Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Once again political gamblers have been overstating the chance

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Once again political gamblers have been overstating the chances of an early general election

Chart via the betdata.io

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,770
    First.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482
    It seemed nailed on, I dont know how the politicians have managed to avoid one.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,988
    Another Douglas.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482
    On the prorogation case, I've not been able to follow the latest, but given a QS is a legitimate purpose, if its unlawful because of other purposes, does that mean the PM is not allowed to have a QS even though that is a legitimate reason? How do they separate out the legitimate reason from the illegitimate? Length alone?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,358
    edited September 2019
    "for it shall come into operation."

    That sounds rather biblical...

    And I like the idea of referring to inexperienced gamblers as puntets.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890
    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    MPs are reluctant to give voters the chance to cast their verdict on their performance- unsurprisingly..
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,358
    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    One might add that the powers of the sovereign were rather different back in 1948, let alone 1930.
  • Mr. B, puntigulae?

    I think a caligula was a small military sandal, a caliga was a medium, and a caligone was a big one (I stand to be corrected).

    We could have puntigula, puntiga, and puntigone.
    Or puntula, punta, puntone.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,358
    White collar on a patterned shirt, too.
    That Keen is a dodgy lawyer.
  • kle4 said:

    It seemed nailed on, I dont know how the politicians have managed to avoid one.

    I guess it is rarely in the interests of both main parties to have an election. Until recently it was not in the interests of the Tories, now it is not in the interests of Labour. A sweet spot that suits both is perhaps harder to find than people expected.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,358
    edited September 2019

    Mr. B, puntigulae?

    I think a caligula was a small military sandal, a caliga was a medium, and a caligone was a big one (I stand to be corrected).

    We could have puntigula, puntiga, and puntigone.
    Or puntula, punta, puntone.

    I was referring to OGH's delightful neologism:
    Clearly from the betting quite a lot of puntets are not fully aware of the implications of this...

    And though 'punt' can be traced back to a Latin root, 'punter' is very definitely of English origin, so I'm afraid your potentially useful Latinate inventions aren't quite appropriate.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    I braved the Swinson speech as long as I could but alas I'm out
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824
    Those who followed me into laying September, then October, and also 2022 should (hopefully, in respect of the latter) be looking at a nice profit.
  • Thank goodness.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,275

    I braved the Swinson speech as long as I could but alas I'm out

    I'm dipping in and out of it waiting for the punch line.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Barnesian said:

    I braved the Swinson speech as long as I could but alas I'm out

    I'm dipping in and out of it waiting for the punch line.
    Its terribly earnest. In that hectoring way. Shes gone full sandalista
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,562

    I braved the Swinson speech as long as I could but alas I'm out

    Listening in, had a quick look on the video stream too. I'd really like to be enthused by the LDs, given the current other options, but somehow it just isn't happening. Trying too hard, sounds fake, like Ed Miliband (I don't think he's fake, but I think he looked fake trying to be someone he wasn't).

    Still probably vote for them though, as a least bad option.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028
    edited September 2019
    Interesting that she's framing the narrative on the open/closed axis.

    It's a gamble. She's betting on this being the new reality, not the old left/right economic axis. It might not work, but if she pulls it off ... it makes permanent the splits in Labour and Tory parties opened by Brexit.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,562
    Intentional pun - trucks and media 'pick-up'? If so, bravo, Maybe the pick-up's delayed as it doesn't have the right paperwork.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,358
    Barnesian said:

    I braved the Swinson speech as long as I could but alas I'm out

    I'm dipping in and out of it waiting for the punch line.
    The still picture on the Guardian page does make her look as though she's appearing in an amateur production of Mamma Mia...
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/17/jo-swinson-urges-lib-dems-to-fight-populists-for-heart-and-soul-of-britain-brexit
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,358

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,562
    Selebian said:

    I braved the Swinson speech as long as I could but alas I'm out

    Listening in, had a quick look on the video stream too. I'd really like to be enthused by the LDs, given the current other options, but somehow it just isn't happening. Trying too hard, sounds fake, like Ed Miliband (I don't think he's fake, but I think he looked fake trying to be someone he wasn't).

    Still probably vote for them though, as a least bad option.
    On the video, there were close ups of Berger and Umunna, both nodding along, smiling and loking like idiots - not their fault, must be horrible being an MP at your leader's conference speech, you have to try and look interested and approving the whole time!

    At least the cameras seemed to be leaving Ed Davey alone.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,358
    Selebian said:

    I braved the Swinson speech as long as I could but alas I'm out

    Listening in, had a quick look on the video stream too. I'd really like to be enthused by the LDs, given the current other options, but somehow it just isn't happening. Trying too hard, sounds fake, like Ed Miliband (I don't think he's fake, but I think he looked fake trying to be someone he wasn't).

    Still probably vote for them though, as a least bad option.
    I think she has yet to learn how to appear good on TV and live at the same time.
    It's not an easy act to pull off.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Selebian said:

    I braved the Swinson speech as long as I could but alas I'm out

    Listening in, had a quick look on the video stream too. I'd really like to be enthused by the LDs, given the current other options, but somehow it just isn't happening. Trying too hard, sounds fake, like Ed Miliband (I don't think he's fake, but I think he looked fake trying to be someone he wasn't).

