This thread started by MM saying that all the uncertainty in the last parliament was caused by Remainers. That is clearly untrue.
May was defeated by 432 votes to 202. There were not 432 remain votes in the Commons. Boris and the ERG were part of that defeat. They contributed to the uncertainty.
To claim that Leavers did not add to uncertainty is revisionism pure and simple.
The last Parliament was a sordid attempt by a significant majority of MPs, many having pledged to their Leave seats that they would implement Brexit, to block that Brexit. Not to mitigate its worst effects; to block it from ever proceeding to the statute book. They were prepared to risk economic consequences in doing so.
That Parliament, including many of the most egregious Brexit-blockers, has now been swept aside by an angry electorate, pissed off that economic adversity was the consequence of petty attempts to delay and thwart.
The legislature took over the executive function in order to press the aim of blocking Brexit. The Benn Act was the pinnacle of that effort. And of its folly.
The ERG at some 80 members were a side show in this process, having inadequate numbers to thwart either the will of Remainers or Leavers.
How do you think those same voters will react to the economic adversity of No Deal this time next year?
By the way, most votes at the election went to anti-Brexit parties.
The same way they will react to the economic adversity of Martian Invasion this time next year.
If one week really is a long time in politics as Harold Wilson once said, then two years let alone three years is surely an eternity. Who would have guessed in 2015 that we would be facing a General Election a mere two years hence and that this would be followed only another two years later still by yet another General Election in 2019? Yet those seemingly generous folk at SkyBet are willing to offer odds of 25/1 against the next GE taking place in 2021 or 22/1 against it being held in 2022. By backing both these options and staking 46.9% and 53.1% respectively, one will receive winning odds of 11.2% should either of these year-long bets prove successful. I'm not going to even contemplate the sort of circumstances which could conceivably result in such timing of a General Election. Better at this stage to sum up up the combined possibilities in four brief words uttered by Wilson's predecessor, Harold Macmillan ... "Events, Dear Boy, Events"!
If one week really is a long time in politics as Harold Wilson once said, then two years let alone three years is surely an eternity. Who would have guessed in 2015 that we would be facing a General Election a mere two years hence and that this would be followed only another two years later still by yet another General Election in 2019? Yet those seemingly generous folk at SkyBet are willing to offer odds of 25/1 against the next GE taking place in 2021 or 22/1 against it being held in 2022. By backing both these options and staking 46.9% and 53.1% respectively, one will receive winning odds of 11.2% should either of these year-long bets prove successful. I'm not going to even contemplate the sort of circumstances which could conceivably result in such timing of a General Election. Better at this stage to sum up up the combined possibilities in four brief words uttered by Wilson's predecessor, Harold Macmillan ... "Events, Dear Boy, Events"!
The one certainty, though, is that governments hang on to power while they have it, events be damned.
If one week really is a long time in politics as Harold Wilson once said, then two years let alone three years is surely an eternity. Who would have guessed in 2015 that we would be facing a General Election a mere two years hence and that this would be followed only another two years later still by yet another General Election in 2019? Yet those seemingly generous folk at SkyBet are willing to offer odds of 25/1 against the next GE taking place in 2021 or 22/1 against it being held in 2022. By backing both these options and staking 46.9% and 53.1% respectively, one will receive winning odds of 11.2% should either of these year-long bets prove successful. I'm not going to even contemplate the sort of circumstances which could conceivably result in such timing of a General Election. Better at this stage to sum up up the combined possibilities in four brief words uttered by Wilson's predecessor, Harold Macmillan ... "Events, Dear Boy, Events"!
Of course the difference between now and then is that the government now has a very healthy majority. The current working majority is 87. After 2017 the government was a minority government so an early election made a lot of sense so long as it looked winnable. After 2015 the government had a very small majority so an early election made some sense when it looked like a landslide would be the result. Why go early now?
I think the odds of an extremely early election this Parliament to be well below 11%.
This thread started by MM saying that all the uncertainty in the last parliament was caused by Remainers. That is clearly untrue.
May was defeated by 432 votes to 202. There were not 432 remain votes in the Commons. Boris and the ERG were part of that defeat. They contributed to the uncertainty.
To claim that Leavers did not add to uncertainty is revisionism pure and simple.
The last Parliament was a sordid attempt by a significant majority of MPs, many having pledged to their Leave seats that they would implement Brexit, to block that Brexit. Not to mitigate its worst effects; to block it from ever proceeding to the statute book. They were prepared to risk economic consequences in doing so.
That Parliament, including many of the most egregious Brexit-blockers, has now been swept aside by an angry electorate, pissed off that economic adversity was the consequence of petty attempts to delay and thwart.
The legislature took over the executive function in order to press the aim of blocking Brexit. The Benn Act was the pinnacle of that effort. And of its folly.
The ERG at some 80 members were a side show in this process, having inadequate numbers to thwart either the will of Remainers or Leavers.
