...
The voters of state x (since you didn't name the other state) may be disappointed if state y doesn't allow the deal, but democracy is not disallowed. Democracy is being able to vote and being able to hold your electors to account, it is NOT getting what you want all the time.
State x voters get to vote, state y voters get to vote. If the elected representatives of state y refuse a deal there is no deal, state x's government will need to make state y want a deal.
No I do not believe that 52% can remove the voting rights for the 48%, which is why the backstop is unacceptable to me even if a majority of NI backs it.
Leaving the EU may remove rights you currently have but it doesn't remove any fundamental rights. You maintain [unless the backstop goes ahead] the right to set the laws that apply to you etc, etc, etc same as free citizens of any free country.
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
That's insisting the other elements of the backstop are maintained.
There must be NO backstop. What part of that are you struggling to comprehend?
Your impervious dogmatism.
Yes I've got a dogmatic belief in democracy.
Its tragic in the 21st century that so many here are willing to throw it away so lightly.
No, you have a bizarre, absolutist and partial view of what democracy is.
Voting for the people who set your laws?
Voting for the Parliament that sets your laws?
How bizarre (!)
Straw manning, yet again.
Your understanding of the backstop is beyond flawed.
Yes, Philip believes 58% of the population of Northern Ireland are Republican bigots and that voting is a universal human right - except for those who he believes should not have the vote. But, this is the young man who believes you achieve freedom by being less free and take control by handing it to others. He has a very individual way of looking at the world.
I never said "Republican bigots" that is your words not my words or view.
I don't believe any free adult citizens should not have the vote.
You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be able to choose whether they want the backstop, even though 58% of them support it. You believe the right to vote should be limited. You believe we will be made free when we lose freedoms we currently have, and that we will gain control when we hand control to others. I respect your right to hold these views.
You didn’t answer my question on why a post No Deal backstop is logical
You said the EU will insist on it (which I agree is possible - it is certainly what they are saying at the moment)
But why is it logical
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
It's not up to the UK to say what the EU and Ireland's negotiating priorities should be, as it affects them, any more than they should do to us. The UK government needs to realise the Backstop is the reddest of EU red lines and deal with it to its best advantage or least disadvantage.
But if we on this forum aim to take a more detached view, I would say Ireland is correct that on balance it's better for Northern Ireland to have an enforced sea border than a land border should the UK as a whole diverge from the EU. For practical reasons and reasons of visibility - there are ferry controls already on the sea border. Neither border might desirable - I would argue that - but if the UK is going to create a de facto hard border with the EU through divergence, it's better for Northern Ireland if it's the sea border. People in Northern Ireland agree with me, by a big margin.
If the backstop is the EU's reddest of red lines and democracy is the UK's reddest of red lines the No Deal is the only option remaining.
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
That's insisting the other elements of the backstop are maintained.
There must be NO backstop. What part of that are you struggling to comprehend?
Your impervious dogmatism.
Yes I've got a dogmatic belief in democracy.
Its tragic in the 21st century that so many here are willing to throw it away so lightly.
No, you have a bizarre, absolutist and partial view of what democracy is.
Voting for the people who set your laws?
Voting for the Parliament that sets your laws?
How bizarre (!)
How do you feel democracies should deal with the tensions of their mandates? If one democratic state votes for "trade deal with state y" and state y votes "don't allow that trade deal", democracy would be disallowed for one of those states. And is democracy just tyranny of the majority, or something more? Can 52% of people vote to remove voting rights for 48%? Considering that leaving the EU is removing many rights I currently have, I don't see that as an extreme comparison...
Philip doesn’t believe that the rights you hold dear are as important as the principles he holds.
Even East Ham is not without its charm on a fine sunny morning. The group of drunks down by the War Memorial looked almost serene as I walked past on my way to get the Racing Post for day 3 of the Ebor meeting. I fancy BATTAASH to lay his York demons and beat TEN SOVEREIGNS in the Nunthorpe but I'm not getting involved financially.
The different interpretations and spin put on the Prime Minister's visit to Paris illustrate the deep and damaging polarisation of opinion and expectation. I'm no fan of Johnson but he's certainly keeping himself in trim rushing around doing this and meeting that but all new Prime Ministers are the same - it's almost a rite of passage to visit the extremities of the UK in the first week (just in case people in Truro and Stornaway hadn't heard we had a new PM - it's like something out of the 18th Century) and then to look busy on the world stage (May did exactly the same so the more things change, the more they do stay the same).
Interesting to see the Redwood tweet that the backstop isn't the only thing wrong with the WA and it's been an enormous red herring that resolving the backstop issue will somehow make the WA palatable to all. The only Deal in town is No Deal and so the political manoeuvring will now begin - Boris will want his election and his majority in the bag either before 31/10 or before the impacts of No Deal reach the public or he will have to hope his preservation will be confirmed by the disunity of his opponents on which many PMs in the past have also relied.