    Still probably vote for them though, as a least bad option.
    When the selling point is we are all terribly lovely and everything is just awful but being super nice will make it all better I can't relate to it politically.
    And staking out we need a grand vision like the architect of Westminster abbey did is the most cloying, ridiculous, year 10 debating society crap. Everybody believes they have vision, saying it doesn't make it somehow revolutionary.
    Ah well, when they ditch the crappy history and tradition and name (and her) and become a proper centrist alliance I'll give them another look.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,275

    Barnesian said:

    I braved the Swinson speech as long as I could but alas I'm out

    I'm dipping in and out of it waiting for the punch line.
    Its terribly earnest. In that hectoring way. Shes gone full sandalista
    I think you have to be there!
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,426
    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    I can give a counter example where plenty of people were charged with smoking in a London Underground station but it took a long time before somone went before the a court for it. The precedent (of not pressing charges) did not change the legal status. Most (early) cases were where there was an incident with the police were involved and made an arrest. The police has an interest in recording as many crimes as possible such as actual bodily harm, criminal damage, resisting arrest and smoking in the underground. They do this because they know who commited the crime and so gets recorded as 4 different detected crimes for the purposes of the published detected crime rates.

    I know someone who was arrested by the police in 1989 or 90 for a scuffle with the police in a tube station entrance. (He reckoned the police started it, I'm not so sure). His solicitor said straightaway, they won't press charges for the smoking as no one had yet been sucessfuly prosecuted for it. The solicitor was right, the other charges were brought before the court, but not the smoking charge.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824
    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I was pleasantly surprised to find yesterday that the US speed limit rises to 80mph once out on the prairie, which means that going up to 90mph is common and relatively risk free. Unlike every other day driving further east, I didn’t see a single patrol car all day and any parked in their customary spot between the lanes would have been visible from miles away given the terrain.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Selebian said:

    I braved the Swinson speech as long as I could but alas I'm out

    Listening in, had a quick look on the video stream too. I'd really like to be enthused by the LDs, given the current other options, but somehow it just isn't happening. Trying too hard, sounds fake, like Ed Miliband (I don't think he's fake, but I think he looked fake trying to be someone he wasn't).

    Still probably vote for them though, as a least bad option.
    When the selling point is we are all terribly lovely and everything is just awful but being super nice will make it all better I can't relate to it politically.
    And staking out we need a grand vision like the architect of Westminster abbey did is the most cloying, ridiculous, year 10 debating society crap. Everybody believes they have vision, saying it doesn't make it somehow revolutionary.
    Ah well, when they ditch the crappy history and tradition and name (and her) and become a proper centrist alliance I'll give them another look.
    Give me that ahead of a Tory stamping on my face forever.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    I braved the Swinson speech as long as I could but alas I'm out

    I'm dipping in and out of it waiting for the punch line.
    Its terribly earnest. In that hectoring way. Shes gone full sandalista
    I think you have to be there!
    Its going to end in a massive hug fest.
  • And most drivers don't even know what the right paperwork is, let alone how to get hold of it (veterinary certificates for animals for example).
  • Swinson has today ruled out propping up either a Johnson or a Corbyn government in a future hung parliament.

    Could she then follow through by tabling a VONC against a Johnson led government whenever parliament resumes, if Corbyn fails to do so?

    And if it resumes with Corbyn not Johnson as PM, will she support a VONC that the Conservatives bring against Corbyn?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,487
    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890
    "The legal limits on the power of the executive are set by Parliament and not by the courts."

    That seems a rather reckless argument, which could be defeated by a single example of the courts ruling against the executive without explicit statutory authority.

    Wouldn't the Gina Miller judgment be such an example? If not, what was the statute that the court invoked?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,697
    edited September 2019
    Seriously, how many times do you think professional transport companies will turn up at a port without the documentation in place?

    Alternatively, companies running their own transport fleets are going to let vehicles go without the right paperwork? Once or twice.

    Madness to propagate the thought that our business community is stupid enough to send lorries and goods to a port without having required clearances. Sure small companies / individuals may make some cock ups, but I really do not have confidence that our entire road transport industry is completely negligent.

    I would think there are other far more likely Brexit disasters. If these tailbacks don't materialise, what a success Brexit has been. Expectations management for after the event is important for both sides.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    What speed do you have to be going at before a GATSO can't capture you twice on the scale markings?
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028

    Swinson has today ruled out propping up either a Johnson or a Corbyn government in a future hung parliament.

    Could she then follow through by tabling a VONC against a Johnson led government whenever parliament resumes, if Corbyn fails to do so?

    And if it resumes with Corbyn not Johnson as PM, will she support a VONC that the Conservatives bring against Corbyn?

    Johnson and Corbyn could coalesce (?) with each other.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Who knew being rude and petty would harm diplomacy?!
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,562
    Nigelb said:

    Selebian said:

    I braved the Swinson speech as long as I could but alas I'm out

    Listening in, had a quick look on the video stream too. I'd really like to be enthused by the LDs, given the current other options, but somehow it just isn't happening. Trying too hard, sounds fake, like Ed Miliband (I don't think he's fake, but I think he looked fake trying to be someone he wasn't).

