Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Failed CON leadership contender, Rory Stewart, to fight for th

1235789

Comments

  • Anorak said:

    DougSeal said:

    It would be responsible if the country were now to be mentally (physically I trust we are as well prepared as possible) prepared for No deal. The UK Government has made significant concessions, and opponents of its proposals have failed to highlight any aspects that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to their operability. They just fancy their chances (thanks to our parliament - good one guys) of pushing us into another deeply damaging extension.

    I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.

    I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.

    What makes you say that? Have you been there lately? I’m hearing they’re well ahead of where we are.
    Luckyguy lives under a rock reading the Daily Express and conspiracy sites.

    The rock protects him from satellites and contrails; MI5 have had a microphone in the rock for 8 years.
    The rock is actually scrunched up tinfoil, tres effective.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 12,527

    CV Question (I can't rely on Coffey forever) -

    I was advised about ten years ago that after my contact details I should start with a Personal Statement. I always thought this was a bit namby pampy but that's what I was advised. Is this still de riguer/the way to go???

    That's how I start:

    'Sanderson Rentool is a card-carrying eco-socialist who would like to see humankind become extinct. He holds one of those wanky PPE degrees and spends a lot of time on PB.'

    Gets me an interview every time.
    I guess I could go JBriskinindyref2 is a PB tory with no wanky PPE degree.

    Any serious answers ?
    Sorry, I was being serious in saying that I start with a personal statement highlighting my key experience and expertise. While I have not applied for a job for several years, myself and others have found that approach effective in getting interviews.

    My company also uses this format on our corporate CVs that go in proposals to clients.

    Hope that is useful.
  • CV Question (I can't rely on Coffey forever) -

    I was advised about ten years ago that after my contact details I should start with a Personal Statement. I always thought this was a bit namby pampy but that's what I was advised. Is this still de riguer/the way to go???

    That's how I start:

    'Sanderson Rentool is a card-carrying eco-socialist who would like to see humankind become extinct. He holds one of those wanky PPE degrees and spends a lot of time on PB.'

    Gets me an interview every time.
    I guess I could go JBriskinindyref2 is a PB tory with no wanky PPE degree.

    Any serious answers ?
    Sorry, I was being serious in saying that I start with a personal statement highlighting my key experience and expertise. While I have not applied for a job for several years, myself and others have found that approach effective in getting interviews.

    My company also uses this format on our corporate CVs that go in proposals to clients.

    Hope that is useful.
    Thank you - fingers crossed for me
  • So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.

    But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.

    Then we have a GE.

    I suspect the electorate will brutally punish anyone who chooses to inflict 2 more years of this uncertainty on the country.
    We wouldn't actually faff about for another 2 years. Tories win the GE, out we go with No Deal. Labour form a Government and it is second referendum time, where Remain wins, Revoke again and forget about it.
    Who forgets about it? Certainly not the millions who decide democracy has failed.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 15,707
    Gabs2 said:

    This is correct. But the biggest danger is the EU having us back. If we flick from Europhilia to Euroscepticism every change of government they may just take a De Gaulle position. This is why it is so important for Remainers to accept the referendum and hold out an olive branch to Leavers. Because when we have the majority we will need the same.

    The opposite of Europhilia is Europhobia not Euroscepticism.

    Surprised a 'Remainer' would not know that.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,989
    Anorak said:

    DougSeal said:

    It would be responsible if the country were now to be mentally (physically I trust we are as well prepared as possible) prepared for No deal. The UK Government has made significant concessions, and opponents of its proposals have failed to highlight any aspects that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to their operability. They just fancy their chances (thanks to our parliament - good one guys) of pushing us into another deeply damaging extension.

    I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.

    I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.

    What makes you say that? Have you been there lately? I’m hearing they’re well ahead of where we are.
    Luckyguy lives under a rock reading the Daily Express and conspiracy sites.

    The rock protects him from satellites and contrails; MI5 have had a microphone in the rock for 8 years.
    Only if the rock is in the UK would it be MI5. As it appears to be in St. Petersburg, it would be MI6.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,666

    So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.

    But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.

    Then we have a GE.

    I suspect the electorate will brutally punish anyone who chooses to inflict 2 more years of this uncertainty on the country.
    We wouldn't actually faff about for another 2 years. Tories win the GE, out we go with No Deal. Labour form a Government and it is second referendum time, where Remain wins, Revoke again and forget about it.
    We might faff about for 200 years, yet alone two.

    Interesting as to which way the public might break. There's a huge push that 'oh yes lets have another referendum', with lots of innocent looks, is the flavour of the month.

    The best route out of the maze is Boris. We may crash through a hedge into a fence mind you.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 12,527
    rpjs said:

    So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.

    But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.

    Then we have a GE.

    I suspect the electorate will brutally punish anyone who chooses to inflict 2 more years of this uncertainty on the country.
    We wouldn't actually faff about for another 2 years. Tories win the GE, out we go with No Deal. Labour form a Government and it is second referendum time, where Remain wins, Revoke again and forget about it.
    If we go out with no deal, we would have to rejoin (which means € + Schengen). Revoke is no longer an option.
    I meant one or the other, rather than a sequence of events.

    As an aside, if we do Remain I would rather have full-fat EU with the benefits of the Euro and Schengen than our current semi-detachedness.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 12,527

    So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.

    But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.

    Then we have a GE.