You want to take away my right to vote in European elections.
Not if European elections apply to you I don't.
If they don't apply to you then not voting in European elections will be as rational as not voting in US Federal elections - are you upset you can't vote in their elections?
I want you to not be subject to the European Parliament. The issue with the backstop is that you will be subject to the Parliament but not get the right to vote in those elections. That I object to. That is undemocratic and unacceptable. Make sense yet?
You didn’t answer my question on why a post No Deal backstop is logical
You said the EU will insist on it (which I agree is possible - it is certainly what they are saying at the moment)
But why is it logical
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
It's not up to the UK to say what the EU and Ireland's negotiating priorities should be, as it affects them, any more than they should do to us. The UK government needs to realise the Backstop is the reddest of EU red lines and deal with it to its best advantage or least disadvantage.
But if we on this forum aim to take a more detached view, I would say Ireland is correct that on balance it's better for Northern Ireland to have an enforced sea border than a land border should the UK as a whole diverge from the EU. For practical reasons and reasons of visibility - there are ferry controls already on the sea border. Neither border might desirable - I would argue that - but if the UK is going to create a de facto hard border with the EU through divergence, it's better for Northern Ireland if it's the sea border. People in Northern Ireland agree with me, by a big margin.
If the backstop is the EU's reddest of red lines and democracy is the UK's reddest of red lines the No Deal is the only option remaining.
If democracy were a UK red line, it wouldn’t execute No Deal without a mandate.
I think those t-shirts saying 'I've never kissed a Tory/Brexiteer/Fascist' etc will have to have a 'I've never eaten etc' version, doubtless resulting in a gammon mountain.
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
That's insisting the other elements of the backstop are maintained.
There must be NO backstop. What part of that are you struggling to comprehend?
Your impervious dogmatism.
Yes I've got a dogmatic belief in democracy.
Its tragic in the 21st century that so many here are willing to throw it away so lightly.
No, you have a bizarre, absolutist and partial view of what democracy is.
Voting for the people who set your laws?
Voting for the Parliament that sets your laws?
How bizarre (!)
How do you feel democracies should deal with the tensions of their mandates? If one democratic state votes for "trade deal with state y" and state y votes "don't allow that trade deal", democracy would be disallowed for one of those states. And is democracy just tyranny of the majority, or something more? Can 52% of people vote to remove voting rights for 48%? Considering that leaving the EU is removing many rights I currently have, I don't see that as an extreme comparison...
Philip dorsn’t believe that the rights you hold dear are as important as the principles he holds.
Name one fundamental human right I don't think is important why why it is more important than the fundamental human right to democracy in your own country.
How do you feel democracies should deal with the tensions of their mandates? If one democratic state votes for "trade deal with state y" and state y votes "don't allow that trade deal", democracy would be disallowed for one of those states. And is democracy just tyranny of the majority, or something more? Can 52% of people vote to remove voting rights for 48%? Considering that leaving the EU is removing many rights I currently have, I don't see that as an extreme comparison...
The voters of state x (since you didn't name the other state) may be disappointed if state y doesn't allow the deal, but democracy is not disallowed. Democracy is being able to vote and being able to hold your electors to account, it is NOT getting what you want all the time.
State x voters get to vote, state y voters get to vote. If the elected representatives of state y refuse a deal there is no deal, state x's government will need to make state y want a deal.
No I do not believe that 52% can remove the voting rights for the 48%, which is why the backstop is unacceptable to me even if a majority of NI backs it.
Leaving the EU may remove rights you currently have but it doesn't remove any fundamental rights. You maintain [unless the backstop goes ahead] the right to set the laws that apply to you etc, etc, etc same as free citizens of any free country.
Do you think we will be unaffected by EU laws? Because then I am losing my vote to affect laws that effect me.
If democracy is NOT getting what you want all the time than a reversal of Brexit is not undemocratic if proved untenable, especially if the Brexit That Was Promised is not the Brexit we're getting.
What is the difference between a right and a fundamental right?
I think those t-shirts saying 'I've never kissed a Tory/Brexiteer/Fascist' etc will have to have a 'I've never eaten etc' version, doubtless resulting in a gammon mountain.
Redwood even voted against the Brady amendment which got a Commons majority, Boris does not need him
No-one needs Redwood in the sense of his being of any use for anything. He's always been just grit in life's Vaseline.
Redwood has always been a diehard No Dealer, he along with the likes of Chope refused to even vote for the Brady amendment which passed the Commons by 317 votes to 301.
Yet Boris is right to stick to trying to get the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which passed the Commons unlike the Withdrawal Agreement as is which was voted down by the Commons 3 times.
