I think politicians need to remember that whatever happens, fairly soon they'll have to justify their actions to electors on the doorstep. These manoeuvrings are getting very difficult to understand, let alone justify.
Mr. Sandpit, I'd forgotten how late Mexico starts. It's 7pm for qualifying and just after (the following day, of course) for the race.
Yes, and USA will be the same times next weekend. Brazil's a couple of hours earlier. Abu Dhabi is of course at usual European race times, but the race starts as dusk local time - and I'll be there!
Enjoy! My Bro's been to lot's of foreign ones but we both started at sliverstone. I don't travel very well.
I've been to a few, definitely on the bucket list to complete the full set of races at some point. Just Abu Dhabi this year, hopefully Bahrain and one of Baku and Sochi next year. perhaps even an outside chance of the new one in Vietnam. Silverstone and Spa are something else of a race atmosphere though, Singapore the best overall holiday destination.
I wonder how close to a breakdown some MPs are over all this. Labour leavers are under two sets of immense pressure in particular.
Crying through the Aye lobby on third reading anyone ?
The stress must be unbearable
However, they decided to play games with the second reading and programme motion in a move designed to change the deal to a customs union and referendum, but how it has backfired
In both TM deal and Boris's they tried to be too clever and how they must now be regretting their decisions
I wonder how close to a breakdown the PM is over all this.
The stress must be unbearable
However, he decided to play games with the second reading and programme motion in a move designed bulldoze the WAB through with inadequate scrutiny but how it has backfired
In both TM deal and Boris's they tried to be too clever and how they must now be regretting their decisions
Probably further away from one than you are?
I'm really very relaxed and enjoying this. Better than a box set. My bets generally are green. I'm loving it actually. Can't wait for the GE, knocking on doors.
I guess you should either give up knocking on doors or stop insinuating people are on the verge of a breakdown if you want to rescue any shred of credibility or be of use while knocking on doors.
Life is generally better than a box set.
Look through this thread to find who first introduced the idea of breakdown and stress. It certainly wasn't me. I just mirrored it.
OK I didn't see that, as yours was the first reference I saw to it. I have a thing about taking mental health lightly, maybe that's why I'm involved with a MH charity...
It was about parliamanetary oversight of the future FTA, which dear leader felt was an affront to his power so threw his toys out of the pram.
I wouldn't have a huge problem with parliamentary oversight as long as there wasn't an attempt to bind the hands of a future PM with legislation passed today.
By all means have a vote on individual deals as they are agreed between HMG and the EU.
It will be grist to the Tories election mill as you can well imagine.
Big_G said: "Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems"
I’m calling it now, a panic stricken Commons facing a No Deal Brexit on Thursday will revoke Article 50.
Lord knows where we go after that.
Facing a No Deal Brexit how?
The nation of cheese eating surrender monkeys vetoes an extension.
Isn't there already a consensus for an extension of some length?
Consensus of everyone apart from the French from the sound of it.
Parliament has a way to take No Deal off the table (implement the Deal) and if there's no Election there's no point in an extension. Why should they grant an extension?
I’m calling it now, a panic stricken Commons facing a No Deal Brexit on Thursday will revoke Article 50.
Lord knows where we go after that.
Facing a No Deal Brexit how?
The nation of cheese eating surrender monkeys vetoes an extension.
Isn't there already a consensus for an extension of some length?
One that is justifiable for the purpose it is required. That could be 24 hours to no deal, 2 to 4 weeks to get WA through or 31st Jan for election - which really needs to be in December if the incoming Government is going to have time to do anything on the Brexit front.
I've put a tiny bit on McLaren to get a podium (think that was Mr. Sandpit's idea).
Yes, the thinking is that the Renault engine is particularly good here (It's won the last two races) and it's not in the Red Bull this year. I guess we'll soon find out.
I've put a tiny bit on McLaren to get a podium (think that was Mr. Sandpit's idea).
Yes, the thinking is that the Renault engine is particularly good here (It's won the last two races) and it's not in the Red Bull this year. I guess we'll soon find out.
You've confused me here - Mercedes and Ferrari's don't run Renault's do they?????
I’m calling it now, a panic stricken Commons facing a No Deal Brexit on Thursday will revoke Article 50.
Lord knows where we go after that.
Facing a No Deal Brexit how?
The nation of cheese eating surrender monkeys vetoes an extension.
Isn't there already a consensus for an extension of some length?
Consensus of everyone apart from the French from the sound of it.
Oh I see. I had just heard the reports about the outcome of the ambassadors' meeting. I hadn't seen this about Macron's spokesman.
Well, I may be putting the final touches to my stockpile just in case, but I don't believe France is going to bring about No Deal against the wishes of the others, and neither do the currency markets or the betting markets, evidently.