    I suspect the electorate will brutally punish anyone who chooses to inflict 2 more years of this uncertainty on the country.
    We wouldn't actually faff about for another 2 years. Tories win the GE, out we go with No Deal. Labour form a Government and it is second referendum time, where Remain wins, Revoke again and forget about it.
    Second referendum on what? The EU wont negotiate with someone dicking about with article 50, theyll say you'll get your offer of a deal in 2 years we will enjoy your contributions until then.

    It would be a more egregious abuse of power than prorogation 1
    Referendum on Tezzie's deal if nothing else is forthcoming.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,285

    YouGov have disclosed that they have conducted a poll after the Conservative conference that shows Johnson's net rating at its least worst yet (-12, compared to -24 Swinson and -50 Corbyn).

    The link in the article to the data tables for the poll is at the moment inactive - clearly they would also disclose GE voting intention polling that is due to be published over the weekend. The changes in favourability ratings in the latest poll support the expectation of a small post Conference Conservative polling bounce.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/10/04/conference-season-makes-little-difference-views-ma

    Update

    Topline VI data for YouGov polling on Brexit expectations (fieldwork 1-2 Oct) is disclosed in a separate YouGov article which may also be the source of the above:
    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hberx91nj1/YouGov - Brexit deadline tracker 191002.pdf

    Con 402
    Lab 254
    LD 247
    BXP 159

    It may not necessarily be the fieldwork for their weekend poll, but depending on the VI for the other parties remaining at 10% the VI from that would be roughly:

    Con 34
    Lab 22
    LD 21
    BXP 13
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    nichomar said:

    Of course a factor often overlooked when thinking no deal is going to be hell on earth is that for many they feel that they are overlooked, out of luck and hard up against it regardless of the status of Brexit and nobody gives a damn about them. The tribulations of the well off will be of little regard to them should Brexit cause chaos. They feel the chaos anyway. Many of them are passionate leavers.

    The well off will feel little pain from no deal the really well off will probably make money any impact will fall on those who were lied to to get their vote. There will be no positive benefit to their lives and I doubt they will enjoy their new sovereignty
    Possibly. But when things are shit, a new layer of shit isn't really the issue.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,506
    nichomar said:

    Of course a factor often overlooked when thinking no deal is going to be hell on earth is that for many they feel that they are overlooked, out of luck and hard up against it regardless of the status of Brexit and nobody gives a damn about them. The tribulations of the well off will be of little regard to them should Brexit cause chaos. They feel the chaos anyway. Many of them are passionate leavers.

    The well off will feel little pain from no deal the really well off will probably make money any impact will fall on those who were lied to to get their vote. There will be no positive benefit to their lives and I doubt they will enjoy their new sovereignty
    They will, their house prices will go down, working class Leavers will benefit from tighter controls on immigration and the extra spending Boris is pushing
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    kinabalu said:

    Gabs2 said:

    This is correct. But the biggest danger is the EU having us back. If we flick from Europhilia to Euroscepticism every change of government they may just take a De Gaulle position. This is why it is so important for Remainers to accept the referendum and hold out an olive branch to Leavers. Because when we have the majority we will need the same.

    The opposite of Europhilia is Europhobia not Euroscepticism.

    Surprised a 'Remainer' would not know that.
    Euroscepticism is the established word and I don't see the need to use tribal terms to piss off the other side. I know that a conciliatory mindset is alien to most on here, but there we are.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,784
    Charles said:

    viewcode said:

    Scott_P said:

    GIN1138 said:

    They've got something up their sleeve but I can't think what the hell it is! :D

    History suggests they really don't.

    They are telling Brexiteers they do (and they believe them)

    They are telling the courts they don't (and refuse to actually sign any contrary documents)
    Free advice to ScottP, Leo Varadkar, and every remainer in between these high and lowly examples, all of whom are currently displaying the Twitter equivalent of bladder weakness. Paraphrasing our own Richard Nabavi - the deal is brilliant. Take the deal.

    As we now know, the deal even includes utterly unnecessary Phillip Hammond financial giveaways - so good they're treasonable.

    When no deal happens, you won't be able to say there was no warning, or that there was no alternative. You'll just look like a bunch of greedy schmucks.
    As of this moment, no deal other than the WA exists. I know Boris has written proposals about the deal he would like to have, but neither Parliament nor the European Council nor the European Parliament have agreed to it. It's October 4th. We have twenty-seven days to deadline. We have little time to expend on dreams... :(
    The WA isn't "a deal" according to the definitions of some on here.

    It was "a proposal" by the former PM which has been comprehensively rejected by Parliament.
    It was and still is an agreement between the UK and the EU.
    It's the nearest thing to a deal that we have.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,916

    I just saw Hillary Clinton at 17.5.

    I couldn’t stand it anymore so I laid the lot on offer.

    Every 17.5 in gets you 1+17.5 back, so that's (18.5/17.5) - 1, which is 5.7% return in 1 year. Not bad (assuming she doesn't win :) )

    How much did you get on, if you don't mind me asking?

  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    HYUFD said:
    Julian Smith mentioned earlier in the day about the Stormont situation and removing the petition of concern . That would make it fair and a simple vote that can’t be vetoed by a minority .

    The issue is what the DUP might do if that’s the case .
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.

    But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.

    Then we have a GE.

    I suspect the electorate will brutally punish anyone who chooses to inflict 2 more years of this uncertainty on the country.
    We wouldn't actually faff about for another 2 years. Tories win the GE, out we go with No Deal. Labour form a Government and it is second referendum time, where Remain wins, Revoke again and forget about it.
    Second referendum on what? The EU wont negotiate with someone dicking about with article 50, theyll say you'll get your offer of a deal in 2 years we will enjoy your contributions until then.