The Brady amendment is the only Brexit option to have passed the Commons with EUref2 and revoke also being voted down by the Commons in the indicative votes
One of the interesting things I wonder how people who laud the Osborne debt management defend. Specifically:
"So far, the outstanding cost of university tuition loans has added £105bn – around 5 per cent of GDP – to the UK’s debt. By the 2040s, according to Department for Education forecasts, it will have added £460bn, or nearly 12 per cent of GDP. The Office for Budget Responsibility projects that it will remain at above 10 per cent of GDP for decades thereafter.
With low interest rates, such a mountain of debt is manageable. When rates rise, that will change. The precise cost to government may also be underestimated. If university education turns out to be less useful than expected, the IFS points out, and future graduate earnings are even slightly lower than forecast, the taxpayer’s tab will rise rapidly. That seems plausible. In 2011, the government projected that it would end up paying for 30 per cent of the student loan book. That rate has since risen five times. It is now estimated at 54 per cent."
By increasing the numbers who go to university the value of being a graduate has been reduced. Which I suspect will ensure the taxpayer's tab will rise rapidly no matter what.
Amazing article in the NS - who rightly attack academia, academics, education as big business, politicians, money led systems, anti-intellectualism, students and immoral wishful thinking in equal measure.
You didn’t answer my question on why a post No Deal backstop is logical
You said the EU will insist on it (which I agree is possible - it is certainly what they are saying at the moment)
But why is it logical
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
It's not up to the UK to say what the EU and Ireland's negotiating priorities should be, as it affects them, any more than they should do to us. The UK government needs to realise the Backstop is the reddest of EU red lines and deal with it to its best advantage or least disadvantage.
But if we on this forum aim to take a more detached view, I would say Ireland is correct that on balance it's better for Northern Ireland to have an enforced sea border than a land border should the UK as a whole diverge from the EU. For practical reasons and reasons of visibility - there are ferry controls already on the sea border. Neither border might desirable - I would argue that - but if the UK is going to create a de facto hard border with the EU through divergence, it's better for Northern Ireland if it's the sea border. People in Northern Ireland agree with me, by a big margin.
If the backstop is the EU's reddest of red lines and democracy is the UK's reddest of red lines the No Deal is the only option remaining.
If democracy were a UK red line, it wouldn’t execute No Deal without a mandate.
It will be executed by our elected government, entirely appropriate. A future elected government can seek to reverse it, entirely appropriate.
The Northern Irish barely vote for the people who set their laws at the moment, so it’s not really clear why the specific NIrish bits of the backstop should be any great affront to their democratic rights.
You didn’t answer my question on why a post No Deal backstop is logical
You said the EU will insist on it (which I agree is possible - it is certainly what they are saying at the moment)
But why is it logical
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
It's not up to the UK to say what the EU and Ireland's negotiating priorities should be, as it affects them, any more than they should do to us. The UK government needs to realise the Backstop is the reddest of EU red lines and deal with it to its best advantage or least disadvantage.
But if we on this forum aim to take a more detached view, I would say Ireland is correct that on balance it's better for Northern Ireland to have an enforced sea border than a land border should the UK as a whole diverge from the EU. For practical reasons and reasons of visibility - there are ferry controls already on the sea border. Neither border might desirable - I would argue that - but if the UK is going to create a de facto hard border with the EU through divergence, it's better for Northern Ireland if it's the sea border. People in Northern Ireland agree with me, by a big margin.
If the backstop is the EU's reddest of red lines and democracy is the UK's reddest of red lines the No Deal is the only option remaining.
If democracy were a UK red line, it wouldn’t execute No Deal without a mandate.
It will be executed by our elected government, entirely appropriate. A future elected government can seek to reverse it, entirely appropriate.
A future government cannot reverse a no deal Brexit.
You didn’t answer my question on why a post No Deal backstop is logical
You said the EU will insist on it (which I agree is possible - it is certainly what they are saying at the moment)
But why is it logical
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
It's not up to the UK to say what the EU and Ireland's negotiating priorities should be, as it affects them, any more than they should do to us. The UK government needs to realise the Backstop is the reddest of EU red lines and deal with it to its best advantage or least disadvantage.
But if we on this forum aim to take a more detached view, I would say Ireland is correct that on balance it's better for Northern Ireland to have an enforced sea border than a land border should the UK as a whole diverge from the EU. For practical reasons and reasons of visibility - there are ferry controls already on the sea border. Neither border might desirable - I would argue that - but if the UK is going to create a de facto hard border with the EU through divergence, it's better for Northern Ireland if it's the sea border. People in Northern Ireland agree with me, by a big margin.
If the backstop is the EU's reddest of red lines and democracy is the UK's reddest of red lines the No Deal is the only option remaining.
If democracy were a UK red line, it wouldn’t execute No Deal without a mandate.