I wonder how close to a breakdown some MPs are over all this. Labour leavers are under two sets of immense pressure in particular.
Crying through the Aye lobby on third reading anyone ?
The stress must be unbearable
However, they decided to play games with the second reading and programme motion in a move designed to change the deal to a customs union and referendum, but how it has backfired
In both TM deal and Boris's they tried to be too clever and how they must now be regretting their decisions
I wonder how close to a breakdown the PM is over all this.
The stress must be unbearable
However, he decided to play games with the second reading and programme motion in a move designed bulldoze the WAB through with inadequate scrutiny but how it has backfired
In both TM deal and Boris's they tried to be too clever and how they must now be regretting their decisions
Probably further away from one than you are?
I'm really very relaxed and enjoying this. Better than a box set. My bets generally are green. I'm loving it actually. Can't wait for the GE, knocking on doors.
I guess you should either give up knocking on doors or stop insinuating people are on the verge of a breakdown if you want to rescue any shred of credibility or be of use while knocking on doors.
Life is generally better than a box set.
Look through this thread to find who first introduced the idea of breakdown and stress. It certainly wasn't me. I just mirrored it.
OK I didn't see that, as yours was the first reference I saw to it. I have a thing about taking mental health lightly, maybe that's why I'm involved with a MH charity...
Apologies to you.
That's OK. I have family experience of mental health issues - dementia, bipolar and paranoia - so I really don't take it lightly.
Nevertheless I do think it is legitimate to comment on potential mental health issues of politicians in position of power e.g. with regard to Trump, if the consequences are potentially very serious. It's a balance between personal dignity and public safety.
I've put a tiny bit on McLaren to get a podium (think that was Mr. Sandpit's idea).
Yes, the thinking is that the Renault engine is particularly good here (It's won the last two races) and it's not in the Red Bull this year. I guess we'll soon find out.
You've confused me here - Mercedes and Ferrari's don't run Renault's do they?????
No they don't. My suggestion is to back McLaren for good points (I think I initially suggested top 6 rather than top 3) because they're the strongest Renault runner, and that manufacturer have an engine that works very well at the unique altitude of Mexico City (7,500').
Weather looks all over the place too, could be rain in any session, track is damp at the moment. Don't think I'll be putting any cash down today.
I’m calling it now, a panic stricken Commons facing a No Deal Brexit on Thursday will revoke Article 50.
Lord knows where we go after that.
Facing a No Deal Brexit how?
The nation of cheese eating surrender monkeys vetoes an extension.
Isn't there already a consensus for an extension of some length?
One that is justifiable for the purpose it is required. That could be 24 hours to no deal, 2 to 4 weeks to get WA through or 31st Jan for election - which really needs to be in December if the incoming Government is going to have time to do anything on the Brexit front.
Obviously that doesn't make sense. If the "purpose" is No Deal, no extension at all is required.
I’m calling it now, a panic stricken Commons facing a No Deal Brexit on Thursday will revoke Article 50.
Lord knows where we go after that.
Facing a No Deal Brexit how?
The nation of cheese eating surrender monkeys vetoes an extension.
Isn't there already a consensus for an extension of some length?
One that is justifiable for the purpose it is required. That could be 24 hours to no deal, 2 to 4 weeks to get WA through or 31st Jan for election - which really needs to be in December if the incoming Government is going to have time to do anything on the Brexit front.
Obviously that doesn't make sense. If the "purpose" is No Deal, no extension at all is required.
I gave it 24 hours as the consensus is an extension is agreed subject to justifiability.
I wonder how close to a breakdown some MPs are over all this. Labour leavers are under two sets of immense pressure in particular.
Crying through the Aye lobby on third reading anyone ?
The stress must be unbearable
However, they decided to play games with the second reading and programme motion in a move designed to change the deal to a customs union and referendum, but how it has backfired
In both TM deal and Boris's they tried to be too clever and how they must now be regretting their decisions
I wonder how close to a breakdown the PM is over all this.
The stress must be unbearable
However, he decided to play games with the second reading and programme motion in a move designed bulldoze the WAB through with inadequate scrutiny but how it has backfired
In both TM deal and Boris's they tried to be too clever and how they must now be regretting their decisions
Probably further away from one than you are?
I'm really very relaxed and enjoying this. Better than a box set. My bets generally are green. I'm loving it actually. Can't wait for the GE, knocking on doors.
I guess you should either give up knocking on doors or stop insinuating people are on the verge of a breakdown if you want to rescue any shred of credibility or be of use while knocking on doors.
Life is generally better than a box set.
Look through this thread to find who first introduced the idea of breakdown and stress. It certainly wasn't me. I just mirrored it.