    Still probably vote for them though, as a least bad option.
    I think she has yet to learn how to appear good on TV and live at the same time.
    It's not an easy act to pull off.
    Maybe. I wonder how much it can be learned and how much it's have it/don't have it.

    Different thing, but Lineker was awful when he started fronting MoTD, but grew into it. With politicians - May never had it, Cameron did, Kennedy did, Blair did, Johnson probably does (in a conference setting). I'm not old enough to remember early Thatcher - did she improve over time?

    Only political obsessives like us listen to conference speeches anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter. Performing in a debate is more important now.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047
    Tabman said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    What speed do you have to be going at before a GATSO can't capture you twice on the scale markings?
    I think it is around 140 mph.

    I read that. Rather than got away with it.

    (Although I did once get found Not Guilty by the magistrates despite having peaded guilty....)

  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,697
    edited September 2019
    Selebian said:

    Nigelb said:

    Selebian said:

    I braved the Swinson speech as long as I could but alas I'm out

    Listening in, had a quick look on the video stream too. I'd really like to be enthused by the LDs, given the current other options, but somehow it just isn't happening. Trying too hard, sounds fake, like Ed Miliband (I don't think he's fake, but I think he looked fake trying to be someone he wasn't).

    Still probably vote for them though, as a least bad option.
    I think she has yet to learn how to appear good on TV and live at the same time.
    It's not an easy act to pull off.
    Maybe. I wonder how much it can be learned and how much it's have it/don't have it.

    Different thing, but Lineker was awful when he started fronting MoTD, but grew into it. With politicians - May never had it, Cameron did, Kennedy did, Blair did, Johnson probably does (in a conference setting). I'm not old enough to remember early Thatcher - did she improve over time?

    Only political obsessives like us listen to conference speeches anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter. Performing in a debate is more important now.
    Thatcher improved her performances, peaked and then declined a good while prior to her resignation.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    It's nine o'clock on a Saturday...
  • Swinson has today ruled out propping up either a Johnson or a Corbyn government in a future hung parliament.

    Could she then follow through by tabling a VONC against a Johnson led government whenever parliament resumes, if Corbyn fails to do so?

    Yes but the Speaker is unlikely to call it forward for debate. Only confidence motions tabled by the LOTO get priority - Cable tabled a VONC a few months ago but it was not debated.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,487
    Tabman said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    What speed do you have to be going at before a GATSO can't capture you twice on the scale markings?
    Rumour has it that none of the current enforcement technology is consistently accurate above 180mph but the OB is tight lipped about it. 90% of the time, in my experience, the cops are fat lazy thick twats who depend on the gullible to admit it rather than rely on evidence from ill maintained and calibrated technology which can often be successfully challenged in court.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Who knew being rude and petty would harm diplomacy?!
    Didn't Boris refer to the EU as Nazis?
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    I was driving during most of Jo Swinson's speech and didn't think it sounded great on radio but it came across a lot better when I put the TV on.

    It'll be surely be the most positive Liberal Democrat conference in years and that's all that matters.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Re Dover - 95% of containers exported from the ROI go to or through the Uk.

    A blocked Dover stuffs Ireland.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,426
    philiph said:

    Selebian said:

    Nigelb said:

    Selebian said:

    I braved the Swinson speech as long as I could but alas I'm out

    Listening in, had a quick look on the video stream too. I'd really like to be enthused by the LDs, given the current other options, but somehow it just isn't happening. Trying too hard, sounds fake, like Ed Miliband (I don't think he's fake, but I think he looked fake trying to be someone he wasn't).

    Still probably vote for them though, as a least bad option.
    I think she has yet to learn how to appear good on TV and live at the same time.
    It's not an easy act to pull off.
    Maybe. I wonder how much it can be learned and how much it's have it/don't have it.

    Different thing, but Lineker was awful when he started fronting MoTD, but grew into it. With politicians - May never had it, Cameron did, Kennedy did, Blair did, Johnson probably does (in a conference setting). I'm not old enough to remember early Thatcher - did she improve over time?

    Only political obsessives like us listen to conference speeches anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter. Performing in a debate is more important now.
    Thatcher improved her performances, peaked and then declined a good while prior to her resignation.
    Thatcher famously took voice training in her early years as PM.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,826
    philiph said:

    Seriously, how many times do you think professional transport companies will turn up at a port without the documentation in place?

    Alternatively, companies running their own transport fleets are going to let vehicles go without the right paperwork? Once or twice.

    Madness to propagate the thought that our business community is stupid enough to send lorries and goods to a port without having required clearances. Sure small companies / individuals may make some cock ups, but I really do not have confidence that our entire road transport industry is completely negligent.

    I would think there are other far more likely Brexit disasters. If these tailbacks don't materialise, what a success Brexit has been. Expectations management for after the event is important for both sides.
    Even if the paperwork was perfect it’s perfectly possible that people could be sent away as the person checking it says it isn’t or Form 84c is now superseded by Form 84d
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469

    Swinson has today ruled out propping up either a Johnson or a Corbyn government in a future hung parliament.