    It would be a more egregious abuse of power than prorogation 1
    The UK would repeal the ECA and not pay any more contributions in that situation I suspect.

    But it doesn't matter as there is no way the EU would not extend. It was already agreed with Grieve and Letwin.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,260

    nichomar said:

    Of course a factor often overlooked when thinking no deal is going to be hell on earth is that for many they feel that they are overlooked, out of luck and hard up against it regardless of the status of Brexit and nobody gives a damn about them. The tribulations of the well off will be of little regard to them should Brexit cause chaos. They feel the chaos anyway. Many of them are passionate leavers.

    The well off will feel little pain from no deal the really well off will probably make money any impact will fall on those who were lied to to get their vote. There will be no positive benefit to their lives and I doubt they will enjoy their new sovereignty
    Possibly. But when things are shit, a new layer of shit isn't really the issue.
    I accept that it really doesn’t matter how deep it is you are still in it. What I don’t understand is how those people think a Tory government will ever drain their shit because they won’t. Labour will make promises but will never be elected to be in a position to deliver because purity is more important than winning. I don’t know the answer as the so called main parties move to the extremes.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 7,963
    Channel 4 News: Plaid Cymru demands reparations from the UK government for a "century of negelect".
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,916
    HYUFD said:
    Oh stand, you dozy Mormon ( not you, @HYUFD ). Who have you got to lose against?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    edited October 2019
    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    Of course a factor often overlooked when thinking no deal is going to be hell on earth is that for many they feel that they are overlooked, out of luck and hard up against it regardless of the status of Brexit and nobody gives a damn about them. The tribulations of the well off will be of little regard to them should Brexit cause chaos. They feel the chaos anyway. Many of them are passionate leavers.

    The well off will feel little pain from no deal the really well off will probably make money any impact will fall on those who were lied to to get their vote. There will be no positive benefit to their lives and I doubt they will enjoy their new sovereignty
    Possibly. But when things are shit, a new layer of shit isn't really the issue.
    I accept that it really doesn’t matter how deep it is you are still in it. What I don’t understand is how those people think a Tory government will ever drain their shit because they won’t. Labour will make promises but will never be elected to be in a position to deliver because purity is more important than winning. I don’t know the answer as the so called main parties move to the extremes.
    They expect the Tories to dump on them (but perhaps sort law and order and represent some sort of ideal lost Britain of yore), labour have spent a century and a half falsely claiming to represent them and that perceived betrayal is more grievous. The workers party has become a party of fruitcakes, anti semites and luvvie socialists
    That's why labour are finished. Once it becomes a thing that red rosettes on a donkey dont have to be voted for they disappear, as in Scotland.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,636
    Anorak said:

    Amazing inversion of the accompanying commentary. Very, very clever.


    Brilliant.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,263

    So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.

    But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.

    Then we have a GE.

    I suspect the electorate will brutally punish anyone who chooses to inflict 2 more years of this uncertainty on the country.
    We wouldn't actually faff about for another 2 years. Tories win the GE, out we go with No Deal. Labour form a Government and it is second referendum time, where Remain wins, Revoke again and forget about it.
    I think that No Extension will lead back to the WA. It will be a point of the gun decision with no referendum or GE to fall back on. MPs don't have the balls to revoke and No Deal is a non-starter.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    HYUFD said:

    nichomar said:

    Of course a factor often overlooked when thinking no deal is going to be hell on earth is that for many they feel that they are overlooked, out of luck and hard up against it regardless of the status of Brexit and nobody gives a damn about them. The tribulations of the well off will be of little regard to them should Brexit cause chaos. They feel the chaos anyway. Many of them are passionate leavers.

    The well off will feel little pain from no deal the really well off will probably make money any impact will fall on those who were lied to to get their vote. There will be no positive benefit to their lives and I doubt they will enjoy their new sovereignty
    They will, their house prices will go down, working class Leavers will benefit from tighter controls on immigration and the extra spending Boris is pushing
    All that is going to happen on Immigration is instead of being EU migrants, people from the rest of the world will be queuing to come here. £10 an hour minimum wage is a big pull if you are on £1 a day in Pakistan, India or Africa or anywhere else for that matter. The point is I can see your Leave working class voters welcoming the new immigrants with open arms. What could go wrong? :naughty:
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Andy_JS said:

    Channel 4 News: Plaid Cymru demands reparations from the UK government for a "century of negelect".

    Ffs
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,260
    HYUFD said:

    nichomar said:

    Of course a factor often overlooked when thinking no deal is going to be hell on earth is that for many they feel that they are overlooked, out of luck and hard up against it regardless of the status of Brexit and nobody gives a damn about them. The tribulations of the well off will be of little regard to them should Brexit cause chaos. They feel the chaos anyway. Many of them are passionate leavers.

    The well off will feel little pain from no deal the really well off will probably make money any impact will fall on those who were lied to to get their vote. There will be no positive benefit to their lives and I doubt they will enjoy their new sovereignty
    They will, their house prices will go down, working class Leavers will benefit from tighter controls on immigration and the extra spending Boris is pushing
    Johnson’s spending will do nothing but address the cuts that have all ready taken place if that, I’m not sure who is going to wipe our old people’s backsides or pull vegetables from the fields and if house prices collapse the Tories are toast.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 49,793
    .
    Pulpstar said:

    Anorak said:

    Amazing inversion of the accompanying commentary. Very, very clever.


    Brilliant.
    Makes a nice change from all the negative ads these days.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    YouGov poll.

    How flexible do you think the current government has been with the EU in the negotiations.