It will be executed by our elected government, entirely appropriate. A future elected government can seek to reverse it, entirely appropriate.
A future government cannot reverse a no deal Brexit.
It can if it agrees a FTA with the EU, or joins the single market or customs union or decides to rejoin the full EU again
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
The all-UK backstop is definitely not everything the EU side want. They'd be happier with a border in the Irish Sea that avoids effectively letting the UK have far more single market privileges than they'd like to grant, but the UK side have ruled that out. If anything it's the EU giving the UK side everything *they* want, provided they can actually articulate something coherent and workable.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
That's insisting the other elements of the backstop are maintained.
There must be NO backstop. What part of that are you struggling to comprehend?
Your impervious dogmatism.
Yes I've got a dogmatic belief in democracy.
Its tragic in the 21st century that so many here are willing to throw it away so lightly.
No, you have a bizarre, absolutist and partial view of what democracy is.
Voting for the people who set your laws?
Voting for the Parliament that sets your laws?
How bizarre (!)
How do you feel democracies should deal with the tensions of their mandates? If one democratic state votes for "trade deal with state y" and state y votes "don't allow that trade deal", democracy would be disallowed for one of those states. And is democracy just tyranny of the majority, or something more? Can 52% of people vote to remove voting rights for 48%? Considering that leaving the EU is removing many rights I currently have, I don't see that as an extreme comparison...
Philip dorsn’t believe that the rights you hold dear are as important as the principles he holds.
Name one fundamental human right I don't think is important why why it is more important than the fundamental human right to democracy in your own country.
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Boostering Johnson's "success" in getting the EU to drop the Backstop is presumably part of Johnson's spin operation. Which means he is setting himself up to fail. I don't think the triumphalism is meant to be a decoy. He wants people to think he's a great statesman
I think Johnson is getting a media honeymoon most PMs get. An editor once remarked to me that they judge a PM who has just attained office on what they do as PM rather than their behaviour before becoming PM. I dont support Boris and I see the media narrotive for what it is a load of propoganda aimed at leading readers toward the newspapers agenda...
I think the papers are essentially doing what the Johnson team are telling them to do. They won't quite see it in those terms of course. I'm really interested in why Johnson is pushing the fake news that EU leaders are conceding to him on the backstop when they are doing the exact opposite. It looks to me like an attempt to waste time.
Which seems to be working. Tory rebels have decided they don't need to rebel just yet.
The glowing headlines are a bonus.
It really is bizarre, Johnson and his adoring newspapers are setting him up to fail in two significant ways: failing to find an alternative to the backstop and failing to manage a trouble-free No Deal Brexit. I can see the very short-term advantages of Oomph and Can Do as a means of rallying support, but medium term (ie, six months from here in February/March 2020) I just don’t see how it works. He can’t be so stupid as to have nothing up his sleeves. Can he? Or am I missing something?
There's no evidence of a Plan B. I don't think you are missing anything
The fires in the Amazon in Brazil and neighbouring countries as plotted on a chart on Sky news are frightening
I do not normally comment on climate change but like Brexit I accept the science but are more moderate in how we adapt over the next few decades
However, the Amazonian fires are a reminder to everyone to treat our planet and all those living on it, including all animals, with respect and concern and I am pleased Macron is raising it at the G7 this weekend
Trump likely survives and primary challenge but a conservative like Walsh could cause him a few problems
The thing is Trump does not fit into the Republican mould at all. About the only common point is the desire to reduce taxes. Trump has a lot of support from people who vote republican but probably the majority of people who voted for Trump in the 2016 Election did so because he was the Republican on the ticket.
So how did Trump get to be nomiated the last time? Well the establishment candidates were all fighting it out between themselves and Trump with his anti-establishment republicanism was consistently coming 1st or second. by the rime it was down to just 2 candidates he was the front runner and Cruz eventually dropped out.
The danger to Trump is if there is exactly one other contender, whom the "Establishment Republicans" can unite behind. If one contender encourages others to throw their hat in the ring then I would expect Trump to be nominated again.
Its not something the EU wants allegedly, its not something the UK wants either, so why are the EU insisting upon it?
If you haven't worked this out after a million gazillion comments there's probably some kind of cognitive block somewhere and I'm not sure one more is going to help, but here goes.
The UK wants its to set its own laws and standards independently. However it also doesn't want a hard border.
Usually when you have two countries with different laws and standards you have a border to stop people bringing in things that are legal in one country and illegal in another. So if you don't want a border, you have to give up the ability to set laws and standards independently, as EU countries do.
The UK says it can work out clever ways to avoid the need for this, but it's vague about the practical details, and the EU side isn't convinced they really can or will. They've probably long suspected that the actual goal is to try to force Ireland to diverge from the EU, align its regulations with the UK and increase the impact of its border with the EU, which someone on the UK side recently blurted out.
