Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is bigly yuge

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is bigly yuge

NBC News has confirmed: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will announce later today that she now backs a formal impeachment inquiry, according to two Democratic sources close to her. https://t.co/sZpxsW3GPB

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    First?
  • USA are in a right mess, aren't they?
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    Russia seemed complex and messy with no clear quid pro quo. Trump using his office to blackmail an American ally to manufacture dirt on Biden is easy to understand. The Senate won't convict, but those that already dislike Trump will stay by the Democrats, and the news media being focused on Trump's crimes rather than his Tweets might help them further.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Fpt

    Remember if a GNU is installed after a VONC, the Tories will be the opposition, Corbyn loses his status as LOTO and could not call a VONC in the GNU
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.

    Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    Gabs2 said:

    Russia seemed complex and messy with no clear quid pro quo. Trump using his office to blackmail an American ally to manufacture dirt on Biden is easy to understand. The Senate won't convict, but those that already dislike Trump will stay by the Democrats, and the news media being focused on Trump's crimes rather than his Tweets might help them further.

    Why do you say 'crimes rather than...tweets?' His tweets are undoubtedly crimes, if only against the English language.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    kinabalu said:

    Actually, the most interesting thing about that clip is Farage’s face before the payoff. He senses this is a trap, and is immediately skeptical. Watch it.

    He really is very sharp. An instinctively gifted politician like Salmond. Perhaps he’d be a good prime minister.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    Trump should be impeached for that tan.

    I couldn't believe the colour he was today.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Trump is releasing the full and unredacted transcript of the call with Ukraine. If nothing in it is dodgy the Democrats will look ridiculous.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    My word we've had more threads today than @TSE has in his wardrobe.
  • DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:


    Crap, yes you’re right. So if no-one could command the confidence of the House, HM through the Privy Council would have to ask Parliament to dissolve itself, which requires 434 votes, at a time when there’s no government in place because it had resigned, a week before we crashed out of the EU.

    What a big bloody mess that would be!

    That's not how it would work. The Queen would appoint someone as PM, and that person would form a government. That person would then be able to arrange for an extension to Article 50.
    If the person nominated loses an immediate VoNC on what basis is he PM? Any steps he then takes will surely be justiciable in this brave new world or does that only work if the object is to stop Brexit?
    The FTPA would kick in. A replacement PM would have to demonstrate that they could win a vote of confidence before the incumbent PM - who had lost the vote of confidence - would be obliged to resign.

    In the intervening period the incumbent PM would be obliged to follow the law regarding requesting an extension to Article 50. Obviously it would be improper for them to do anything much apart from minding the shop, so to speak, but requesting an Article 50 extension would be perfectly within their power.

    After losing the vote of no confidence Callaghan remained PM, with full prerogative powers, for example.

    Certainly the new leader of the Opposition, having recently resigned the role of PM, would hardly be in a position to insist that they regain it, unless they could clearly demonstrate that they commanded majority support.
  • An impeachment inquiry doesn't commit the House to pass or even vote on articles of impeachment. It just widens the Judicary Committee's role and resources and puttings the hearings on a formal footing. It's.a way of escalating things and using the word impeachment without committing to anything. If Pelosi feels she needs to do *something* then this is something but not yet that thing.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited September 2019

    Here are some more detailed implied probabilities from Betfair (small amount of rounding applied and some of these markets moved a bit while I was compiling so as ever DYOR).

    Cumulative probabilities of Brexit/General Election (XXX = no market)
    By 31 Oct 2019: Any Brexit 19%; GE 2%
    By 30 Nov 2019: Any Brexit XXX; GE 37%
    By 31 Dec 2019: Any Brexit 33% (No Deal 18%, Deal 15%); GE 72%
    By 30 June 2020: Any Brexit 58%; GE XXX
    By 31 Dec 2020: Any Brexit 67%; GE 98%
    By 31 Dec 2021: Any Brexit 75%; GE 99%

    GE before Brexit (or No Brexit): 82%
    2nd referendum in 2019: 4%
    Article 50 revoked: 31%

    GE most seats: Con 67%, Lab 22%, LD 7%, Other 4%
    GE majority: None 57%, Con 33%, Lab 7%, LD 2%, Brexit 1%

    These in turn imply some other probabilities:

    Art 50 revoked but we leave before 2022 anyway: 6%
    Not utterly implausible if parliament revokes shortly followed by a GE won by leavers who then fast-track a deal (or exit with No Deal), or if it's a negotiating ruse to reset the article 50 clock (but if shortage of time to negotiate a new deal is the issue, exit before 2022 seems unlikely anyway). Still, 6% seems quite high as we know revoke doesn't have anything near a majority in the current HoC; if revoke is due to remainers winning the next GE then that doesn't leave much time for yet another GE to bring leavers to power again; if revoke is due to Remain winning a 2nd referendum then again it seems unlikely to be followed by Brexit within 2 years. Unless my maths is wrong the implication is should article 50 be revoked, there's a roughly 1 in 5 chance the revocation is followed by Brexit before 2022 anyway which sounds high.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    Trump is releasing the full and unredacted transcript of the call with Ukraine. If nothing in it is dodgy the Democrats will look ridiculous.