    Could she then follow through by tabling a VONC against a Johnson led government whenever parliament resumes, if Corbyn fails to do so?

    And if it resumes with Corbyn not Johnson as PM, will she support a VONC that the Conservatives bring against Corbyn?

    My understanding is that the government has to allow a VoNC moved by the LotO the following day. I am not sure the government has to treat such a motion by others in a similar manner.
    Of course, in the current climate, Alexander Johnson may ignore any VoNC completely. What does the law say ? Probably completely silent.
  • Noo said:

    Who knew being rude and petty would harm diplomacy?!
    Didn't Boris refer to the EU as Nazis?
    As Prime Minister? We are talking Prime Ministers after all...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,358
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    I sincerely apologise for misrepresenting your record.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
    Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,697
    edited September 2019
    eek said:

    philiph said:

    Seriously, how many times do you think professional transport companies will turn up at a port without the documentation in place?

    Alternatively, companies running their own transport fleets are going to let vehicles go without the right paperwork? Once or twice.

    Madness to propagate the thought that our business community is stupid enough to send lorries and goods to a port without having required clearances. Sure small companies / individuals may make some cock ups, but I really do not have confidence that our entire road transport industry is completely negligent.

    I would think there are other far more likely Brexit disasters. If these tailbacks don't materialise, what a success Brexit has been. Expectations management for after the event is important for both sides.
    Even if the paperwork was perfect it’s perfectly possible that people could be sent away as the person checking it says it isn’t or Form 84c is now superseded by Form 84d
    Which is equally possible now. Intra EU trade is not form or paperless today.

    I agree the number of forms would be increased.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,826
    Dura_Ace said:

    Tabman said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    What speed do you have to be going at before a GATSO can't capture you twice on the scale markings?
    Rumour has it that none of the current enforcement technology is consistently accurate above 180mph but the OB is tight lipped about it. 90% of the time, in my experience, the cops are fat lazy thick twats who depend on the gullible to admit it rather than rely on evidence from ill maintained and calibrated technology which can often be successfully challenged in court.
    Dura_Ace said:

    Tabman said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    What speed do you have to be going at before a GATSO can't capture you twice on the scale markings?
    Rumour has it that none of the current enforcement technology is consistently accurate above 180mph but the OB is tight lipped about it. 90% of the time, in my experience, the cops are fat lazy thick twats who depend on the gullible to admit it rather than rely on evidence from ill maintained and calibrated technology which can often be successfully challenged in court.
    Which is why the more clueful police forces now have a small department keeping all that information up to date and suitably trained staff to stand up in court
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,697
    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
    Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
    In my case because I go to Germany, France, Holland etc. There isn't an EU imposed speed limit. :smile:
  • Who knew being rude and petty would harm diplomacy?!
    Was that Mark Francois perhaps?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,006
    Fenster said:

    I was driving during most of Jo Swinson's speech and didn't think it sounded great on radio but it came across a lot better when I put the TV on.

    It'll be surely be the most positive Liberal Democrat conference in years and that's all that matters.

    Yes, as has been reported elsewhere, the mood in the Party is currently buoyant and rightly so.

    The Brexit policy, despite its misrepresentations by those not well disposed, is quite clear. Revocation only if the LDs win a Parliamentary majority at the next GE, otherwise support for a second referendum and the Party would campaign to Remain and obviously will continue to work with others to prevent a No Deal A50.

    As far as the more domestic is concerned, no support for either a minority Johnson-led Conservative or Corbyn-led Labour Government (there's a nuance or too there I would say).

    Of course, if a future Government were to Revoke there would be nothing to stop a later Government with an anti-EU majority re-applying to withdraw under A50 - I'd assume that would be the post-revocation policy of the Conservatives in Opposition.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    philiph said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
    Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
    In my case because I go to Germany, France, Holland etc. There isn't an EU imposed speed limit. :smile:
    Modern technology should be able to easily identify which country you are in, the relevant speed limit, and restrict accordingly
  • Swinson has today ruled out propping up either a Johnson or a Corbyn government in a future hung parliament.

    Could she then follow through by tabling a VONC against a Johnson led government whenever parliament resumes, if Corbyn fails to do so?

    Yes but the Speaker is unlikely to call it forward for debate. Only confidence motions tabled by the LOTO get priority - Cable tabled a VONC a few months ago but it was not debated.
    No of course he wouldn't break with precedent in this case. Not even if the government indicated that it would be willing to set aside time on the order paper for the motion. Heaven forbid that he allowed the country at large to take a view on whether to keep in a job those MPs whose interests he is so keen to defend as their reputation sinks ever lower.

    However, that's not the point. The question is, would Swinson be true to her word by trying? Somehow I doubt it.