OK I didn't see that, as yours was the first reference I saw to it. I have a thing about taking mental health lightly, maybe that's why I'm involved with a MH charity...
Apologies to you.
That's OK. I have family experience of mental health issues - dementia, bipolar and paranoia - so I really don't take it lightly.
Nevertheless I do think it is legitimate to comment on potential mental health issues of politicians in position of power e.g. with regard to Trump, if the consequences are potentially very serious. It's a balance between personal dignity and public safety.
LOL maybe that's where the Dems are going wrong; they're trying to impeach Trump when they should be trying to section him.
Consensus of everyone apart from the French from the sound of it.
Parliament has a way to take No Deal off the table (implement the Deal) and if there's no Election there's no point in an extension. Why should they grant an extension?
To avoid a shit storm, the fallout from which would do them no good whatsoever.
@philiph@JBriskinindyref2 Quit your whining over @Barnesian - he's mirroring my point about MPs being in a tough place. My original (unsaid) point was that it has all been self-inflicted.
@philiph@JBriskinindyref2 Quit your whining over @Barnesian - he's mirroring my point about MPs being in a tough place. My original (unsaid) point was that it has all been self-inflicted.
Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems
Given the Boris Deal is 'true leave' for most Leavers the absence of No Deal from the Ref2* ballot paper would not be such a big problem as it would if the Leave option were, say, the May Deal
* That's the Ref2 that remains IMO very much a Not Happening event.
I am so sorry to keep going on about this but ref 2 will have to include no deal
I think politicians need to remember that whatever happens, fairly soon they'll have to justify their actions to electors on the doorstep. These manoeuvrings are getting very difficult to understand, let alone justify.
Yep...people are looking at this and seeing just game playing, which disgusts everyone.
Boris is clear.. Boris wants an election, that's a strong position to hammer home. Clear argument, clear positions are what's needed.
Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems
Given the Boris Deal is 'true leave' for most Leavers the absence of No Deal from the Ref2* ballot paper would not be such a big problem as it would if the Leave option were, say, the May Deal
* That's the Ref2 that remains IMO very much a Not Happening event.
I am so sorry to keep going on about this but ref 2 will have to include no deal
I think politicians need to remember that whatever happens, fairly soon they'll have to justify their actions to electors on the doorstep. These manoeuvrings are getting very difficult to understand, let alone justify.
Yep...people are looking at this and seeing just game playing, which disgusts everyone.
Boris is clear.. Boris wants an election, that's a strong position to hammer home. Clear argument, clear positions are what's needed.
I thought Boris’s position was that he would deliver Brexit by Oct 31 no ifs or buts.
@philiph@JBriskinindyref2 Quit your whining over @Barnesian - he's mirroring my point about MPs being in a tough place. My original (unsaid) point was that it has all been self-inflicted.
I think politicians need to remember that whatever happens, fairly soon they'll have to justify their actions to electors on the doorstep. These manoeuvrings are getting very difficult to understand, let alone justify.
Yep...people are looking at this and seeing just game playing, which disgusts everyone.
Boris is clear.. Boris wants an election, that's a strong position to hammer home. Clear argument, clear positions are what's needed.
I thought Boris’s position was that he would deliver Brexit by Oct 31 no ifs or buts.
The prices on a 2019 election flipped at about 6 pm yesterday.Up to that point 2019 was odds on and everything past that against. Managed to get a few hundred on 2020 or later at 7/4. That is now odds on..bit concerned it could flip back pretty quickly
Big_G said: "Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems"
Why would No Deal have to be an option?
A constitutional expert clearly stated that any referendum has to include all options including no deal as the electoral commission have to be even handed with all opinions and there is considerable support for no deal
However, if someone can get a constitutional expert to disprove this I would be very interested to see their reasoning
The local by elections show a swing from Labour to tory, but a big swing from tory to libdem, which means a small tory majority is probably likely whenever the GE comes.
Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems
Given the Boris Deal is 'true leave' for most Leavers the absence of No Deal from the Ref2* ballot paper would not be such a big problem as it would if the Leave option were, say, the May Deal
* That's the Ref2 that remains IMO very much a Not Happening event.
I am so sorry to keep going on about this but ref 2 will have to include no deal
Big_G said: "Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems"
Why would No Deal have to be an option?
A constitutional expert clearly stated that any referendum has to include all options including no deal as the electoral commission have to be even handed with all opinions and there is considerable support for no deal
However, if someone can get a constitutional expert to disprove this I would be very interested to see their reasoning
‘No deal’ doesn't mean anything. Everyone who supports it has a different idea of what it means.