    Is he? Or is he saying he is, like he said he would release his tax returns?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,913

    Trump is releasing the full and unredacted transcript of the call with Ukraine. If nothing in it is dodgy the Democrats will look ridiculous.

    It could well take down Joe Biden.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,298
    Byronic said:

    Actually, the most interesting thing about that clip is Farage’s face before the payoff. He senses this is a trap, and is immediately skeptical. Watch it.

    He really is very sharp. An instinctively gifted politician like Salmond. Perhaps he’d be a good prime minister.

    Nige is very sharp.

    But he was done over there.

    Realized it but just a hair too late.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Gabs2 said:

    Trump is releasing the full and unredacted transcript of the call with Ukraine. If nothing in it is dodgy the Democrats will look ridiculous.

    Is he? Or is he saying he is, like he said he would release his tax returns?
    Fair. Time will tell!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,595
    edited September 2019
    JackW said:

    My word we've had more threads today than @TSE has in his wardrobe.

    I'm supposed to be on a break from editing PB.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    Scott_P said:
    Wow. An editorial in the Remainer Times? Yes, that’s a game-changer.

    Has the Morning Star endorsed Corbyn? You should check, then hurry back here to tell us.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Trump is releasing the full and unredacted transcript of the call with Ukraine. If nothing in it is dodgy the Democrats will look ridiculous.

    https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1176592137401638912
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,484
    Scott_P said:
    And he's an expert on it, is he? A man who made up convention when throwing a tantrum when May won a party VONC?

    Omnium said:

    Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.

    I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.

    It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.

    All 11 of them are wrong? Really?

    You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
    More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
  • Here are some more detailed implied probabilities from Betfair (small amount of rounding applied and some of these markets moved a bit while I was compiling so as ever DYOR).

    Cumulative probabilities of Brexit/General Election (XXX = no market)
    By 31 Oct 2019: Any Brexit 19%; GE 2%
    By 30 Nov 2019: Any Brexit XXX; GE 37%
    By 31 Dec 2019: Any Brexit 33% (No Deal 18%, Deal 15%); GE 72%
    By 30 June 2020: Any Brexit 58%; GE XXX
    By 31 Dec 2020: Any Brexit 67%; GE 98%
    By 31 Dec 2021: Any Brexit 75%; GE 99%

    GE before Brexit (or No Brexit): 82%
    2nd referendum in 2019: 4%
    Article 50 revoked: 31%

    GE most seats: Con 67%, Lab 22%, LD 7%, Other 4%
    GE majority: None 57%, Con 33%, Lab 7%, LD 2%, Brexit 1%

    Again feel free to check my maths on this one, but if we approximate* Pr(Brexit) = Pr(Brexit before GE) + Pr(GE first) * Pr(GE leads to Brexit, conditional on Brexit not having happened yet) then solving 0.75 = 0.18 + 0.82X gives a 70% chance that a GE contested before Brexit occurs leads to Brexit happening. The two obvious routes to this are that the next parliament has a Leave majority (with the DUP and potentially a few other independent or TBP MPs, chances of this are presumably slightly but not massively above the 33% implied chance of a Tory majority) or there are enough MPs in favour of a 2nd referendum in which Leave pulls off a surprise win (should there be a 2nd ref, other bookies' odds suggest Leave would have a worse than 1 in 3 chance of winning it).

    If we assume next GE has 40% chance of leave-without-ref majority, 60% chance of 2nd-ref-majority and 0% chance of revoke-without-ref majority, and leave has 1 in 3 chance of wining any referendum (and I think these assumptions fairly generous to leave), this still only gives 60% chance of leaving post-GE. (FWIW you can match Betfair's 70% implied probability if you assume 55% chance of outright leave majority, 45% chance 2nd ref majority, with 1 in 3 chance of leave winning 2nd ref. If you expect Farage to do his traditional FPTP crash-and-burn, then 55% seems a long way above the 33% chance of a Con majority.)

    * Truth's more complicated eg could be multiple GEs in quick succession before Brexit.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 595
    Byronic said:


    The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.

    Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.

    I never understood why he didn't repeal the FTPA immediately after the 2015 election. Its only purpose was to make sure the Con-Lib Dem Coalition lasted a full term but once he got a majority why would any PM willingly forgo the prerogative to call an election at a time of their choosing?

    Is there a risk that instead of focusing on Trump people will start to take the Hunter Biden accusations seriously?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Rees-Mogg perhaps the only person who comes out of this worse than #BoZo
  • DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:


    Crap, yes you’re right. So if no-one could command the confidence of the House, HM through the Privy Council would have to ask Parliament to dissolve itself, which requires 434 votes, at a time when there’s no government in place because it had resigned, a week before we crashed out of the EU.