    Not very flexible/ not at all flexible 52%

    Very flexible/fairly flexible 31%
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,923

    HYUFD said:

    nichomar said:

    Of course a factor often overlooked when thinking no deal is going to be hell on earth is that for many they feel that they are overlooked, out of luck and hard up against it regardless of the status of Brexit and nobody gives a damn about them. The tribulations of the well off will be of little regard to them should Brexit cause chaos. They feel the chaos anyway. Many of them are passionate leavers.

    The well off will feel little pain from no deal the really well off will probably make money any impact will fall on those who were lied to to get their vote. There will be no positive benefit to their lives and I doubt they will enjoy their new sovereignty
    They will, their house prices will go down, working class Leavers will benefit from tighter controls on immigration and the extra spending Boris is pushing
    All that is going to happen on Immigration is instead of being EU migrants, people from the rest of the world will be queuing to come here. £10 an hour minimum wage is a big pull if you are on £1 a day in Pakistan, India or Africa or anywhere else for that matter. The point is I can see your Leave working class voters welcoming the new immigrants with open arms. What could go wrong? :naughty:
    Well, at least the Working Class will be rapidly getting much less White!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,318
    edited October 2019
    viewcode said:

    I just saw Hillary Clinton at 17.5.

    I couldn’t stand it anymore so I laid the lot on offer.

    Every 17.5 in gets you 1+17.5 back, so that's (18.5/17.5) - 1, which is 5.7% return in 1 year. Not bad (assuming she doesn't win :) )

    How much did you get on, if you don't mind me asking?

    Not big money. There was only £13 on offer. And it also allows me to leverage up my Yang lays a bit as well.

    I just thought it was insane.

    Edit: assuming I don’t trade it will pay out in 9 months max (not a year) as Democratic convention is in July.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,285
    edited October 2019
    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.



  • RobDRobD Posts: 49,793
    .
    TGOHF2 said:
    Fake news? Surely not :o
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    Pulpstar said:

    Anorak said:

    Amazing inversion of the accompanying commentary. Very, very clever.


    Brilliant.
    I blubbed.

    It was definitely a heart attack he had?

    A country that can give Donald Trump a chance but not give Sanders a chance is a country that has lost touch with what made it great in the first place, and hastening itself to the toilet bowl of history.
  • HYUFD said:
    That's actually a really good answer. It disarms the premise of the Gotcha question via disarming honesty thus reinforcing his USP. He'll be a terrific candidate which is what is so upsetting about his talent being wasted like this.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,636

    viewcode said:

    I just saw Hillary Clinton at 17.5.

    I couldn’t stand it anymore so I laid the lot on offer.

    Every 17.5 in gets you 1+17.5 back, so that's (18.5/17.5) - 1, which is 5.7% return in 1 year. Not bad (assuming she doesn't win :) )

    How much did you get on, if you don't mind me asking?

    Not big money. There was only £13 on offer. And it also allows me to leverage up my Yang lays a bit as well.

    I just thought it was insane.

    Edit: assuming I don’t trade it will pay out in 9 months max (not a year) as Democratic convention is in July.
    I'm in the hole for about £1700 on Clinton.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,318
    RobD said:

    .

    Pulpstar said:

    Anorak said:

    Amazing inversion of the accompanying commentary. Very, very clever.


    Brilliant.
    Makes a nice change from all the negative ads these days.
    I don’t get this.

    It did nothing for me.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749

    Andy_JS said:

    Channel 4 News: Plaid Cymru demands reparations from the UK government for a "century of negelect".

    Ffs

    Absolutely

    We should have kept the castles in operational order.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,636

    RobD said:

    .

    Pulpstar said:

    Anorak said:

    Amazing inversion of the accompanying commentary. Very, very clever.


    Brilliant.
    Makes a nice change from all the negative ads these days.
    I don’t get this.

    It did nothing for me.
    You're very right wing though :)
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    nico67 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Julian Smith mentioned earlier in the day about the Stormont situation and removing the petition of concern . That would make it fair and a simple vote that can’t be vetoed by a minority .

    The issue is what the DUP might do if that’s the case .
    Surrender, as they have been doing all week. The DUP will soon cease to be part of this, they are going to get wiped out by their ulster unionist opponents.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,923
    HYUFD said:
    As if they thought they'd stump him by asking him to name a pub in London - considering he WORKS in London??
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,923
    TGOHF2 said:
    I'm surprised Toby Young doesn't think everyone but the BNP is dividing the left-wing vote.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,624
    Charles said:

    nico67 said:

    It would be responsible if the country were now to be mentally (physically I trust we are as well prepared as possible) prepared for No deal. The UK Government has made significant concessions, and opponents of its proposals have failed to highlight any aspects that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to their operability. They just fancy their chances (thanks to our parliament - good one guys) of pushing us into another deeply damaging extension.

    I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.

    I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.

    So giving the DUP a veto isn’t seen as an insurmountable problem ? You want the referendum honoured but want to give the DUP a veto over the majority in NI !

    Can you explain this contradiction ?
    There is a basic principle in the GFA that the consent of both communities is required.

    "given the DUP a veto" is the same as "giving SF a veto"
    There is only one veto available, which happens to be the veto the DUP wants and only the DUP wants
  • PeterC said:

    So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.

    But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.

    Then we have a GE.

    I suspect the electorate will brutally punish anyone who chooses to inflict 2 more years of this uncertainty on the country.
    We wouldn't actually faff about for another 2 years. Tories win the GE, out we go with No Deal. Labour form a Government and it is second referendum time, where Remain wins, Revoke again and forget about it.
    I think that No Extension will lead back to the WA. It will be a point of the gun decision with no referendum or GE to fall back on. MPs don't have the balls to revoke and No Deal is a non-starter.
    I hope you are right.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    egg said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Channel 4 News: Plaid Cymru demands reparations from the UK government for a "century of negelect".