So the EU's order of preference is: 1) Clever vague thing the British say they can do really working 2) Align NI, border in the Irish Sea 3) Align NI+UK 4) None of this, resulting in an adminstrative clusterfuck and/or Irish divergence from the EU
Hard border probably comes in above or below (4), depending who in the EU we're talking about.
The WA says: * Do (1) if you can produce something workable, with independent arbitration if you say your plans are workable and we say they're not * Failing that, since the DUP nixed (2), (3)
This isn't particularly ungenerous to the UK, IMHO.
You didn’t answer my question on why a post No Deal backstop is logical
You said the EU will insist on it (which I agree is possible - it is certainly what they are saying at the moment)
But why is it logical
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
It's not up to the UK to say what the EU and Ireland's negotiating priorities should be, as it affects them, any more than they should do to us. The UK government needs to realise the Backstop is the reddest of EU red lines and deal with it to its best advantage or least disadvantage.
But if we on this forum aim to take a more detached view, I would say Ireland is correct that on balance it's better for Northern Ireland to have an enforced sea border than a land border should the UK as a whole diverge from the EU. For practical reasons and reasons of visibility - there are ferry controls already on the sea border. Neither border might desirable - I would argue that - but if the UK is going to create a de facto hard border with the EU through divergence, it's better for Northern Ireland if it's the sea border. People in Northern Ireland agree with me, by a big margin.
If the backstop is the EU's reddest of red lines and democracy is the UK's reddest of red lines the No Deal is the only option remaining.
I'm not convinced clusterfuck is a UK red line. It might be an outcome that's looking ever more likely, but not a red line.
Redwood even voted against the Brady amendment which got a Commons majority, Boris does not need him
No-one needs Redwood in the sense of his being of any use for anything. He's always been just grit in life's Vaseline.
Redwood has always been a diehard No Dealer, he along with the likes of Chope refused to even vote for the Brady amendment which passed the Commons by 317 votes to 301.
Yet Boris is right to stick to trying to get the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which passed the Commons unlike the Withdrawal Agreement as is which was voted down by the Commons 3 times.
The Brady amendment is the only Brexit option to have passed the Commons with EUref2 and revoke also being voted down by the Commons in the indicative votes
There were a number of Tory MPs who voted “for” the Brady amendment whilst holding opinions no different to Redwood. They did so to waste time in the belief that it increased the chances of no deal on March 31st. Your assumption that they would replicate their vote in the unlikely event that such a backstopless WA was actually agreed needs some scepticism and challenge.
You didn’t answer my question on why a post No Deal backstop is logical
You said the EU will insist on it (which I agree is possible - it is certainly what they are saying at the moment)
But why is it logical
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
It's not up to the UK to say what the EU and Ireland's negotiating priorities should be, as it affects them, any more than they should do to us. The UK government needs to realise the Backstop is the reddest of EU red lines and deal with it to its best advantage or least disadvantage.
But if we on this forum aim to take a more detached view, I would say Ireland is correct that on balance it's better for Northern Ireland to have an enforced sea border than a land border should the UK as a whole diverge from the EU. For practical reasons and reasons of visibility - there are ferry controls already on the sea border. Neither border might desirable - I would argue that - but if the UK is going to create a de facto hard border with the EU through divergence, it's better for Northern Ireland if it's the sea border. People in Northern Ireland agree with me, by a big margin.
If the backstop is the EU's reddest of red lines and democracy is the UK's reddest of red lines the No Deal is the only option remaining.
If democracy were a UK red line, it wouldn’t execute No Deal without a mandate.
It will be executed by our elected government, entirely appropriate. A future elected government can seek to reverse it, entirely appropriate.
A future government cannot reverse a no deal Brexit.
A future Gov't can apply for EU membership, same as any other 3rd country in the European orbit. Whether they will (Probably only the Lib Dems will) or not is another matter.
Trump likely survives and primary challenge but a conservative like Walsh could cause him a few problems
The thing is Trump does not fit into the Republican mould at all. About the only common point is the desire to reduce taxes. Trump has a lot of support from people who vote republican but probably the majority of people who voted for Trump in the 2016 Election did so because he was the Republican on the ticket.
So how did Trump get to be nomiated the last time? Well the establishment candidates were all fighting it out between themselves and Trump with his anti-establishment republicanism was consistently coming 1st or second. by the rime it was down to just 2 candidates he was the front runner and Cruz eventually dropped out.
The danger to Trump is if there is exactly one other contender, whom the "Establishment Republicans" can unite behind. If one contender encourages others to throw their hat in the ring then I would expect Trump to be nominated again.
The problem is 'establishment Republicans' are like Remainers in the Tory Party now, only a small minority of the party's primary voters or party membership, indeed many establishment Republicans voted for Hillary or Libertarian or abstained in 2016 just as a number of diehard Tory Remainers voted LD in the European Parliament elections and have lapsed their membership after Boris was elected.