    What a big bloody mess that would be!

    That's not how it would work. The Queen would appoint someone as PM, and that person would form a government. That person would then be able to arrange for an extension to Article 50.
    If the person nominated loses an immediate VoNC on what basis is he PM? Any steps he then takes will surely be justiciable in this brave new world or does that only work if the object is to stop Brexit?
    The FTPA would kick in. A replacement PM would have to demonstrate that they could win a vote of confidence before the incumbent PM - who had lost the vote of confidence - would be obliged to resign.

    In the intervening period the incumbent PM would be obliged to follow the law regarding requesting an extension to Article 50. Obviously it would be improper for them to do anything much apart from minding the shop, so to speak, but requesting an Article 50 extension would be perfectly within their power.

    After losing the vote of no confidence Callaghan remained PM, with full prerogative powers, for example.

    Certainly the new leader of the Opposition, having recently resigned the role of PM, would hardly be in a position to insist that they regain it, unless they could clearly demonstrate that they commanded majority support.
    This is the perfect outcome for Johnson. As soon as Corbyn has extended he calls a VoNC and then goes into the election with clear evidence that he is the only person willing to deliver Brexit and with the added bonus of the Remain vote being split between Labour and the Lib Dims.
  • Big mistake by Dems. Will solidify Trump's base I strongly suspect.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Scott_P said:
    If correct JRM must resign or be sacked.
  • DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:


    Crap, yes you’re right. So if no-one could command the confidence of the House, HM through the Privy Council would have to ask Parliament to dissolve itself, which requires 434 votes, at a time when there’s no government in place because it had resigned, a week before we crashed out of the EU.

    What a big bloody mess that would be!

    That's not how it would work. The Queen would appoint someone as PM, and that person would form a government. That person would then be able to arrange for an extension to Article 50.
    If the person nominated loses an immediate VoNC on what basis is he PM? Any steps he then takes will surely be justiciable in this brave new world or does that only work if the object is to stop Brexit?
    The FTPA would kick in. A replacement PM would have to demonstrate that they could win a vote of confidence before the incumbent PM - who had lost the vote of confidence - would be obliged to resign.

    In the intervening period the incumbent PM would be obliged to follow the law regarding requesting an extension to Article 50. Obviously it would be improper for them to do anything much apart from minding the shop, so to speak, but requesting an Article 50 extension would be perfectly within their power.

    After losing the vote of no confidence Callaghan remained PM, with full prerogative powers, for example.

    Certainly the new leader of the Opposition, having recently resigned the role of PM, would hardly be in a position to insist that they regain it, unless they could clearly demonstrate that they commanded majority support.
    Yes, but succession from Johnson to Corbyn would only involve FTPA if a VONC was passed as specified. Otherwise, Johnson could chose to resign because he has insufficient support for his "do or die" policy and advise HMQ to send for Corbyn. In these circumstances Corbyn would form a minority administration outwith the terms of the FTPA and could carry on as long as the Tories left him twisting in the wind. As I keep saying, just like 1924.
  • Byronic said:


    The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.

    Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.

    It’s galling that Cameron still doesn’t seem to understand just how badly he got things wrong.
  • Scott_P said:
    To be fair, he’s used to eighteenth century conventions.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,551
    Scott_P said:
    Remainers want to Remain. Amazing...
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,551
    Scott_P said:
    That sounds like a Cabinet preparing to resign? :D
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    My word we've had more threads today than @TSE has in his wardrobe.

    I'm supposed to be on a break from editing PB.
    Like the Queen, editors of PB remain in post until death !! .... :naughty:
  • FTP

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    OllyT said:

    Should I join the LibDems then? It's the logical conclusion to my deliberations

    We have travelled down the same road albeit at at different speeds. I left the Labour Party not too long after Corbyn took over. Becoming a registered supporter of the LDs rather than a full member might be the answer, it's what I am going to do.
    I was not aware that people could register as 'Tory Little Helpers'.
    Please. The best helper for getting a Tory majority is Corbyn and his band of Stalinists.
    The Tory/LibDem Coaltion - and the lack of a clear alternative to Austerity from Milliband - was the main recruiter for Corbyn. Post 2015 GE I have always blamed Harriet Harman as Acting Leader - rather than Margaret Beckett - for generating the momentum which led to his Leadership - by her decision to force the Shadow Cabinet abstain on Osborne's Welfare proposals.
    The coalition was a mistake. Most LibDem activists hated it at the time and openly attacked it. But it's *the past*. The Orange Book have been wiped out. The Tories and the LibDems are now literally at opposite ends of the new political paradigm. The idea that post election Johnson and Swinson are going to jump into bed is absurd - and demonstrates the utter lack of political comprehension of the person saying it
  • DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:


    Crap, yes you’re right. So if no-one could command the confidence of the House, HM through the Privy Council would have to ask Parliament to dissolve itself, which requires 434 votes, at a time when there’s no government in place because it had resigned, a week before we crashed out of the EU.