    Ffs

    Absolutely

    We should have kept the castles in operational order.
    And this is only for the utter smashing we give them on the rugby pitch most years.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 20,374
    Chris said:

    TGOHF2 said:
    I'm surprised Toby Young doesn't think everyone but the BNP is dividing the left-wing vote.
    Some people live up to their parents reputation; some don’t.
    In getting him into Oxford I don’t think Toby’s father did him any favours.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 17,690

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.



    Think you mean Tony Blairs Supreme Court! :D
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,318
    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    .

    Pulpstar said:

    Anorak said:

    Amazing inversion of the accompanying commentary. Very, very clever.


    Brilliant.
    Makes a nice change from all the negative ads these days.
    I don’t get this.

    It did nothing for me.
    You're very right wing though :)
    Yes, I am a bit but I’m also pretty objective, as I think my record and betting shows.

    This was long winded and took a long time to get to the point, which seemed to be mainly about Bernie (nice) and err.. “socialism” ... err.. healthcare should be free at point of use.

    What am I missing?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,927
    That 1000/1 on the Mittster isn’t looking quite so shabby...
    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/04/mitt-romney-trump-biden-028114
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    Chris said:

    TGOHF2 said:
    I'm surprised Toby Young doesn't think everyone but the BNP is dividing the left-wing vote.
    Woosh.
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106


    I’m still unconvinced that EURef II would be an automatic remain win.

    There would be a huge boycott of R2 I suspect.

    As long as remain beat the leave total last time the anger should be manageable.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Anorak said:

    Amazing inversion of the accompanying commentary. Very, very clever.


    America could do with a dose of socialism. So could we.
    America is where you go to get away from socialism not to have more of it
    Comparing UK with US runs into differences, again we are into the land of labels, in different cultures, and different political systems in terms of central control and local democracy. In America they use the term liberal for left. In other countries Liberals represent right wing ideas.

    So ideas. Like minimum wage? USA or parts of it had one before we did? Green ideas left wing? There’s some great recycling going on in USA, arguably better than Britain.

    So maybe the centre of gravity of the whole politics of a Nation. And on this point there’s things I don’t understand about US politics, please enlighten me. Today there seems to be a centre of gravity between the parties. But before the sixties it was two right of centre parties with the centre of political gravity running amid each one? The south used to elect many Democrats, many of which were overtly racist? Something changed in fifty years? What? And Why?
  • The ' Petition of Concern ' not only gives the DUP a veto but Sinn Fein as well. And before you get to that specific veto both parties* have general vetos. The Assembly can only sit if both parties have agreed a power sharing executive. These vetos are deeply inbeded in the GFA architecture and can't be quickly unpicked. Certainly not by 19th of October.

    Boris' offer hinges on the Northern Ireland Assembly receiving a massive dose of extra devolved powers with international dimensions. Despite it being legally unable to sit current because it can't agree on much less complex stuff.

    If ever you wanted evidence Boris' offer was neither final or serious it was making Stormont pivotal.

    *Currently DUP and Sinn Fein not !egally.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,363

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.



    Nah calm down it's against abuse of power. Of whatever flavour.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    TGOHF2 said:
    What does he need to reflect over ? If barristers think he has a case why not just go for it ! More bluff and bluster .
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,263

    PeterC said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Scott_P said:

    Pulpstar said:

    He's doubling down. Bloody hell.

    He has to, or the headbangers will bring him down
    The one downside to everything. Hopkins loving Boris. Shes a cancerous old hag
    The kinder, gentler politics makes itself known!
    I've never read such humbug
    Katie Hokins behaves deplorably. but 'cancerous old hag' is unworthy. It is not humbug to make this point with gentle sardony.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,927

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.



    You’ve actually listened to the speech, or read a transcript, then ... ?
  • I just saw Hillary Clinton at 17.5.

    I couldn’t stand it anymore so I laid the lot on offer.

    Perfectly safe.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    edited October 2019
    nico67 said:

    TGOHF2 said:
    What does he need to reflect over ? If barristers think he has a case why not just go for it ! More bluff and bluster .
    I have nothing but contempt for Daniel Kawczynski. Not a pleasant individual by all accounts...
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    PeterC said:

    PeterC said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Scott_P said:

    Pulpstar said:

    He's doubling down. Bloody hell.

    He has to, or the headbangers will bring him down
    The one downside to everything. Hopkins loving Boris. Shes a cancerous old hag
    The kinder, gentler politics makes itself known!
    I've never read such humbug
    Katie Hokins behaves deplorably. but 'cancerous old hag' is unworthy. It is not humbug to make this point with gentle sardony.
    She actively proposes and champions ridiculously regressive and insulting policies. I'm being kind just limiting it to that. However, in the interests of harmony I shall refer to her as a disgusting ne'er do well of foul political morality.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 4,582
    edited October 2019
    Andy_JS said:

    Channel 4 News: Plaid Cymru demands reparations from the UK government for a "century of negelect".

    England exported Mark Reckless and Nick Griffin to Wales.

    England foisted Lembit Opik on us.

    We deserve compensation for that.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    Andy_JS said:

    Channel 4 News: Plaid Cymru demands reparations from the UK government for a "century of negelect".

    England exported Mark Reckless and Nick Griffin to Wales.