Remember Trump and Cruz combined got almost 70% of the Republican primary vote in 2016 as Boris did in the Tory membership vote this summer
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Of course the UK is a democracy, I don't dispute that it is. We have the right to elect MPs/MSPs/MEPs etc as relevant to any Parliament that sets our laws. Under the backstop that will no longer be the case though, we won't have MEPs but will still be subject to its laws.
I do believe it to be a fundamental human right. All free adult citizens should have the right without qualification. If we are in the backstop and subject to European Parliament laws how do we vote for MEPs for that?
Suella Braverman on R4 saying she had no objection to a transition period in the event of a marvellous, detail free deal from BJ being accepted by the EU. Fingers are twitching in preparation for that hand brake turn.
After battering the backstop for cleaving one part of the UK from the rest, she then managed to see no contradiction in Priti Patel's statement that in the event of no deal, FOM would end on 31st Oct while the CTA would remain in place allowing the whole population of Eastern Europe to decamp to that part of the UK via Dublin.
One of the interesting things I wonder how people who laud the Osborne debt management defend. Specifically:
"So far, the outstanding cost of university tuition loans has added £105bn – around 5 per cent of GDP – to the UK’s debt. By the 2040s, according to Department for Education forecasts, it will have added £460bn, or nearly 12 per cent of GDP. The Office for Budget Responsibility projects that it will remain at above 10 per cent of GDP for decades thereafter.
With low interest rates, such a mountain of debt is manageable. When rates rise, that will change. The precise cost to government may also be underestimated. If university education turns out to be less useful than expected, the IFS points out, and future graduate earnings are even slightly lower than forecast, the taxpayer’s tab will rise rapidly. That seems plausible. In 2011, the government projected that it would end up paying for 30 per cent of the student loan book. That rate has since risen five times. It is now estimated at 54 per cent."
the whole system is flawed and a ticking time bomb.
Millenials are due to end up paying for their degrees twice. Once when taxed as a loan and then again when the writeoffs are sent back to the taxpayer, which in 20 years time will be their generation again.
The UK is a democracy and has been for decades. You do not believe voting is a fundamental human right. Like me, you believe that it should be a right subject to qualification.
Of course the UK is a democracy, I don't dispute that it is. We have the right to elect MPs/MSPs/MEPs etc as relevant to any Parliament that sets our laws. Under the backstop that will no longer be the case though, we won't have MEPs but will still be subject to its laws.
I do believe it to be a fundamental human right. All free adult citizens should have the right without qualification. If we are in the backstop and subject to European Parliament laws how do we vote for MEPs for that?
It really is bizarre, Johnson and his adoring newspapers are setting him up to fail in two significant ways: failing to find an alternative to the backstop and failing to manage a trouble-free No Deal Brexit. I can see the very short-term advantages of Oomph and Can Do as a means of rallying support, but medium term (ie, six months from here in February/March 2020) I just don’t see how it works. He can’t be so stupid as to have nothing up his sleeves. Can he? Or am I missing something?
There's no evidence of a Plan B. I don't think you are missing anything
I think he reckons that if he can be popular for a while and win an election with a good majority, other matters will play out one way or another. He'll be PM for 5 years, what's the problem? Not worth pondering the details, he'll feel, no doubt something will turn up.
Comments
If Walsh does run then you'd imagine that would open the floodgates for more mainstream Republicans to enter the race.
Hold on he is 800/960 there. Which makes his nomination odds around 400-1 surely ?
I'm not laying 960 but still.
Which seems to be working. Tory rebels have decided they don't need to rebel just yet.
The glowing headlines are a bonus.
Kasich would be interesting, and Romney might have one last run at it.
You mentioned Antrim as leading the resistance against the English pre the Protestant settlement
To some extent that is true but it was because the Earl of Tyrone was a devious and untrustworthy little shit rather than any “nationalistic sense” with a meaningful read across to today
From "Britain Elects"
Rokeby & Overslade (Rugby) result:
LDEM: 56.1% (-7.0)
CON: 20.2% (+1.8)
LAB: 9.6% (-8.8)
BREX: 9.5% (+9.5)
GRN: 4.6% (+4.6)
Liberal Democrat HOLD.
I wish it was. It would make the campaign so much more interesting.
'My Maserati does 185
I lost my licence, now I don't drive...'
Anyhow nearly 60% of the vote is good in anyone’s book.