    What a big bloody mess that would be!

    That's not how it would work. The Queen would appoint someone as PM, and that person would form a government. That person would then be able to arrange for an extension to Article 50.
    If the person nominated loses an immediate VoNC on what basis is he PM? Any steps he then takes will surely be justiciable in this brave new world or does that only work if the object is to stop Brexit?
    The FTPA would kick in. A replacement PM would have to demonstrate that they could win a vote of confidence before the incumbent PM - who had lost the vote of confidence - would be obliged to resign.

    In the intervening period the incumbent PM would be obliged to follow the law regarding requesting an extension to Article 50. Obviously it would be improper for them to do anything much apart from minding the shop, so to speak, but requesting an Article 50 extension would be perfectly within their power.

    After losing the vote of no confidence Callaghan remained PM, with full prerogative powers, for example.

    Certainly the new leader of the Opposition, having recently resigned the role of PM, would hardly be in a position to insist that they regain it, unless they could clearly demonstrate that they commanded majority support.
    Yes, but succession from Johnson to Corbyn would only involve FTPA if a VONC was passed as specified. Otherwise, Johnson could chose to resign because he has insufficient support for his "do or die" policy and advise HMQ to send for Corbyn. In these circumstances Corbyn would form a minority administration outwith the terms of the FTPA and could carry on as long as the Tories left him twisting in the wind. As I keep saying, just like 1924.
    Yes, that was my point in my first post to the thread. Corbyn would remain as PM even if he then lost a vote of confidence. We don't end up in a situation where we don't have a PM.
  • kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    And he's an expert on it, is he? A man who made up convention when throwing a tantrum when May won a party VONC?

    Omnium said:

    Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.

    I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.

    It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.

    All 11 of them are wrong? Really?

    You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
    More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
    Where is the "overthrow of the constitution"?
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Byronic said:


    The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.

    Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.

    It’s galling that Cameron still doesn’t seem to understand just how badly he got things wrong.
    Yes, it’s a measure of his eerie, complacent, tin-eared stupidity. He’s just dim. Supremely well educated, but dim.

    Our insane class system finally came back to haunt us.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,484
    Scott_P said:
    And how do they sort out the problems? There don't seem to be any moves left to Boris other than providing a miracle deal or resigning.
  • USA are in a right mess, aren't they?

    And we are not?

    Just asking.....
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    Byronic said:


    The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.

    Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.

    BORIS!!!!
  • DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:


    Crap, yes you’re right. So if no-one could command the confidence of the House, HM through the Privy Council would have to ask Parliament to dissolve itself, which requires 434 votes, at a time when there’s no government in place because it had resigned, a week before we crashed out of the EU.

    What a big bloody mess that would be!

    That's not how it would work. The Queen would appoint someone as PM, and that person would form a government. That person would then be able to arrange for an extension to Article 50.
    If the person nominated loses an immediate VoNC on what basis is he PM? Any steps he then takes will surely be justiciable in this brave new world or does that only work if the object is to stop Brexit?
    The FTPA would kick in. A replacement PM would have to demonstrate that they could win a vote of confidence before the incumbent PM - who had lost the vote of confidence - would be obliged to resign.

    In the intervening period the incumbent PM would be obliged to follow the law regarding requesting an extension to Article 50. Obviously it would be improper for them to do anything much apart from minding the shop, so to speak, but requesting an Article 50 extension would be perfectly within their power.

    After losing the vote of no confidence Callaghan remained PM, with full prerogative powers, for example.

    Certainly the new leader of the Opposition, having recently resigned the role of PM, would hardly be in a position to insist that they regain it, unless they could clearly demonstrate that they commanded majority support.
    This is the perfect outcome for Johnson. As soon as Corbyn has extended he calls a VoNC and then goes into the election with clear evidence that he is the only person willing to deliver Brexit and with the added bonus of the Remain vote being split between Labour and the Lib Dims.
    That's certainly possible. It's why the Opposition are doing everything they can to ensure that Johnson is still PM on October 31st. It's an absurd situation, just as it was absurd for Johnson to decide to campaign for Leave in the hope that Leave would lose and he could, SNP-style, lead the 45% to a landslide victory in the 2020 general election. Everyone is trying to position themselves as the "privileged loser". It's pathetic all-round.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,790

    Big mistake by Dems. Will solidify Trump's base I strongly suspect.

    It's not about Trump's base, they are beyond redemption, it's about the people who don't follow politics and can be persuaded that the country needs to change direction.
  • DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:


    Crap, yes you’re right. So if no-one could command the confidence of the House, HM through the Privy Council would have to ask Parliament to dissolve itself, which requires 434 votes, at a time when there’s no government in place because it had resigned, a week before we crashed out of the EU.