    And the more important question, is would she dare go back on her commitment even before the GE by propping up Corbyn, for all the world to see?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    edited September 2019
    eek said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Tabman said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    What speed do you have to be going at before a GATSO can't capture you twice on the scale markings?
    Rumour has it that none of the current enforcement technology is consistently accurate above 180mph but the OB is tight lipped about it. 90% of the time, in my experience, the cops are fat lazy thick twats who depend on the gullible to admit it rather than rely on evidence from ill maintained and calibrated technology which can often be successfully challenged in court.
    Which is why the more clueful police forces now have a small department keeping all that information up to date and suitably trained staff to stand up in court
    It's all strict liability, most of the get outs seem to focus on

    a) Having the shits - I reckon if this had been a lay person and not Ferguson/Ferrari? using that excuse the magistrate would rightly have chucked it out.
    b) Desperately needing your car more than anyone else - "Once found guilty with 12 pts.. "exceptional hardship m'lud"
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890
    Chris said:

    "The legal limits on the power of the executive are set by Parliament and not by the courts."

    That seems a rather reckless argument, which could be defeated by a single example of the courts ruling against the executive without explicit statutory authority.

    Wouldn't the Gina Miller judgment be such an example? If not, what was the statute that the court invoked?

    That wasn't a rhetorical question.

    If the government's argument now is that the courts can't limit the executive's power without explicit statutory authority, what was the statutory authority in the Gina Miller case?

    Lord Keen is arguing before the same court that made the Gina Miller judgment.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,697
    isam said:

    philiph said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
    Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
    In my case because I go to Germany, France, Holland etc. There isn't an EU imposed speed limit. :smile:
    Modern technology should be able to easily identify which country you are in, the relevant speed limit, and restrict accordingly
    It should be able to (although my inbuilt satnav dies on the German border and Poland is not mapped).
  • philiph said:

    isam said:

    philiph said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
    Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
    In my case because I go to Germany, France, Holland etc. There isn't an EU imposed speed limit. :smile:
    Modern technology should be able to easily identify which country you are in, the relevant speed limit, and restrict accordingly
    It should be able to (although my inbuilt satnav dies on the German border and Poland is not mapped).
    If only the Wehrmacht had those in their Tanks at the start of WW2
  • Swinson has today ruled out propping up either a Johnson or a Corbyn government in a future hung parliament.

    Could she then follow through by tabling a VONC against a Johnson led government whenever parliament resumes, if Corbyn fails to do so?

    Yes but the Speaker is unlikely to call it forward for debate. Only confidence motions tabled by the LOTO get priority - Cable tabled a VONC a few months ago but it was not debated.
    No of course he wouldn't break with precedent in this case. Not even if the government indicated that it would be willing to set aside time on the order paper for the motion. Heaven forbid that he allowed the country at large to take a view on whether to keep in a job those MPs whose interests he is so keen to defend as their reputation sinks ever lower.

    However, that's not the point. The question is, would Swinson be true to her word by trying? Somehow I doubt it.

    And the more important question, is would she dare go back on her commitment even before the GE by propping up Corbyn, for all the world to see?
    IIRC the opposition parties have said they won't do anything that could bring about a dissolution of parliament before 31 Oct so it's not likely anyone will table a VONC before then unless there is an agreement on an alternative government. Which I think would only come about if Bozo intended to defy the Benn bill and take the UK out without a deal on 31 Oct.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,697

    philiph said:

    isam said:

    philiph said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
    Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
    In my case because I go to Germany, France, Holland etc. There isn't an EU imposed speed limit. :smile:
    Modern technology should be able to easily identify which country you are in, the relevant speed limit, and restrict accordingly
    It should be able to (although my inbuilt satnav dies on the German border and Poland is not mapped).
    If only the Wehrmacht had those in their Tanks at the start of WW2
    Is the SatNav signal still able to be distorted to render them useless at times of unrest / war?
  • What do our learned friends on PB make of Lord Keen's submission? Seems like he was going hard after the Scottish Inner House judgement.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890
    They can be waved through when entering the UK, but they have to get back again afterwards!

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,487
    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
    Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
    Because not everyone wants to drive around in a fucking Invacar.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028

    philiph said:

    isam said:

    philiph said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
    Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
    In my case because I go to Germany, France, Holland etc. There isn't an EU imposed speed limit. :smile:
    Modern technology should be able to easily identify which country you are in, the relevant speed limit, and restrict accordingly
    It should be able to (although my inbuilt satnav dies on the German border and Poland is not mapped).
    If only the Wehrmacht had those in their Tanks at the start of WW2
    The current Polish border with Germany (Oder/Neisse line) was well inside Germany in September 1939.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
    I put 993 into Google translate and got Entry level Nazi penis substitute.
  • isam said:

    philiph said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
    Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
    In my case because I go to Germany, France, Holland etc. There isn't an EU imposed speed limit. :smile:
    Modern technology should be able to easily identify which country you are in, the relevant speed limit, and restrict accordingly
    My mad proposal of the day. Trackers in all cars a requirement. Develop technology to rate the driving population at the end of each month based primarily on safety, including but not only speed. Safest 10% get a months free insurance and road tax. Lowest 10% get a warning letter, lowest 1% and anyone in lowest 10% 3 months in a row get fined. Lowest 1% twice in a year get retested with a view to a ban.

    My sensible proposal for the day. Include third party insurance on petrol and then make further car insurance optional.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Dura_Ace said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
    Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
    Because not everyone wants to drive around in a fucking Invacar.
    Almost nobody want to drive around with idiots like you on the road.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    "The legal limits on the power of the executive are set by Parliament and not by the courts."