(https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/south-carolina-gop-could-scrap-2020-primary-to-protect-trump and https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/kansas-gop-likely-to-cancel-2020-caucus-not-as-needed-when-you-have-one-candidate)
You also need to remember that Trump has 80-90% approval within the party. That may be because many who dislike Trump but used to be members have since left the party, but it is also because the GOP is a completely crazy political party with no redeemable features. Trump is the symptom, not the cause. Pence or Cruz would be doing a lot of similar stuff as POTUS, just without the stupid gaffes and rhetoric. Arguably Trump only won because Americans thought he was moderate for the GOP in 2016: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-think-trump-has-moved-to-the-right/
There may be some money to be made on the shift in price if he does dive in. But I rather question whether that is likely (he's a radio host and it could well be a bit of PR to suggest he'll enter - doing so is more complex).
And if he does, will the price tighten all that much? You can get 50-1 on Booker and 100-1 on Klobucher for Democrat nominee... they ARE running and , while they are relative outsiders, they have both made the third debate qualifying threshold with relative ease, and there is a credible case that either of them could have a breakthrough in a fairly open race with a frontrunner who (while he has various merits) attracts nowhere near the fanatical devotion Trump does within the GOP.
Meanwhile, amusing reflection of the British commuter spirit here (read the comments too). Very un-American, I fear.
https://twitter.com/jamesorharry/status/1164440271607795712
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1164794108268830725?s=21
FPT
You didn’t answer my question on why a post No Deal backstop is logical
You said the EU will insist on it (which I agree is possible - it is certainly what they are saying at the moment)
But why is it logical
It means “we enter a negotiation but if we can’t agree then you give us everything we want”. That doesn’t seem like a basis for discussion
https://rochdaleherald.co.uk/2019/08/21/denmark-buy-america-from-russia/?utm_source=Rochdale+Herald+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ac7582bcbb-The+Rochdale+Herald+Editor's+Picks&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c6eebb6843-ac7582bcbb-57803737&goal=0_c6eebb6843-ac7582bcbb-57803737&mc_cid=ac7582bcbb&mc_eid=699051b253
They will because it compromises their Single Market otherwise, which is why they're so desperate to nail us down now. We don't need to care about that though.
https://twitter.com/michelbarnier/status/1104052380088393733?s=21
I got up early today and went for a sunrise walk around Durham. My goodness, it's a beautiful place.
There must be NO backstop. What part of that are you struggling to comprehend? The backstop is undemocratic and unacceptable.
Its tragic in the 21st century that so many here are willing to throw it away so lightly.
Voting for the Parliament that sets your laws?
How bizarre (!)
One of the interesting things I wonder how people who laud the Osborne debt management defend. Specifically:
"So far, the outstanding cost of university tuition loans has added £105bn – around 5 per cent of GDP – to the UK’s debt. By the 2040s, according to Department for Education forecasts, it will have added £460bn, or nearly 12 per cent of GDP. The Office for Budget Responsibility projects that it will remain at above 10 per cent of GDP for decades thereafter.
With low interest rates, such a mountain of debt is manageable. When rates rise, that will change. The precise cost to government may also be underestimated. If university education turns out to be less useful than expected, the IFS points out, and future graduate earnings are even slightly lower than forecast, the taxpayer’s tab will rise rapidly. That seems plausible. In 2011, the government projected that it would end up paying for 30 per cent of the student loan book. That rate has since risen five times. It is now estimated at 54 per cent."
Your understanding of the backstop is beyond flawed.
If the EU agree to a technical solution for the Irish border great for Boris, if not Boris will go to No Deal on 31st October showing floating voters No Deal was his last resort to ensure Bexit.
It is win win for Boris
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1164787651280457729?s=21
I don't believe any free adult citizens should not have the vote.
Nevertheless I agree with the general position that Bozo is getting his widely expected honeymoon and people are trusting him, at the moment, to deliver on his extravagant promises. The honeymoon itself is no longer gathering speed; people are watching and waiting.
But if we on this forum aim to take a more detached view, I would say Ireland is correct that on balance it's better for
Northern Ireland to have an enforced sea border than a land border should the UK as a whole diverge from the EU. For practical reasons and reasons of visibility - there are ferry controls already on the sea border. Neither border might desirable - I would argue that - but if the UK is going to create a de facto hard border with the EU through divergence, it's better for Northern Ireland if it's the sea border. People in Northern Ireland agree with me, by a big margin.
State x voters get to vote, state y voters get to vote. If the elected representatives of state y refuse a deal there is no deal, state x's government will need to make state y want a deal.
No I do not believe that 52% can remove the voting rights for the 48%, which is why the backstop is unacceptable to me even if a majority of NI backs it.
Leaving the EU may remove rights you currently have but it doesn't remove any fundamental rights. You maintain [unless the backstop goes ahead] the right to set the laws that apply to you etc, etc, etc same as free citizens of any free country.
Even East Ham is not without its charm on a fine sunny morning. The group of drunks down by the War Memorial looked almost serene as I walked past on my way to get the Racing Post for day 3 of the Ebor meeting. I fancy BATTAASH to lay his York demons and beat TEN SOVEREIGNS in the Nunthorpe but I'm not getting involved financially.