    What a big bloody mess that would be!

    That's not how it would work. The Queen would appoint someone as PM, and that person would form a government. That person would then be able to arrange for an extension to Article 50.
    If the person nominated loses an immediate VoNC on what basis is he PM? Any steps he then takes will surely be justiciable in this brave new world or does that only work if the object is to stop Brexit?
    The FTPA would kick in. A replacement PM would have to demonstrate that they could win a vote of confidence before the incumbent PM - who had lost the vote of confidence - would be obliged to resign.

    In the intervening period the incumbent PM would be obliged to follow the law regarding requesting an extension to Article 50. Obviously it would be improper for them to do anything much apart from minding the shop, so to speak, but requesting an Article 50 extension would be perfectly within their power.

    After losing the vote of no confidence Callaghan remained PM, with full prerogative powers, for example.

    Certainly the new leader of the Opposition, having recently resigned the role of PM, would hardly be in a position to insist that they regain it, unless they could clearly demonstrate that they commanded majority support.
    Yes, but succession from Johnson to Corbyn would only involve FTPA if a VONC was passed as specified. Otherwise, Johnson could chose to resign because he has insufficient support for his "do or die" policy and advise HMQ to send for Corbyn. In these circumstances Corbyn would form a minority administration outwith the terms of the FTPA and could carry on as long as the Tories left him twisting in the wind. As I keep saying, just like 1924.
    Yes, that was my point in my first post to the thread. Corbyn would remain as PM even if he then lost a vote of confidence. We don't end up in a situation where we don't have a PM.
    There is always a PM iirc. If one resigns, and means they are off today (most likely illness) someone is invited to be PM, even if this involves the Cabinet selecting one of their own (Home Sec by default some think).
  • Omnium said:

    Unwise decision by Boris

    Fixed it for you :)
  • Byronic said:

    Byronic said:


    The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.

    Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.

    It’s galling that Cameron still doesn’t seem to understand just how badly he got things wrong.
    Yes, it’s a measure of his eerie, complacent, tin-eared stupidity. He’s just dim. Supremely well educated, but dim.

    Our insane class system finally came back to haunt us.
    Private schools should be abolished if only because they produce charlatans like TSE, Boris and Cameron!
  • Scott_P said:
    To be fair, he’s used to eighteenth century conventions.
    Seeing as Lady Hale was using 1611 (iirc) as precedent, Mogg should be more than happy.
  • Scott_P said:
    Get ready to hear a lot about Greener Pastures.
  • ab195ab195 Posts: 477
    You have to think the LibDem “vote for me and I’ll make it all go away ticket by revoking” ticket is going to start to attract a lot of people. As is a Boris “show these bastards who’s boss” ticket. That Labour collapse has to be looking a touch more likely.

    On topic, as implied by the thread header, I think the democrats need to be careful they don’t concentrate so much on this angle that they forget to critique his policies and the state of the country. It feels like this could be ok territory for Trump to fight on.
  • tysontyson Posts: 5,991

    Gabs2 said:

    Trump is releasing the full and unredacted transcript of the call with Ukraine. If nothing in it is dodgy the Democrats will look ridiculous.

    Is he? Or is he saying he is, like he said he would release his tax returns?
    Fair. Time will tell!

    When you have pathological liars in charge does it really matter what they say they are going to do?

    The truth matters. Integrity matters.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    Foxy said:

    Byronic said:


    The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.

    Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.

    BORIS!!!!
    Boris inherited a horrible hand, and has tried to play it as best he can. His only major unforced error was the prorogation, and it’s not that important.

    I genuinely cannot think of a leader, of a major western nation post-WW2, who has left a worse legacy than Cameron.

    The closest I can come is Berlusconi in Italy, but even he wasn’t such a constitutional wrecking ball.

    Trump may prove to be worse, but his career isn’t done yet, so we can’t tell. Blair was pretty bad with Iraq, but he didn’t destabilize the entire country.
  • For those that don't think there is enough football...

    UEFA confirm details of new third-tier competition alongside Champions League and Europa League. UEFA have confirmed their third club competition will be called the Europa Conference League, which will start in 2021.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    On both Trump & Boris, and Trump probably started all this - unlike the Nixon era when being right or wrong was still important these days the key question is

    Are they on OUR side.

    That's it. That's the test,that's why Trump's ratings have barely any standard deviation and the Brexit + Tory share is almost invariant at ~ 47% in the polling.

    Noone gives a flying fuck if anyone is telling the truth any more.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 2,967
    How's Farage going to pitch any sort of Con-BXP pact-type offerings now with a party lead by someone he's saying should be offering his resignation?
  • At least Season 7 of The Crown will have strong material.
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138

    Big mistake by Dems. Will solidify Trump's base I strongly suspect.