    We deserve compensation for that.
    You imported them so you're just as culpable.
  • OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.



    She's the first woman to head the Judicial Branch in our history. She's just heard an epochal constitutional case where the male head of the Executive Branch used sexist language. A mild public dig given both the President of the Supreme Court and the Prime Minister are role models to young girls seems reasonable and proportionate to me.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,927

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    .

    Pulpstar said:

    Anorak said:

    Amazing inversion of the accompanying commentary. Very, very clever.


    Brilliant.
    Makes a nice change from all the negative ads these days.
    I don’t get this.

    It did nothing for me.
    You're very right wing though :)
    Yes, I am a bit but I’m also pretty objective, as I think my record and betting shows.

    This was long winded and took a long time to get to the point, which seemed to be mainly about Bernie (nice) and err.. “socialism” ... err.. healthcare should be free at point of use.

    What am I missing?
    The emotion ? Objectivity tends not to get that.

    No, doesn’t really do it for me, either, FWIW. But I’m a lifelong sceptic.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,666

    Andy_JS said:

    Channel 4 News: Plaid Cymru demands reparations from the UK government for a "century of negelect".

    England exported Mark Reckless and Nick Griffin to Wales.

    We deserve compensation for that.
    Sounds like repatriation to me. Griffin!? Reckless!? Clearly Welsh :)

    Just supposing you're right, how dark is your darkest valley, and what's the rental? If that doesn't suit then I believe you have some mines that may fit the bill. Failing all that of course, then a few nails through the ears and a handy plank, and the Irish Sea is the place.

  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,260
    SunnyJim said:


    I’m still unconvinced that EURef II would be an automatic remain win.

    There would be a huge boycott of R2 I suspect.

    As long as remain beat the leave total last time the anger should be manageable.
    If people vetoed it tough shit if you can only get off your arse to vote once in your life then that’s up to you
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 12,580
    TOPPING said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.



    Nah calm down it's against abuse of power. Of whatever flavour.
    Motes and beams...
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 4,582

    Andy_JS said:

    Channel 4 News: Plaid Cymru demands reparations from the UK government for a "century of negelect".

    England exported Mark Reckless and Nick Griffin to Wales.

    We deserve compensation for that.
    You imported them so you're just as culpable.
    You seem to be under the misapprehension that there is an actual border at Clawdd Offa.

    Nick Griffin can just saunter over from England and set himself up in Wales. We never imported him.

    Mark Reckless is just another example of the radioactive sludge that England dumps on Wales.

    See https://tinyurl.com/ydyrc8yh

    As regards Wanker Lembit, it is the most Anglo-centric of all the Parties, the "Welsh" LibDems, who dumped him on Montgomeryshire.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,363

    TOPPING said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.



    Nah calm down it's against abuse of power. Of whatever flavour.
    Motes and beams...
    Yes good point. The supreme court does have power. Thank the lord because they can rein in politicians trying to take the piss.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,916

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.





    I've said this before and I'll say it again: we should not go after civilians. There has to be some brigh line beyond which the usual commentariat go "d'y'know what: just leave it". And none of this "oh she put herself in the firing line" gubbins. She did her job. No need to hound her.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,666

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.



    She's the first woman to head the Judicial Branch in our history. She's just heard an epochal constitutional case where the male head of the Executive Branch used sexist language. A mild public dig given both the President of the Supreme Court and the Prime Minister are role models to young girls seems reasonable and proportionate to me.
    If this is the sort of thing she's done before then that's fine. If, however, this is some new upgrade in her public presence then she is clearly being political.

    (I don't know what the facts say, but I'm totally sure that the above is the right gauge. [at least until someone points out a flaw])
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 12,580
    edited October 2019
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.



    Nah calm down it's against abuse of power. Of whatever flavour.
    Motes and beams...
    Yes good point. The supreme court does have power. Thank the lord because they can rein in politicians trying to take the piss.
    So who reins them in for doing the same.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 3,943
    HYUFD said:
    1 down, 18 to go for impeachment.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,927
    edited October 2019
    viewcode said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

    I've said this before and I'll say it again: we should not go after civilians. There has to be some brigh line beyond which the usual commentariat go "d'y'know what: just leave it". And none of this "oh she put herself in the firing line" gubbins. She did her job. No need to hound her.

    Again, did anyone actually bother to find out what she actually said ?
    From the little I’ve seen, it seems wholly unexceptionable.
  • OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

    You and Guido are terribly sensitive souls, aren't you?

    It's a pretty mild quip to say "let's hear it for girly swots" at a conference of the Association of State Girls Schools.

    I also think people need to actually understand a little better at what words like "independent" and "unbiased" mean. You are not required, in order to be independent and unbiased, to be cloistered away and never to have expressed a view (or told a mild joke) about anything. Judicial independence is about being free from improper influence from other branches of government and from private interests. And bias involves being open minded, not empty minded.

    Hale, and other Supreme Court judges, have no skin in the game, however much certain commentators seek to insinuate they do. They are more than capable of deciding legal cases based on legal principles, as they did here.

    In this particular case - which was handled appallingly by the Government's lawyers - it was never very credible that prorogation wasn't justicable in that the precedents weren't good for them and the logical conclusion of that argument was that a PM could prorogue indefinitely for any reason or no reason. They were always going to need either to say that they did actually need that long to prepare the Queen's Speech (Johnson's public position) or that it was legitimate to prorogue to give time to negotiate with the EU (which would have made a liar of Johnson). They chose not to argue either - no witness statement was provided. The whole thing was high farce and it was never going to fly.