You can also get 33/1 on a Labour/Libdem&SNP coalition in next govt. Considering that pretty much what we have now that seems a decent price
I wonder if the period of inability of a functioning majority government will cause voters to swing to the opposite and vote in a majority of one sort or another. Boris, Jeremy or Jo could be smiling, while two of them are deposed.
and he's at 1.33 on Betfair as Republican nominee i.e. only a 75% chance.
The other runners seem to be Pence and Haley with Romney as a long shot. I'm on Condoleezza Rice at 400/1 for £2 but that's just to compete for the most outrageous outsider win.
Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems
Given the Boris Deal is 'true leave' for most Leavers the absence of No Deal from the Ref2* ballot paper would not be such a big problem as it would if the Leave option were, say, the May Deal
* That's the Ref2 that remains IMO very much a Not Happening event.
I am so sorry to keep going on about this but ref 2 will have to include no deal
Kinabalu said: "I don't see Ref2 myself but at least it does work now as a proposition. Why? Because we now have a Leave option - the Boris Deal - which is deliverable AND backed by Leavers. That against Remain would be a legitimate match-up"
That`s a good point - now we have a Leave option - i.e. a method of leaving which Brexiters can support and therefore counts as leaving.
The problem is that it will get amended and I suspect that remainer MPs will craft amendments deliberately to make Boris`s deal no longer attractive to Brexiter MPs!
Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems
There's close to zero chance that a 2nd referendum would have No Deal as one of the options. The most likely form of referendum would be to approve a deal. Of course the PV people also want Remain on the ballot, but getting parliament to approve that has always seemed unlikely. In summary, if we start to go down the referendum road we're going to hit the same obstacles as before, and fail to produce anything of use.
Big_G said: "Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems"
Why would No Deal have to be an option?
A constitutional expert clearly stated that any referendum has to include all options including no deal as the electoral commission have to be even handed with all opinions and there is considerable support for no deal
However, if someone can get a constitutional expert to disprove this I would be very interested to see their reasoning
‘No deal’ doesn't mean anything. Everyone who supports it has a different idea of what it means.
I am perfectly content to have this disproved by another constitutional expert
Indeed it would help everyone if this could be clarified as I understand it is fundamental to the peoples vote thinking
I am certainly no constitutional expert but it seems to me that even a layman working from the premise of fairness could see that there would need to be a ND option on any future referendum.
Which then leads on to the challenges of avoiding splitting one side of the vote in two.
I think the discussion is a fools errand in any case, even Chukka indicated yesterday that he'd all but given up hope on a 2nd referendum.
The local by elections show a swing from Labour to tory, but a big swing from tory to libdem, which means a small tory majority is probably likely whenever the GE comes.
The local by elections show a swing from Labour to tory, but a big swing from tory to libdem, which means a small tory majority is probably likely whenever the GE comes.
That's the most likely scenario: Tory vote share down, Labour down more. LibDems up, but not making much progress outside Remainia.
I'd reckon 5 Conservative losses to the SNP and another 4-12 to the LibDems (with, I suspect, the actual number coming at the bottom of that range), balanced by 35 or so Conservative gains from Labour.
End result, a small Conservative majority.
But, FPTP is inherently volatile. If there was successful anti-Johnson tactical voting, then you could see the Conservatives back at 315 (or less), only having pissed the DUP off so badly that there's no likelihood of a C&S deal.
Big_G said: "Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems"
Why would No Deal have to be an option?
A constitutional expert clearly stated that any referendum has to include all options including no deal as the electoral commission have to be even handed with all opinions and there is considerable support for no deal
However, if someone can get a constitutional expert to disprove this I would be very interested to see their reasoning
‘No deal’ doesn't mean anything. Everyone who supports it has a different idea of what it means.
Big_G said: "Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems"
Why would No Deal have to be an option?
A constitutional expert clearly stated that any referendum has to include all options including no deal as the electoral commission have to be even handed with all opinions and there is considerable support for no deal
However, if someone can get a constitutional expert to disprove this I would be very interested to see their reasoning
‘No deal’ doesn't mean anything. Everyone who supports it has a different idea of what it means.
That is not democracy.
leaving without a deal, 'WTO terms'.
But it isn’t that simple. Some people will want zero tarrifs on everything. Some people will want huge tariffs on everything. Some people will even want us to join EFTA on day 1.
You can also get 33/1 on a Labour/Libdem&SNP coalition in next govt. Considering that pretty much what we have now that seems a decent price
I really can't see the LibDems going into a coalition deal after their recent experience and observing the leverage of the DUP approach. I'm on a minority Labour government. It's value at 9.2 but not very liquid.
Big_G said: "Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems"
Why would No Deal have to be an option?