The different interpretations and spin put on the Prime Minister's visit to Paris illustrate the deep and damaging polarisation of opinion and expectation. I'm no fan of Johnson but he's certainly keeping himself in trim rushing around doing this and meeting that but all new Prime Ministers are the same - it's almost a rite of passage to visit the extremities of the UK in the first week (just in case people in Truro and Stornaway hadn't heard we had a new PM - it's like something out of the 18th Century) and then to look busy on the world stage (May did exactly the same so the more things change, the more they do stay the same).
Interesting to see the Redwood tweet that the backstop isn't the only thing wrong with the WA and it's been an enormous red herring that resolving the backstop issue will somehow make the WA palatable to all. The only Deal in town is No Deal and so the political manoeuvring will now begin - Boris will want his election and his majority in the bag either before 31/10 or before the impacts of No Deal reach the public or he will have to hope his preservation will be confirmed by the disunity of his opponents on which many PMs in the past have also relied.
If they don't apply to you then not voting in European elections will be as rational as not voting in US Federal elections - are you upset you can't vote in their elections?
I want you to not be subject to the European Parliament. The issue with the backstop is that you will be subject to the Parliament but not get the right to vote in those elections. That I object to. That is undemocratic and unacceptable. Make sense yet?
https://twitter.com/MailOnline/status/1164663794402041862?s=20
If democracy is NOT getting what you want all the time than a reversal of Brexit is not undemocratic if proved untenable, especially if the Brexit That Was Promised is not the Brexit we're getting.
What is the difference between a right and a fundamental right?
Yet Boris is right to stick to trying to get the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop which passed the Commons unlike the Withdrawal Agreement as is which was voted down by the Commons 3 times.
The Brady amendment is the only Brexit option to have passed the Commons with EUref2 and revoke also being voted down by the Commons in the indicative votes
Amazing article in the NS - who rightly attack academia, academics, education as big business, politicians, money led systems, anti-intellectualism, students and immoral wishful thinking in equal measure.
The fires in the Amazon in Brazil and neighbouring countries as plotted on a chart on Sky news are frightening
I do not normally comment on climate change but like Brexit I accept the science but are more moderate in how we adapt over the next few decades
However, the Amazonian fires are a reminder to everyone to treat our planet and all those living on it, including all animals, with respect and concern and I am pleased Macron is raising it at the G7 this weekend
So how did Trump get to be nomiated the last time? Well the establishment candidates were all fighting it out between themselves and Trump with his anti-establishment republicanism was consistently coming 1st or second. by the rime it was down to just 2 candidates he was the front runner and Cruz eventually dropped out.
The danger to Trump is if there is exactly one other contender, whom the
"Establishment Republicans" can unite behind. If one contender encourages others to throw their hat in the ring then I would expect Trump to be nominated again.
The UK wants its to set its own laws and standards independently. However it also doesn't want a hard border.
Usually when you have two countries with different laws and standards you have a border to stop people bringing in things that are legal in one country and illegal in another. So if you don't want a border, you have to give up the ability to set laws and standards independently, as EU countries do.
The UK says it can work out clever ways to avoid the need for this, but it's vague about the practical details, and the EU side isn't convinced they really can or will. They've probably long suspected that the actual goal is to try to force Ireland to diverge from the EU, align its regulations with the UK and increase the impact of its border with the EU, which someone on the UK side recently blurted out.
So the EU's order of preference is:
1) Clever vague thing the British say they can do really working
2) Align NI, border in the Irish Sea
3) Align NI+UK
4) None of this, resulting in an adminstrative clusterfuck and/or Irish divergence from the EU
Hard border probably comes in above or below (4), depending who in the EU we're talking about.
The WA says:
* Do (1) if you can produce something workable, with independent arbitration if you say your plans are workable and we say they're not
* Failing that, since the DUP nixed (2), (3)
This isn't particularly ungenerous to the UK, IMHO.
Remember Trump and Cruz combined got almost 70% of the Republican primary vote in 2016 as Boris did in the Tory membership vote this summer
I do believe it to be a fundamental human right. All free adult citizens should have the right without qualification. If we are in the backstop and subject to European Parliament laws how do we vote for MEPs for that?
After battering the backstop for cleaving one part of the UK from the rest, she then managed to see no contradiction in Priti Patel's statement that in the event of no deal, FOM would end on 31st Oct while the CTA would remain in place allowing the whole population of Eastern Europe to decamp to that part of the UK via Dublin.
Brexiteers, eh?
Millenials are due to end up paying for their degrees twice. Once when taxed as a loan and then again when the writeoffs are sent back to the taxpayer, which in 20 years time will be their generation again.
We do not elect judges. They also set our laws.