    Incidentally, would any of those screaming blue murder over the Supreme Court consider it non-justicable if a future PM Corbyn prorogued Parliament for two years to dodge a no confidence vote, or prevent Parliament interfering by legislating to the contrary with executive action he was taking to get rid of all private schools? Just asking because the logic of the argument the Government was putting to the Supreme Court is precisely that that would be perfectly legal.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,363
    edited October 2019

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.



    Nah calm down it's against abuse of power. Of whatever flavour.
    Motes and beams...
    Yes good point. The supreme court does have power. Thank the lord because they can rein in politicians trying to take the piss.
    So who reins them in for doing the same.
    Parliament. Parliament makes the laws which they rule on. Great system, right?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 3,022
    TGOHF2 said:
    Personal meeting with barristers, eh? That’s good. So many of their meetings are impersonal
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 14,634
    SunnyJim said:


    I’m still unconvinced that EURef II would be an automatic remain win.

    There would be a huge boycott of R2 I suspect.

    As long as remain beat the leave total last time the anger should be manageable.
    Boycotting = can't be arsed ≠ ready to riot.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,651
    I see it is "Enemies of the People" night on PB.

    Predictable I suppose....
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 4,582
    Canada is the world’s largest exporter of electricity at 64 TWh; Germany 51 TWh; Paraguay 48 TWh; France at 42TWh.

    Then comes Wales, placed above energy rich Norway and its $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund built on surpluses from its energy policy.

    Welsh success in producing vast amount of electricity has no monetary value for the Welsh people. It is stolen by others.

    Wales is just a giant electricity power plant (or water company) run by and for another country. Wales is a colony run for the benefit of England.

    Just like the Australian colonies, where better to dump English undesirables like Griffin ?
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    Hale was unwise (to be generous) and it is understandable leavers have questions.

    She is standing down is she not? Fortuitous timing if so.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 12,580
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.



    Nah calm down it's against abuse of power. Of whatever flavour.
    Motes and beams...
    Yes good point. The supreme court does have power. Thank the lord because they can rein in politicians trying to take the piss.
    So who reins them in for doing the same.
    Parliament. Parliament makes the laws which they rule on. Great system, right?
    By and large, yes.
  • DougSeal said:

    TGOHF2 said:
    Personal meeting with barristers, eh? That’s good. So many of their meetings are impersonal
    Were they Costa or Starbucks baristas, Daniel?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,506

    HYUFD said:

    nichomar said:

    Of course a factor often overlooked when thinking no deal is going to be hell on earth is that for many they feel that they are overlooked, out of luck and hard up against it regardless of the status of Brexit and nobody gives a damn about them. The tribulations of the well off will be of little regard to them should Brexit cause chaos. They feel the chaos anyway. Many of them are passionate leavers.

    The well off will feel little pain from no deal the really well off will probably make money any impact will fall on those who were lied to to get their vote. There will be no positive benefit to their lives and I doubt they will enjoy their new sovereignty
    They will, their house prices will go down, working class Leavers will benefit from tighter controls on immigration and the extra spending Boris is pushing
    All that is going to happen on Immigration is instead of being EU migrants, people from the rest of the world will be queuing to come here. £10 an hour minimum wage is a big pull if you are on £1 a day in Pakistan, India or Africa or anywhere else for that matter. The point is I can see your Leave working class voters welcoming the new immigrants with open arms. What could go wrong? :naughty:
    No, all tgat will happen is EU citizens will be subject to the same points system everyone else is
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 3,022
    edited October 2019
    viewcode said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.





    It was a unanimous decision of 11 members of the Supreme Court. Are people suggesting all 11 are biased? She, essentially, just read out the majority opinion. Perhaps they should reflect on the outright sexism of the comment she was mocking (a dig made at a conference of girls schools) rather than extrapolating a minor dig into a questioning of what was a closely argued, logical and well reasons judgment of her and 10 of her peers.

    I could add that it hasn’t made any difference to Brexit anyway. Nothing in that regard has changed as a result of Parliament returning.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,260
    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

    I've said this before and I'll say it again: we should not go after civilians. There has to be some brigh line beyond which the usual commentariat go "d'y'know what: just leave it". And none of this "oh she put herself in the firing line" gubbins. She did her job. No need to hound her.

    Again, did anyone actually bother to find out what she actually said ?
    From the little I’ve seen, it seems wholly unexceptionable.
    As a father with three daughters let’s hear it for the girly swots
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,506
    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:

    nichomar said:

    Of course a factor often overlooked when thinking no deal is going to be hell on earth is that for many they feel that they are overlooked, out of luck and hard up against it regardless of the status of Brexit and nobody gives a damn about them. The tribulations of the well off will be of little regard to them should Brexit cause chaos. They feel the chaos anyway. Many of them are passionate leavers.

    The well off will feel little pain from no deal the really well off will probably make money any impact will fall on those who were lied to to get their vote. There will be no positive benefit to their lives and I doubt they will enjoy their new sovereignty
    They will, their house prices will go down, working class Leavers will benefit from tighter controls on immigration and the extra spending Boris is pushing
    Johnson’s spending will do nothing but address the cuts that have all ready taken place if that, I’m not sure who is going to wipe our old people’s backsides or pull vegetables from the fields and if house prices collapse the Tories are toast.
    If house prices fall more people get to buy houses meaning more Tory voters
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,666

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

    You and Guido are terribly sensitive souls, aren't you?

    It's a pretty mild quip to say "let's hear it for girly swots" at a conference of the Association of State Girls Schools.