A constitutional expert clearly stated that any referendum has to include all options including no deal as the electoral commission have to be even handed with all opinions and there is considerable support for no deal
However, if someone can get a constitutional expert to disprove this I would be very interested to see their reasoning
‘No deal’ doesn't mean anything. Everyone who supports it has a different idea of what it means.
That is not democracy.
Seems the electoral commission would not agree
The electoral commission is irrelevant if Parliament legislates as such.
I am perfectly content to have this disproved by another constitutional expert
Indeed it would help everyone if this could be clarified as I understand it is fundamental to the peoples vote thinking
I am certainly no constitutional expert but it seems to me that even a layman working from the premise of fairness could see that there would need to be a ND option on any future referendum.
Which then leads on to the challenges of avoiding splitting one side of the vote in two.
I think the discussion is a fools errand in any case, even Chukka indicated yesterday that he'd all but given up hope on a 2nd referendum.
There's no need to worry about splitting the vote, you simple offer three questions:
No Deal vs Deal Deal vs Remain Remain vs No Deal
(You can also do this by asking people to rank the three options.)
Whichever option beats the other two wins. It's called the Condorcet Winner.
The local by elections show a swing from Labour to tory, but a big swing from tory to libdem, which means a small tory majority is probably likely whenever the GE comes.
You can also get 33/1 on a Labour/Libdem&SNP coalition in next govt. Considering that pretty much what we have now that seems a decent price
I wouldn't touch it. LDs have promised no coalition, and C&S won't meet the requirements of the wager.
C&S would. The Betfair rule is "A minority Government would see all the Cabinet posts filled by one party, but supply and confidence would be enjoyed by that party by one or more other parties in Parliament in order to pass votes and budgets etc."
That's OK. I have family experience of mental health issues - dementia, bipolar and paranoia - so I really don't take it lightly.
Nevertheless I do think it is legitimate to comment on potential mental health issues of politicians in position of power e.g. with regard to Trump, if the consequences are potentially very serious. It's a balance between personal dignity and public safety.
LOL maybe that's where the Dems are going wrong; they're trying to impeach Trump when they should be trying to section him.
Just as the US president cannot be tried in a court while still president, I doubt that a president can be sectioned either. That is essentially why they have the 25th ammendment. So it is not the Dems who could "section him" but Pence and the Trump Administration who could remove Trump from office based on his mental health.
Yes. My strategy if I were Labour would be to force Johnson to own a crunch binary choice for 31 Jan - WTO exit or further extension. No 'Surrender Act' this time for him to shelter behind. Then a GE several weeks later - April? - at which point Johnson would be either (i) the author of a godawful mess or (ii) exposed as a fraudulent blowhard, depending on which choice he made.
Big_G said: "Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems"
Why would No Deal have to be an option?
A constitutional expert clearly stated that any referendum has to include all options including no deal as the electoral commission have to be even handed with all opinions and there is considerable support for no deal
However, if someone can get a constitutional expert to disprove this I would be very interested to see their reasoning
‘No deal’ doesn't mean anything. Everyone who supports it has a different idea of what it means.
That is not democracy.
Seems the electoral commission would not agree
The electoral commission is irrelevant if Parliament legislates as such.
Actually no. The wording has to go before the electoral commission who will adjudicate on the wording and fairness to all views which in this case includes no deal
Kinabalu said: "I don't see Ref2 myself but at least it does work now as a proposition. Why? Because we now have a Leave option - the Boris Deal - which is deliverable AND backed by Leavers. That against Remain would be a legitimate match-up"
That`s a good point - now we have a Leave option - i.e. a method of leaving which Brexiters can support and therefore counts as leaving.
The problem is that it will get amended and I suspect that remainer MPs will craft amendments deliberately to make Boris`s deal no longer attractive to Brexiter MPs!
Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems
There's close to zero chance that a 2nd referendum would have No Deal as one of the options. The most likely form of referendum would be to approve a deal. Of course the PV people also want Remain on the ballot, but getting parliament to approve that has always seemed unlikely. In summary, if we start to go down the referendum road we're going to hit the same obstacles as before, and fail to produce anything of use.
Yes, the only conceivable question for a referendum is "Should the deal to leave the EU be approved, Yes or No?". It's a simple question, the government are seeking to approve the change and the approval can be legislated in advance subject to the vote.
Of course, you then end up with Farage and Swinson both on the No side, and uncertainty of the next steps if the deal is rejected.
You can also get 33/1 on a Labour/Libdem&SNP coalition in next govt. Considering that pretty much what we have now that seems a decent price
I wouldn't touch it. LDs have promised no coalition, and C&S won't meet the requirements of the wager.
C&S would. The Betfair rule is "A minority Government would see all the Cabinet posts filled by one party, but supply and confidence would be enjoyed by that party by one or more other parties in Parliament in order to pass votes and budgets etc."