    That seems a rather reckless argument, which could be defeated by a single example of the courts ruling against the executive without explicit statutory authority.

    Wouldn't the Gina Miller judgment be such an example? If not, what was the statute that the court invoked?

    That wasn't a rhetorical question.

    If the government's argument now is that the courts can't limit the executive's power without explicit statutory authority, what was the statutory authority in the Gina Miller case?

    Lord Keen is arguing before the same court that made the Gina Miller judgment.
    The Justices split 4 (Majority)-2 (Dissent)-5 (Not present) from the Miller verdict.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    isam said:

    philiph said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
    Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
    In my case because I go to Germany, France, Holland etc. There isn't an EU imposed speed limit. :smile:
    Modern technology should be able to easily identify which country you are in, the relevant speed limit, and restrict accordingly
    My mad proposal of the day. Trackers in all cars a requirement. Develop technology to rate the driving population at the end of each month based primarily on safety, including but not only speed. Safest 10% get a months free insurance and road tax. Lowest 10% get a warning letter, lowest 1% and anyone in lowest 10% 3 months in a row get fined. Lowest 1% twice in a year get retested with a view to a ban.

    My sensible proposal for the day. Include third party insurance on petrol and then make further car insurance optional.
    What about cars that don't require petrol?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,697
    Chris said:

    They can be waved through when entering the UK, but they have to get back again afterwards!

    Which is to miss the point in its entirety.

    With the correct paperwork they will be able to get through. It would seem a stretch to think that the correct paperwork will only be for a one way journey, unless you want to tie up your £100,000 truck, trailer and driver for loads of wasted hours.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
    I put 993 into Google translate and got Entry level Nazi penis substitute.
    :D
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,626
    stodge said:

    Fenster said:

    I was driving during most of Jo Swinson's speech and didn't think it sounded great on radio but it came across a lot better when I put the TV on.

    It'll be surely be the most positive Liberal Democrat conference in years and that's all that matters.

    Yes, as has been reported elsewhere, the mood in the Party is currently buoyant and rightly so.

    The Brexit policy, despite its misrepresentations by those not well disposed, is quite clear. Revocation only if the LDs win a Parliamentary majority at the next GE, otherwise support for a second referendum and the Party would campaign to Remain and obviously will continue to work with others to prevent a No Deal A50.

    As far as the more domestic is concerned, no support for either a minority Johnson-led Conservative or Corbyn-led Labour Government (there's a nuance or too there I would say).

    Of course, if a future Government were to Revoke there would be nothing to stop a later Government with an anti-EU majority re-applying to withdraw under A50 - I'd assume that would be the post-revocation policy of the Conservatives in Opposition.
    What do you think would happen if Lab + SNP + LD is a majority, but Lab refuse to ditch Corbyn?
  • Noo said:

    isam said:

    philiph said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
    Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
    In my case because I go to Germany, France, Holland etc. There isn't an EU imposed speed limit. :smile:
    Modern technology should be able to easily identify which country you are in, the relevant speed limit, and restrict accordingly
    My mad proposal of the day. Trackers in all cars a requirement. Develop technology to rate the driving population at the end of each month based primarily on safety, including but not only speed. Safest 10% get a months free insurance and road tax. Lowest 10% get a warning letter, lowest 1% and anyone in lowest 10% 3 months in a row get fined. Lowest 1% twice in a year get retested with a view to a ban.

    My sensible proposal for the day. Include third party insurance on petrol and then make further car insurance optional.
    What about cars that don't require petrol?
    Diesel same process. If powered by green tech lets make it 3rd party insurance free to further encourage take up.
  • This "lorries won't have the right paperwork" thing seems extremely unlikely. My company like many others had a whole department preparing for Brexit on March 31st, and they reckon they were 90% ready. Now they are probably 99% ready (never going to be 100%, sure)

    Business mainly cares about business, not politics, so will be as ready as possible. Bosses might hate Brexit, but they aren't going to let it cause them problems just to help the Lib Dems' optics...

    Will it all be smooth? Surely not, it's a ballache we could do without, but it absolutely won't be the hoped-for disaster of the hardcore Remainers.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    rkrkrk said:

    stodge said:

    Fenster said:

    I was driving during most of Jo Swinson's speech and didn't think it sounded great on radio but it came across a lot better when I put the TV on.

    It'll be surely be the most positive Liberal Democrat conference in years and that's all that matters.

    Yes, as has been reported elsewhere, the mood in the Party is currently buoyant and rightly so.

    The Brexit policy, despite its misrepresentations by those not well disposed, is quite clear. Revocation only if the LDs win a Parliamentary majority at the next GE, otherwise support for a second referendum and the Party would campaign to Remain and obviously will continue to work with others to prevent a No Deal A50.

    As far as the more domestic is concerned, no support for either a minority Johnson-led Conservative or Corbyn-led Labour Government (there's a nuance or too there I would say).