    I also think people need to actually understand a little better at what words like "independent" and "unbiased" mean. You are not required, in order to be independent and unbiased, to be cloistered away and never to have expressed a view (or told a mild joke) about anything. Judicial independence is about being free from improper influence from other branches of government and from private interests. And bias involves being open minded, not empty minded.

    Hale, and other Supreme Court judges, have no skin in the game, however much certain commentators seek to insinuate they do. They are more than capable of deciding legal cases based on legal principles, as they did here.

    In this particular case - which was handled appallingly by the Government's lawyers - it was never very credible that prorogation wasn't justicable in that the precedents weren't good for them and the logical conclusion of that argument was that a PM could prorogue indefinitely for any reason or no reason. They were always going to need either to say that they did actually need that long to prepare the Queen's Speech (Johnson's public position) or that it was legitimate to prorogue to give time to negotiate with the EU (which would have made a liar of Johnson). They chose not to argue either - no witness statement was provided. The whole thing was high farce and it was never going to fly.

    Incidentally, would any of those screaming blue murder over the Supreme Court consider it non-justicable if a future PM Corbyn prorogued Parliament for two years to dodge a no confidence vote, or prevent Parliament interfering by legislating to the contrary with executive action he was taking to get rid of all private schools? Just asking because the logic of the argument the Government was putting to the Supreme Court is precisely that that would be perfectly legal.
    Hale and others do have skin in the game. It's daftness to suggest otherwise.

    Just because proroging was wrong doesn't mean any old rule should over-turn it.

    If Hale is now profiting or speechifying based on the SC court decision then I think that its clear the SC has become political. (To my mind the Law Lords was a better mechanism)

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,318

    I see it is "Enemies of the People" night on PB.

    Predictable I suppose....

    Seriously, why do you post on here?

    You make some of the least intelligent and most petulant comments on this site.

    I was embarrassed by your posts when you were a tubthumbing BOO’er on here five years ago, and I’m embarrassed by your posts attempting to be insightfully witty (but painfully showing your limitations) now.

    Rather than channelling your strongest inner emotions (unfiltered) stick to what you’re good at: insight in areas you know about, and reasoned perspective.

    Seriously. It’ll be better for all of us.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

    And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.



    Nah calm down it's against abuse of power. Of whatever flavour.
    Motes and beams...
    Yes good point. The supreme court does have power. Thank the lord because they can rein in politicians trying to take the piss.
    So who reins them in for doing the same.
    For a start Supreme Court Justices are term limited. Lady Hale retires in January by law so any biases are weeded out automatically if they exist. New Supreme Court Justices are recommended by an independent commission to the head of the executive who in turn recommends them to the head of state. There are several layers of checks and balances built into the system.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,916
    egg said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Anorak said:

    Amazing inversion of the accompanying commentary. Very, very clever.


    America could do with a dose of socialism. So could we.
    America is where you go to get away from socialism not to have more of it
    Comparing UK with US runs into differences, again we are into the land of labels, in different cultures, and different political systems in terms of central control and local democracy. In America they use the term liberal for left. In other countries Liberals represent right wing ideas.

    So ideas. Like minimum wage? USA or parts of it had one before we did? Green ideas left wing? There’s some great recycling going on in USA, arguably better than Britain.

    So maybe the centre of gravity of the whole politics of a Nation. And on this point there’s things I don’t understand about US politics, please enlighten me. Today there seems to be a centre of gravity between the parties. But before the sixties it was two right of centre parties with the centre of political gravity running amid each one? The south used to elect many Democrats, many of which were overtly racist? Something changed in fifty years? What? And Why?
    Up to the 1960s there was a distinct group of Democratic politicians in the former states of the Confederacy who were deeply racist ("Dixiecrats"). As the South was at the time deeply racist and there were long folk memories of Lincoln (the Republican President who freed the slaves and beat the Confederates in the 19th century Civil War), they were electorally very popular. But by the 1960's some things came into play: Vietnam, greater media coverage, and the people of the South started to agitate for civil rights previously denied them. The President at the time was the Democrat Lyndon Johnson who gave greater impetus to this movement in law and legislation was passed. His successor was Richard Nixon, a Republican of remarkable political skill and unremarked racism, who appealed more to the South than the Democrats now did, and the racists in the South transferred their allegiance to him. Before the 1960s the Democrats were seen as the racist party, but after the 1960s the Republicans were so seen.

    (Yes, I know there are perfectly decent and nonracist Republicans and perfectly indecent and racist Democrats, but that's not the point: I'm answering the question that was asked)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 12,580

    Canada is the world’s largest exporter of electricity at 64 TWh; Germany 51 TWh; Paraguay 48 TWh; France at 42TWh.

    Then comes Wales, placed above energy rich Norway and its $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund built on surpluses from its energy policy.

    Welsh success in producing vast amount of electricity has no monetary value for the Welsh people. It is stolen by others.

    Wales is just a giant electricity power plant (or water company) run by and for another country. Wales is a colony run for the benefit of England.

    Just like the Australian colonies, where better to dump English undesirables like Griffin ?

    Wales' success in producing energy is a brilliant, amazing thing. Clearly this success should now be built on by securing more energy jobs and investment that benefits those living in Wales. It's just waiting for someone with vision to do, and I fail to see Wales being part of the UK as an impediment.
  • SunnyJim said:

    Hale was unwise (to be generous) and it is understandable leavers have questions.

    She is standing down is she not? Fortuitous timing if so.

    She reaches the complusory retirement age ( 75 in her case as she was appointed before the general rule of 70 was introduced ) in January. Her sucessor Lord Reed was announced in the Summer.
This discussion has been closed.