That's OK. I have family experience of mental health issues - dementia, bipolar and paranoia - so I really don't take it lightly.
Nevertheless I do think it is legitimate to comment on potential mental health issues of politicians in position of power e.g. with regard to Trump, if the consequences are potentially very serious. It's a balance between personal dignity and public safety.
LOL maybe that's where the Dems are going wrong; they're trying to impeach Trump when they should be trying to section him.
Just as the US president cannot be tried in a court while still president, I doubt that a president can be sectioned either. That is essentially why they have the 25th ammendment. So it is not the Dems who could "section him" but Pence and the Trump Administration who could remove Trump from office based on his mental health.
Well thanks for the info. Personally let's just say I've been sectioned one too many times by Our Glorious NHS
Big_G said: "Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems"
Why would No Deal have to be an option?
A constitutional expert clearly stated that any referendum has to include all options including no deal as the electoral commission have to be even handed with all opinions and there is considerable support for no deal
However, if someone can get a constitutional expert to disprove this I would be very interested to see their reasoning
‘No deal’ doesn't mean anything. Everyone who supports it has a different idea of what it means.
That is not democracy.
Seems the electoral commission would not agree
The electoral commission is irrelevant if Parliament legislates as such.
Actually no. The wording has to go before the electoral commission who will adjudicate on the wording and fairness to all views which in this case includes no deal
And given the Fuck up they made in indyref1 that does open a wide range of possiblities
I am perfectly content to have this disproved by another constitutional expert
Indeed it would help everyone if this could be clarified as I understand it is fundamental to the peoples vote thinking
I am certainly no constitutional expert but it seems to me that even a layman working from the premise of fairness could see that there would need to be a ND option on any future referendum.
Which then leads on to the challenges of avoiding splitting one side of the vote in two.
I think the discussion is a fools errand in any case, even Chukka indicated yesterday that he'd all but given up hope on a 2nd referendum.
There's no need to worry about splitting the vote, you simple offer three questions:
No Deal vs Deal Deal vs Remain Remain vs No Deal
(You can also do this by asking people to rank the three options.)
Whichever option beats the other two wins. It's called the Condorcet Winner.
What happens if we get a rock/scissors/stone result?
You can also get 33/1 on a Labour/Libdem&SNP coalition in next govt. Considering that pretty much what we have now that seems a decent price
I wouldn't touch it. LDs have promised no coalition, and C&S won't meet the requirements of the wager.
C&S would. The Betfair rule is "A minority Government would see all the Cabinet posts filled by one party, but supply and confidence would be enjoyed by that party by one or more other parties in Parliament in order to pass votes and budgets etc."
Not when you're backing coalition though
True. I thought the comment was on my bet on a Lab minority government. My mistake. The lab/SNP/LD coalition price is 5.7 back, 12 lay. Possibly worth a lay at say 7s?
Israel is going to probably ggo through ANOTHER election shortly. It's probably in a healthier place than us though right now.
The problem is Isreal elections will always lean towards nationalism because the the Jews in the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights are able to vote, and they will always vote for the hard right/nationalist parties.
The local by elections show a swing from Labour to tory, but a big swing from tory to libdem, which means a small tory majority is probably likely whenever the GE comes.
Israel is going to probably ggo through ANOTHER election shortly. It's probably in a healthier place than us though right now.
Well, our Brexit drama is less than four years old, whereas their conflict with the Palestinians is more than seventy years old, so they've had time to normalize it.
Israel is going to probably ggo through ANOTHER election shortly. It's probably in a healthier place than us though right now.
The problem is Isreal elections will always lean towards nationalism because the the Jews in the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights are able to vote, and they will always vote for the hard right/nationalist parties.
I have a Jewish Israeli friend living in London who felt so passionately about it that she flew from the UK to Israel specifically to vote against Netanyahu. She might have to repeat the trip.
The local by elections show a swing from Labour to tory, but a big swing from tory to libdem, which means a small tory majority is probably likely whenever the GE comes.
People do vote somewhat differently in generals to locals.
My guess is that in the general election both Con and Lab woud do better than local by elections suggest and Lib-Dems worse.
No doubt Libdems would do worse, but normally when a party in power has swings towards it from the main opposition party in local midterm elections, doesn't that normally correlate to a good result in the forthcoming GE for the party in power?
Big_G said: "Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems"
Why would No Deal have to be an option?
A constitutional expert clearly stated that any referendum has to include all options including no deal as the electoral commission have to be even handed with all opinions and there is considerable support for no deal
However, if someone can get a constitutional expert to disprove this I would be very interested to see their reasoning
‘No deal’ doesn't mean anything. Everyone who supports it has a different idea of what it means.
That is not democracy.