    Of course, if a future Government were to Revoke there would be nothing to stop a later Government with an anti-EU majority re-applying to withdraw under A50 - I'd assume that would be the post-revocation policy of the Conservatives in Opposition.
    What do you think would happen if Lab + SNP + LD is a majority, but Lab refuse to ditch Corbyn?
    My guess: abstain on budget, vote against on VONC, support policies on a case-by-case basis.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,646

    Macron flips on immigration - now hes for toughening up regulations and stopping flows.


    http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/le-scan/decryptages/immigration-comment-macron-a-durci-son-discours-20190917
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    philiph said:

    Chris said:

    They can be waved through when entering the UK, but they have to get back again afterwards!

    Which is to miss the point in its entirety.

    With the correct paperwork they will be able to get through. It would seem a stretch to think that the correct paperwork will only be for a one way journey, unless you want to tie up your £100,000 truck, trailer and driver for loads of wasted hours.
    One point is being overlooked. Currently, you do not need the "correct paperwork" to drive into France. After a No Deal Brexit you would need to show it. However, fast you are waived through, it would still be slower than now.
  • stodge said:

    Fenster said:

    I was driving during most of Jo Swinson's speech and didn't think it sounded great on radio but it came across a lot better when I put the TV on.

    It'll be surely be the most positive Liberal Democrat conference in years and that's all that matters.

    Yes, as has been reported elsewhere, the mood in the Party is currently buoyant and rightly so.

    The Brexit policy, despite its misrepresentations by those not well disposed, is quite clear. Revocation only if the LDs win a Parliamentary majority at the next GE, otherwise support for a second referendum and the Party would campaign to Remain and obviously will continue to work with others to prevent a No Deal A50.

    As far as the more domestic is concerned, no support for either a minority Johnson-led Conservative or Corbyn-led Labour Government (there's a nuance or too there I would say).

    Of course, if a future Government were to Revoke there would be nothing to stop a later Government with an anti-EU majority re-applying to withdraw under A50 - I'd assume that would be the post-revocation policy of the Conservatives in Opposition.
    I have to admit that my first thought on Swinson's Article 50 revocation was that it was a smart move in a tactical political sense because it would capture a core of voters (15-20%?) that are hard-line Remainers. However, having spoken to a few of them, their view is the policy is a disaster. Not because they think it is undemocratic but because they see that it gives the Tories carte blanche to take us out of the EU (if we rejoin) without the need for a referendum the next time the Tories win an election.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028
    rkrkrk said:

    stodge said:

    Fenster said:

    I was driving during most of Jo Swinson's speech and didn't think it sounded great on radio but it came across a lot better when I put the TV on.

    It'll be surely be the most positive Liberal Democrat conference in years and that's all that matters.

    Yes, as has been reported elsewhere, the mood in the Party is currently buoyant and rightly so.

    The Brexit policy, despite its misrepresentations by those not well disposed, is quite clear. Revocation only if the LDs win a Parliamentary majority at the next GE, otherwise support for a second referendum and the Party would campaign to Remain and obviously will continue to work with others to prevent a No Deal A50.

    As far as the more domestic is concerned, no support for either a minority Johnson-led Conservative or Corbyn-led Labour Government (there's a nuance or too there I would say).

    Of course, if a future Government were to Revoke there would be nothing to stop a later Government with an anti-EU majority re-applying to withdraw under A50 - I'd assume that would be the post-revocation policy of the Conservatives in Opposition.
    What do you think would happen if Lab + SNP + LD is a majority, but Lab refuse to ditch Corbyn?
    They form a minority government and attempt to govern.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890
    philiph said:

    Chris said:

    They can be waved through when entering the UK, but they have to get back again afterwards!

    Which is to miss the point in its entirety.

    With the correct paperwork they will be able to get through. It would seem a stretch to think that the correct paperwork will only be for a one way journey, unless you want to tie up your £100,000 truck, trailer and driver for loads of wasted hours.
    Obviously, the idea of waving them through is so that the need for paperwork doesn't hold things up.

    Obviously that will only work one way.

    The Yellowhammer assessment was that the rate of flow of goods across the Channel could be more than halved.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028

    This "lorries won't have the right paperwork" thing seems extremely unlikely. My company like many others had a whole department preparing for Brexit on March 31st, and they reckon they were 90% ready. Now they are probably 99% ready (never going to be 100%, sure)

    Business mainly cares about business, not politics, so will be as ready as possible. Bosses might hate Brexit, but they aren't going to let it cause them problems just to help the Lib Dems' optics...

    Will it all be smooth? Surely not, it's a ballache we could do without, but it absolutely won't be the hoped-for disaster of the hardcore Remainers.

    Where Brexit will impact - and I see this in my line of work - is the decision making in the medium to long term. The jobs that get sited in the EU27 because that's where they need to be.
  • isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    It seems an odd argument that if something has happened several times without coming before the courts, it must be lawful.

    Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?

    Yup. You drive at 120 mph many times. Nothing happens. So it must be lawful.
    I call @Dura_Ace
    I have never been nicked at 120mph. The time I nearly went to jail was 117mph in my 993. I have driven at more than 170mph on the road several times and got away with it so that might be legal. Fuck the pearl clutchers before they start.
    I think you are a disgrace and that's nothing to brag about. I hope you get caught and punished severely
    Sounds like a too obvious thing to say, so I guess it must be stupid... but why are cars sold that can go faster than the speed limit?
    A car capable of no more than 70mph would have to be very low powered and so dangerously slow at accelerating past bicycles for example.