    It's already solidified. His approval is rock solid at 40-43%. Dems are concerned about the other 57-60%.
  • tysontyson Posts: 5,991
    glw said:

    Big mistake by Dems. Will solidify Trump's base I strongly suspect.

    It's not about Trump's base, they are beyond redemption, it's about the people who don't follow politics and can be persuaded that the country needs to change direction.
    Trump's base=Climate change deniers=Ideological Brexiteers= Older white men=Complete bunch of Kuntz
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,952
    edited September 2019

    twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1176201884962623489

    McDonnell is far more dangerous. He isn't a moron and will have no issue in doing whatever is necessary to implement his Marxist vision.
  • tysontyson Posts: 5,991
    Pulpstar said:

    On both Trump & Boris, and Trump probably started all this - unlike the Nixon era when being right or wrong was still important these days the key question is

    Are they on OUR side.

    That's it. That's the test,that's why Trump's ratings have barely any standard deviation and the Brexit + Tory share is almost invariant at ~ 47% in the polling.

    Noone gives a flying fuck if anyone is telling the truth any more.

    The truth matters.....it does. And integrity matters
  • Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/MarkKleinmanSky/status/1176546672383598592

    That will be another business that Labour will claim that if they were in power that they would be buying.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,301

    For those that don't think there is enough football...

    UEFA confirm details of new third-tier competition alongside Champions League and Europa League. UEFA have confirmed their third club competition will be called the Europa Conference League, which will start in 2021.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusyO7J2inM
  • Scott_P said:
    Is Rees Mogg basically fagging for Johnson now?
  • glwglw Posts: 8,790
    Gabs2 said:

    Trump is releasing the full and unredacted transcript of the call with Ukraine. If nothing in it is dodgy the Democrats will look ridiculous.

    Is he? Or is he saying he is, like he said he would release his tax returns?
    I've read reports that the whistleblower complaint, that has already been vouched for by the Inspector General, involved multiple calls. So I can believe that the Trump Whitehouse might release the least damning call and claim it clears them; and the usual blather about it doesn't matter anyway as the President is above the law due to his executive powers.

    Watergate was not an immediate slam dunk case, and involved a lot more than the burglary, but decades on only cranks think that Nixon was not a crook. I've no doubt that history will be even less kind to Trump.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660

    Big mistake by Dems. Will solidify Trump's base I strongly suspect.

    https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1119347084187115521?s=19
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,771
    Pulpstar said:

    On both Trump & Boris, and Trump probably started all this - unlike the Nixon era when being right or wrong was still important these days the key question is

    Are they on OUR side.

    That's it. That's the test,that's why Trump's ratings have barely any standard deviation and the Brexit + Tory share is almost invariant at ~ 47% in the polling.

    Noone gives a flying fuck if anyone is telling the truth any more.

    If the Lib Dems said they'd abolish housing benefit and put interest rates up to 3%, I'd vote for them irrespective of their Brexit policy.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890
    Scott_P said:
    Scarcely surprising that at least one Cabinet minister hasn't read and/or is incapable of understanding the judgment.

    In fact it would surprise me if any of them had read and understood it.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    Trump's base is not enough to win him the election. He also has to convince Obama voters to stay home.
  • twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1176201884962623489

    McDonnell is far more dangerous. He isn't a moron and will have no issue in doing whatever is necessary to implement his Marxist vision.
    That's why the SC blocking of the extended prorogue is good news in the medium term.

    Do Tories screaming their heads off really think someone like John McD wouldn't use the same trick, if SC had actually ruled it lawful.

    Where would the Tories like the line drawn? 5 weeks is ok. 3 months not so good. 6 months - hold on this could be bad etc etc...
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,301
    ab195 said:

    You have to think the LibDem “vote for me and I’ll make it all go away ticket by revoking” ticket is going to start to attract a lot of people. As is a Boris “show these bastards who’s boss” ticket. That Labour collapse has to be looking a touch more likely.

    On topic, as implied by the thread header, I think the democrats need to be careful they don’t concentrate so much on this angle that they forget to critique his policies and the state of the country. It feels like this could be ok territory for Trump to fight on.

    How does revoke make it go away exactly?
  • tysontyson Posts: 5,991
    glw said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Trump is releasing the full and unredacted transcript of the call with Ukraine. If nothing in it is dodgy the Democrats will look ridiculous.

    Is he? Or is he saying he is, like he said he would release his tax returns?
    I've read reports that the whistleblower complaint, that has already been vouched for by the Inspector General, involved multiple calls. So I can believe that the Trump Whitehouse might release the least damning call and claim it clears them; and the usual blather about it doesn't matter anyway as the President is above the law due to his executive powers.

    Watergate was not an immediate slam dunk case, and involved a lot more than the burglary, but decades on only cranks think that Nixon was not a crook. I've no doubt that history will be even less kind to Trump.