Seems the electoral commission would not agree
The electoral commission is irrelevant if Parliament legislates as such.
Actually no. The wording has to go before the electoral commission who will adjudicate on the wording and fairness to all views which in this case includes no deal
Yes, the wording has to go before the Electoral Commission but if Parliament legislates for a straight choice between Boris's Deal and Remain, the EC cannot override that. Parliament is sovereign.
(And I say that as one who has consistently supported a 3-option 2nd referendum.)
I am perfectly content to have this disproved by another constitutional expert
Indeed it would help everyone if this could be clarified as I understand it is fundamental to the peoples vote thinking
I am certainly no constitutional expert but it seems to me that even a layman working from the premise of fairness could see that there would need to be a ND option on any future referendum.
Which then leads on to the challenges of avoiding splitting one side of the vote in two.
I think the discussion is a fools errand in any case, even Chukka indicated yesterday that he'd all but given up hope on a 2nd referendum.
There's no need to worry about splitting the vote, you simple offer three questions:
No Deal vs Deal Deal vs Remain Remain vs No Deal
(You can also do this by asking people to rank the three options.)
Whichever option beats the other two wins. It's called the Condorcet Winner.
What happens if we get a rock/scissors/stone result?
In that case we have to call in Doctor Who to break the deadlock. In fact we may be getting to that point anyway.
Israel is going to probably ggo through ANOTHER election shortly. It's probably in a healthier place than us though right now.
The problem is Isreal elections will always lean towards nationalism because the the Jews in the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights are able to vote, and they will always vote for the hard right/nationalist parties.
I have a Jewish Israeli friend living in London who felt so passionately about it that she flew from the UK to Israel specifically to vote against Netanyahu. She might have to repeat the trip.
I am perfectly content to have this disproved by another constitutional expert
Indeed it would help everyone if this could be clarified as I understand it is fundamental to the peoples vote thinking
I am certainly no constitutional expert but it seems to me that even a layman working from the premise of fairness could see that there would need to be a ND option on any future referendum.
Which then leads on to the challenges of avoiding splitting one side of the vote in two.
I think the discussion is a fools errand in any case, even Chukka indicated yesterday that he'd all but given up hope on a 2nd referendum.
There's no need to worry about splitting the vote, you simple offer three questions:
No Deal vs Deal Deal vs Remain Remain vs No Deal
(You can also do this by asking people to rank the three options.)
Whichever option beats the other two wins. It's called the Condorcet Winner.
The downside of this is the winning result could have the support of as little as 33.4% of those who vote.
Three options via a two-stage vote or STV will give the winning option 50%+
Big_G said: "Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems"
Why would No Deal have to be an option?
A constitutional expert clearly stated that any referendum has to include all options including no deal as the electoral commission have to be even handed with all opinions and there is considerable support for no deal
However, if someone can get a constitutional expert to disprove this I would be very interested to see their reasoning
‘No deal’ doesn't mean anything. Everyone who supports it has a different idea of what it means.
Big_G said: "Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems"
Why would No Deal have to be an option?
A constitutional expert clearly stated that any referendum has to include all options including no deal as the electoral commission have to be even handed with all opinions and there is considerable support for no deal
However, if someone can get a constitutional expert to disprove this I would be very interested to see their reasoning
‘No deal’ doesn't mean anything. Everyone who supports it has a different idea of what it means.
That is not democracy.
Seems the electoral commission would not agree
The electoral commission is irrelevant if Parliament legislates as such.
Actually no. The wording has to go before the electoral commission who will adjudicate on the wording and fairness to all views which in this case includes no deal
He means that the Electoral Commission's powers to do that derive from legislation, and if parliament legislates otherwise for a particular referendum they won't exercise those powers.
I think politicians need to remember that whatever happens, fairly soon they'll have to justify their actions to electors on the doorstep. These manoeuvrings are getting very difficult to understand, let alone justify.
Yep...people are looking at this and seeing just game playing, which disgusts everyone.
Boris is clear.. Boris wants an election, that's a strong position to hammer home. Clear argument, clear positions are what's needed.
He said originally he did not want an election. I do not think people are gagging for a Christmas election.
Big_G said: "Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems"
Why would No Deal have to be an option?
A constitutional expert clearly stated that any referendum has to include all options including no deal as the electoral commission have to be even handed with all opinions and there is considerable support for no deal
However, if someone can get a constitutional expert to disprove this I would be very interested to see their reasoning
‘No deal’ doesn't mean anything. Everyone who supports it has a different idea of what it means.
That is not democracy.
Seems the electoral commission would not agree
The electoral commission is irrelevant if Parliament legislates as such.