    Also I don't agree with your possible implication that the speed limit is set by people who are benevolent and wise and who deserve to be obeyed with reverence and gratitude for their kind management of our lives...
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890

    philiph said:

    Chris said:

    They can be waved through when entering the UK, but they have to get back again afterwards!

    Which is to miss the point in its entirety.

    With the correct paperwork they will be able to get through. It would seem a stretch to think that the correct paperwork will only be for a one way journey, unless you want to tie up your £100,000 truck, trailer and driver for loads of wasted hours.
    One point is being overlooked. Currently, you do not need the "correct paperwork" to drive into France. After a No Deal Brexit you would need to show it. However, fast you are waived through, it would still be slower than now.
    What makes you think anyone is going to be waved through when entering France?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,626
    Tabman said:

    rkrkrk said:

    stodge said:

    Fenster said:

    I was driving during most of Jo Swinson's speech and didn't think it sounded great on radio but it came across a lot better when I put the TV on.

    It'll be surely be the most positive Liberal Democrat conference in years and that's all that matters.

    Yes, as has been reported elsewhere, the mood in the Party is currently buoyant and rightly so.

    The Brexit policy, despite its misrepresentations by those not well disposed, is quite clear. Revocation only if the LDs win a Parliamentary majority at the next GE, otherwise support for a second referendum and the Party would campaign to Remain and obviously will continue to work with others to prevent a No Deal A50.

    As far as the more domestic is concerned, no support for either a minority Johnson-led Conservative or Corbyn-led Labour Government (there's a nuance or too there I would say).

    Of course, if a future Government were to Revoke there would be nothing to stop a later Government with an anti-EU majority re-applying to withdraw under A50 - I'd assume that would be the post-revocation policy of the Conservatives in Opposition.
    What do you think would happen if Lab + SNP + LD is a majority, but Lab refuse to ditch Corbyn?
    They form a minority government and attempt to govern.
    My interpretation of no support means they would Vonc Cornyn. So bavk to anotjer GE whivh risks letting in Johnson and No Deal?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,931
    edited September 2019
    rkrkrk said:

    Tabman said:

    rkrkrk said:

    stodge said:

    Fenster said:

    I was driving during most of Jo Swinson's speech and didn't think it sounded great on radio but it came across a lot better when I put the TV on.

    It'll be surely be the most positive Liberal Democrat conference in years and that's all that matters.

    Yes, as has been reported elsewhere, the mood in the Party is currently buoyant and rightly so.

    The Brexit policy, despite its misrepresentations by those not well disposed, is quite clear. Revocation only if the LDs win a Parliamentary majority at the next GE, otherwise support for a second referendum and the Party would campaign to Remain and obviously will continue to work with others to prevent a No Deal A50.

    As far as the more domestic is concerned, no support for either a minority Johnson-led Conservative or Corbyn-led Labour Government (there's a nuance or too there I would say).

    Of course, if a future Government were to Revoke there would be nothing to stop a later Government with an anti-EU majority re-applying to withdraw under A50 - I'd assume that would be the post-revocation policy of the Conservatives in Opposition.
    What do you think would happen if Lab + SNP + LD is a majority, but Lab refuse to ditch Corbyn?
    They form a minority government and attempt to govern.
    My interpretation of no support means they would Vonc Cornyn. So bavk to anotjer GE whivh risks letting in Johnson and No Deal?
    They would let others become the government and vote on an issue by issue basis.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028
    rkrkrk said:

    Tabman said:

    rkrkrk said:

    stodge said:

    Fenster said:

    I was driving during most of Jo Swinson's speech and didn't think it sounded great on radio but it came across a lot better when I put the TV on.

    It'll be surely be the most positive Liberal Democrat conference in years and that's all that matters.

    Yes, as has been reported elsewhere, the mood in the Party is currently buoyant and rightly so.

    The Brexit policy, despite its misrepresentations by those not well disposed, is quite clear. Revocation only if the LDs win a Parliamentary majority at the next GE, otherwise support for a second referendum and the Party would campaign to Remain and obviously will continue to work with others to prevent a No Deal A50.

    As far as the more domestic is concerned, no support for either a minority Johnson-led Conservative or Corbyn-led Labour Government (there's a nuance or too there I would say).

    Of course, if a future Government were to Revoke there would be nothing to stop a later Government with an anti-EU majority re-applying to withdraw under A50 - I'd assume that would be the post-revocation policy of the Conservatives in Opposition.
    What do you think would happen if Lab + SNP + LD is a majority, but Lab refuse to ditch Corbyn?
    They form a minority government and attempt to govern.
    My interpretation of no support means they would Vonc Cornyn. So bavk to anotjer GE whivh risks letting in Johnson and No Deal?
    Support just means formal coalition.

    Another poster has said vote on a case by case basis. Which means a veto on his socialist nonsense. Sounds good to me.
This discussion has been closed.