    The US is going to throw the book at Trump and his cronies...it's going to be a full on clean hands approach...it has to move on from this miserable period in its history with some kind of credibility
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1176201884962623489

    McDonnell is far more dangerous. He isn't a moron and will have no issue in doing whatever is necessary to implement his Marxist vision.
    He is much smarter and wilier than Corbyn. Thankfully, he has zero charisma. Even now I doubt half the country could identify him. He’s oddly anonymous, and when he is recognized he evokes yawns and shrugs.

    Corbyn only gets away with his horrible Marxism, as much as he gets away with it, because he comes across as a twinkly eyed old geezer in a vest. Once Magic Grandpa has gone the far left project will be in desperate trouble. There’s no obvious successor. No one is going to sing “ohhh, John McDonnell”.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    edited September 2019

    How's Farage going to pitch any sort of Con-BXP pact-type offerings now with a party lead by someone he's saying should be offering his resignation?

    He isn't, he won't. He'll lose them if he writes that letter. Going to prison would be superior to his electoral chances compared to signing off the Benn letter.
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On both Trump & Boris, and Trump probably started all this - unlike the Nixon era when being right or wrong was still important these days the key question is

    Are they on OUR side.

    That's it. That's the test,that's why Trump's ratings have barely any standard deviation and the Brexit + Tory share is almost invariant at ~ 47% in the polling.

    Noone gives a flying fuck if anyone is telling the truth any more.

    If the Lib Dems said they'd abolish housing benefit and put interest rates up to 3%, I'd vote for them irrespective of their Brexit policy.
    They should start spending some of the financial dividend revocation would likely give to the economy in all honesty.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:


    Crap, yes you’re right. So if no-one could command the confidence of the House, HM through the Privy Council would have to ask Parliament to dissolve itself, which requires 434 votes, at a time when there’s no government in place because it had resigned, a week before we crashed out of the EU.

    What a big bloody mess that would be!

    That's not how it would work. The Queen would appoint someone as PM, and that person would form a government. That person would then be able to arrange for an extension to Article 50.
    If the person nominated loses an immediate VoNC on what basis is he PM? Any steps he then takes will surely be justiciable in this brave new world or does that only work if the object is to stop Brexit?
    The FTPA would kick in. A replacement PM would have to demonstrate that they could win a vote of confidence before the incumbent PM - who had lost the vote of confidence - would be obliged to resign.

    In the intervening period the incumbent PM would be obliged to follow the law regarding requesting an extension to Article 50. Obviously it would be improper for them to do anything much apart from minding the shop, so to speak, but requesting an Article 50 extension would be perfectly within their power.

    After losing the vote of no confidence Callaghan remained PM, with full prerogative powers, for example.

    Certainly the new leader of the Opposition, having recently resigned the role of PM, would hardly be in a position to insist that they regain it, unless they could clearly demonstrate that they commanded majority support.
    This is the perfect outcome for Johnson. As soon as Corbyn has extended he calls a VoNC and then goes into the election with clear evidence that he is the only person willing to deliver Brexit and with the added bonus of the Remain vote being split between Labour and the Lib Dims.
    Well it looks good on paper but Johnson still needs to actually hold his party together through the process too.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,585
    Scott_P said:
    Unfair to say HM the Queen had been misled. Absolutely clear from para. 15 of the judgement the SC is making no such finding. Everyone should (but won't) calm down.

    It's a very decent judgement and a useful weapon against arbitrary government; IMHO it is wrong in applying its powers to this circumstance - Boris was an idiot but not so egregious an idiot as to deserve nullifying his stupid prorogation.

    Government case had no chance once it has lost on the principle, because it took the line that it was not interested in giving a rational account of why the prorogation was so long, so SC just jumped to a conclusion.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,473

    Omnium said:

    Unwise decision by SC (edit by sunil said:Boris)

    Fixed it for you :)


    sunil says...
    (edit: he didn't, but he might have)

    I unfixed it, but noted your advice. Although PB allows you to put words into other people's posts I'd prefer it if you didn't.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    Byronic said:

    Foxy said:

    Byronic said:


    The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.

    Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.

    BORIS!!!!
    Boris inherited a horrible hand, and has tried to play it as best he can. His only major unforced error was the prorogation, and it’s not that important.

    I genuinely cannot think of a leader, of a major western nation post-WW2, who has left a worse legacy than Cameron.

    The closest I can come is Berlusconi in Italy, but even he wasn’t such a constitutional wrecking ball.

    Trump may prove to be worse, but his career isn’t done yet, so we can’t tell. Blair was pretty bad with Iraq, but he didn’t destabilize the entire country.
    BoZo has not made a correct move since gaining office. He has the negative Midas touch, everything he touches turns to shit.
  • Scott_P said:
    I seem to recall predicting on here a few weeks ago that Johnson would crash and burn and he would take Brexit down with him.