Actually no. The wording has to go before the electoral commission who will adjudicate on the wording and fairness to all views which in this case includes no deal
He means that the Electoral Commission's powers to do that derive from legislation, and if parliament legislates otherwise for a particular referendum they won't exercise those powers.
In which case we’re back to a boycott with a very legitimate grievance.
Big_G said: "Both of you are missing the point that the electoral commission would have to work out the wording to including no deal. As in everything brexit it is not as simple as it seems"
Why would No Deal have to be an option?
A constitutional expert clearly stated that any referendum has to include all options including no deal as the electoral commission have to be even handed with all opinions and there is considerable support for no deal
However, if someone can get a constitutional expert to disprove this I would be very interested to see their reasoning
‘No deal’ doesn't mean anything. Everyone who supports it has a different idea of what it means.
That is not democracy.
Seems the electoral commission would not agree
Source?
Two separate constitutional experts and contrary to some the government legislates but the electoral commission then decides the wording and takes into account all views. If the electoral commission missed of no deal Farage would be at the Supreme Court faster than Gina Miller
Comments
Apologies to you.
By all means have a vote on individual deals as they are agreed between HMG and the EU.
It will be grist to the Tories election mill as you can well imagine.
Why would No Deal have to be an option?
There is a deal on the table that the EU have agreed to.
Parliament has a way to take No Deal off the table (implement the Deal) and if there's no Election there's no point in an extension. Why should they grant an extension?
"Use of the term has grown outside of the United States, particularly in the United Kingdom, where The Simpsons is popular, and the French are not."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheese-eating_surrender_monkeys&oldid=919233620
It's now sadly been edited to remove the bit after United Kingdom
Well, I may be putting the final touches to my stockpile just in case, but I don't believe France is going to bring about No Deal against the wishes of the others, and neither do the currency markets or the betting markets, evidently.
Nevertheless I do think it is legitimate to comment on potential mental health issues of politicians in position of power e.g. with regard to Trump, if the consequences are potentially very serious. It's a balance between personal dignity and public safety.
Weather looks all over the place too, could be rain in any session, track is damp at the moment. Don't think I'll be putting any cash down today.
And when has anything on the internet made sense?
Or maybe you're just a bit of a tit.
In the same way that the Spitting Image revival is bound to fail because the real politicians are more ridiculous than the puppets could be.
Boris is clear.. Boris wants an election, that's a strong position to hammer home. Clear argument, clear positions are what's needed.
Managed to get a few hundred on 2020 or later at 7/4.
That is now odds on..bit concerned it could flip back pretty quickly
And we will see. Although since IMO there will not be a Ref2 - we won't!
However, if someone can get a constitutional expert to disprove this I would be very interested to see their reasoning
https://mobile.twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1187705089588367361
I am perfectly content to have this disproved by another constitutional expert
Indeed it would help everyone if this could be clarified as I understand it is fundamental to the peoples vote thinking
Everyone who supports it has a different idea of what it means.
That is not democracy.
Boris, Jeremy or Jo could be smiling, while two of them are deposed.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
and he's at 1.33 on Betfair as Republican nominee i.e. only a 75% chance.
The other runners seem to be Pence and Haley with Romney as a long shot. I'm on Condoleezza Rice at 400/1 for £2 but that's just to compete for the most outrageous outsider win.
Which then leads on to the challenges of avoiding splitting one side of the vote in two.
I think the discussion is a fools errand in any case, even Chukka indicated yesterday that he'd all but given up hope on a 2nd referendum.
This weekends polling is going to be very interesting
I'd reckon 5 Conservative losses to the SNP and another 4-12 to the LibDems (with, I suspect, the actual number coming at the bottom of that range), balanced by 35 or so Conservative gains from Labour.
End result, a small Conservative majority.
But, FPTP is inherently volatile. If there was successful anti-Johnson tactical voting, then you could see the Conservatives back at 315 (or less), only having pissed the DUP off so badly that there's no likelihood of a C&S deal.
All equally valid.
It is a recipe for disaster.
Its everything to all people.
No Deal vs Deal
Deal vs Remain
Remain vs No Deal
(You can also do this by asking people to rank the three options.)
Whichever option beats the other two wins. It's called the Condorcet Winner.
My guess is that in the general election both Con and Lab woud do better than local by elections suggest and Lib-Dems worse.
Even Chukka has given up on it.
Of course, you then end up with Farage and Swinson both on the No side, and uncertainty of the next steps if the deal is rejected.
I hope that's not how our future turns out.
Brisky's #MexicoGP bet is on!
I've layed Max FTW
See you all on the other side.
(And I say that as one who has consistently supported a 3-option 2nd referendum.)
Three options via a two-stage vote or STV will give the winning option 50%+
Source?
I do not think people are gagging for a Christmas election.
Je suis JUPITER !