    I see no reason to revise that prediction.
  • ab195ab195 Posts: 477
    kyf_100 said:

    ab195 said:

    You have to think the LibDem “vote for me and I’ll make it all go away ticket by revoking” ticket is going to start to attract a lot of people. As is a Boris “show these bastards who’s boss” ticket. That Labour collapse has to be looking a touch more likely.

    On topic, as implied by the thread header, I think the democrats need to be careful they don’t concentrate so much on this angle that they forget to critique his policies and the state of the country. It feels like this could be ok territory for Trump to fight on.

    How does revoke make it go away exactly?
    I don’t think it does. But that’s the way they seem to want to present it. “Revoke and forget it all happened”.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    Scott_P said:
    Laura has been effectively acting as government PR on this. Unattributed quote criticising the judges and judge positive reporting on can do spirit and attitude.

    This is more shameless than Nick Robinson's post election performance in 2010
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,952
    edited September 2019
    Byronic said:

    twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1176201884962623489

    McDonnell is far more dangerous. He isn't a moron and will have no issue in doing whatever is necessary to implement his Marxist vision.
    He is much smarter and wilier than Corbyn. Thankfully, he has zero charisma. Even now I doubt half the country could identify him. He’s oddly anonymous, and when he is recognized he evokes yawns and shrugs.

    Corbyn only gets away with his horrible Marxism, as much as he gets away with it, because he comes across as a twinkly eyed old geezer in a vest. Once Magic Grandpa has gone the far left project will be in desperate trouble. There’s no obvious successor. No one is going to sing “ohhh, John McDonnell”.
    I don't have as much confidence. Jezza gets in trouble, because he finds it so hard to bend and twist his lifelong held views and just lie about certain things. That is why Brexit has become such a problem for him.

    McDonnell will say whatever is necessary for the relevant audience, and I fear a lot of people will buy it.
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613
    Alistair said:

    Trump's base is not enough to win him the election. He also has to convince Obama voters to stay home.

    So loads of news coverage about Biden's family dealings in Ukraine will do that. It won't make Trump look great either, but then Trump being sleazy is already priced in.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,881



    The coalition was a mistake. Most LibDem activists hated it at the time and openly attacked it. But it's *the past*. The Orange Book have been wiped out. The Tories and the LibDems are now literally at opposite ends of the new political paradigm. The idea that post election Johnson and Swinson are going to jump into bed is absurd - and demonstrates the utter lack of political comprehension of the person saying it



    Care to offer a link to her saying they wouldn't provide confidence and supply to the Tories if the arithmetic makes that work?
  • Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Unwise decision by SC (edit by sunil said:Boris)

    Fixed it for you :)


    sunil says...
    (edit: he didn't, but he might have)

    I unfixed it, but noted your advice. Although PB allows you to put words into other people's posts I'd prefer it if you didn't.
    Just to clarify: Boris made a terrible mistake proroguing Parliament.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    For those that don't think there is enough football...

    UEFA confirm details of new third-tier competition alongside Champions League and Europa League. UEFA have confirmed their third club competition will be called the Europa Conference League, which will start in 2021.

    Something for Tottenham to look forward to .... :wink:
  • DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:


    Crap, yes you’re right. So if no-one could command the confidence of the House, HM through the Privy Council would have to ask Parliament to dissolve itself, which requires 434 votes, at a time when there’s no government in place because it had resigned, a week before we crashed out of the EU.

    What a big bloody mess that would be!

    That's not how it would work. The Queen would appoint someone as PM, and that person would form a government. That person would then be able to arrange for an extension to Article 50.
    If the person nominated loses an immediate VoNC on what basis is he PM? Any steps he then takes will surely be justiciable in this brave new world or does that only work if the object is to stop Brexit?
    The FTPA would kick in. A replacement PM would have to demonstrate that they could win a vote of confidence before the incumbent PM - who had lost the vote of confidence - would be obliged to resign.

    In the intervening period the incumbent PM would be obliged to follow the law regarding requesting an extension to Article 50. Obviously it would be improper for them to do anything much apart from minding the shop, so to speak, but requesting an Article 50 extension would be perfectly within their power.

    After losing the vote of no confidence Callaghan remained PM, with full prerogative powers, for example.

    Certainly the new leader of the Opposition, having recently resigned the role of PM, would hardly be in a position to insist that they regain it, unless they could clearly demonstrate that they commanded majority support.
    This is the perfect outcome for Johnson. As soon as Corbyn has extended he calls a VoNC and then goes into the election with clear evidence that he is the only person willing to deliver Brexit and with the added bonus of the Remain vote being split between Labour and the Lib Dims.
    Well it looks good on paper but Johnson still needs to actually hold his party together through the process too.
    And he starts on 288 seats, instead of 313.
This discussion has been closed.