How do you think those same voters will react to the economic adversity of No Deal this time next year?
By the way, most votes at the election went to anti-Brexit parties.
Most votes in 2016 went to leave. That was a single issue vote with a binary choice. Are you really trying to claim that every vote in the general election for any party other than BXP and Tory was a vote against leave?
The House of Saud have always been baddies. Even without Climate Change getting rid of our reliance on oil and gas makes sense just to be able to get away from the Middle East completely and not rely upon this morally bankrupt nation at all.
This thread started by MM saying that all the uncertainty in the last parliament was caused by Remainers. That is clearly untrue.
May was defeated by 432 votes to 202. There were not 432 remain votes in the Commons. Boris and the ERG were part of that defeat. They contributed to the uncertainty.
To claim that Leavers did not add to uncertainty is revisionism pure and simple.
The last Parliament was a sordid attempt by a significant majority of MPs, many having pledged to their Leave seats that they would implement Brexit, to block that Brexit. Not to mitigate its worst effects; to block it from ever proceeding to the statute book. They were prepared to risk economic consequences in doing so.
That Parliament, including many of the most egregious Brexit-blockers, has now been swept aside by an angry electorate, pissed off that economic adversity was the consequence of petty attempts to delay and thwart.
The legislature took over the executive function in order to press the aim of blocking Brexit. The Benn Act was the pinnacle of that effort. And of its folly.
The ERG at some 80 members were a side show in this process, having inadequate numbers to thwart either the will of Remainers or Leavers.
How do you think those same voters will react to the economic adversity of No Deal this time next year?
By the way, most votes at the election went to anti-Brexit parties.
Most votes in 2016 went to leave. That was a single issue vote with a binary choice. Are you really trying to claim that every vote in the general election for any party other than BXP and Tory was a vote against leave?
If voters really wanted to stop Brexit they could have backed Prime Minister Jo Swinson's party 😂
If one week really is a long time in politics as Harold Wilson once said, then two years let alone three years is surely an eternity. Who would have guessed in 2015 that we would be facing a General Election a mere two years hence and that this would be followed only another two years later still by yet another General Election in 2019? Yet those seemingly generous folk at SkyBet are willing to offer odds of 25/1 against the next GE taking place in 2021 or 22/1 against it being held in 2022. By backing both these options and staking 46.9% and 53.1% respectively, one will receive winning odds of 11.2% should either of these year-long bets prove successful. I'm not going to even contemplate the sort of circumstances which could conceivably result in such timing of a General Election. Better at this stage to sum up up the combined possibilities in four brief words uttered by Wilson's predecessor, Harold Macmillan ... "Events, Dear Boy, Events"!
This thread started by MM saying that all the uncertainty in the last parliament was caused by Remainers. That is clearly untrue.
May was defeated by 432 votes to 202. There were not 432 remain votes in the Commons. Boris and the ERG were part of that defeat. They contributed to the uncertainty.
To claim that Leavers did not add to uncertainty is revisionism pure and simple.
The last Parliament was a sordid attempt by a significant majority of MPs, many having pledged to their Leave seats that they would implement Brexit, to block that Brexit. Not to mitigate its worst effects; to block it from ever proceeding to the statute book. They were prepared to risk economic consequences in doing so.
That Parliament, including many of the most egregious Brexit-blockers, has now been swept aside by an angry electorate, pissed off that economic adversity was the consequence of petty attempts to delay and thwart.
The legislature took over the executive function in order to press the aim of blocking Brexit. The Benn Act was the pinnacle of that effort. And of its folly.
The ERG at some 80 members were a side show in this process, having inadequate numbers to thwart either the will of Remainers or Leavers.
How do you think those same voters will react to the economic adversity of No Deal this time next year?
By the way, most votes at the election went to anti-Brexit parties.
Most votes in 2016 went to leave. That was a single issue vote with a binary choice. Are you really trying to claim that every vote in the general election for any party other than BXP and Tory was a vote against leave?
If voters really wanted to stop Brexit they could have backed Prime Minister Jo Swinson's party 😂
"How do you think those same voters will react to the economic adversity of No Deal this time next year?"
The revisionism that is going on at the moment is to alter what has up to now been meant by "No Deal". It`s meaning was leaving the EU without a WA/transitional period. We are leaving the EU 31/1 with a WA. Therefore "No Deal" has been averted.
The tactic remainers are using is to re-energise the term "No Deal" to mean "not achieving a trade deal with the EU by the end of the transitional period".
Remainers have never really understood that leavers (note:I`m not a leaver) wanted to leave the EU - and this will be achieved 31/1. It is not about economics, it is emotional. If there is no trade deal then the electorate will accept this as one of the the risks of leaving.
If one week really is a long time in politics as Harold Wilson once said, then two years let alone three years is surely an eternity. Who would have guessed in 2015 that we would be facing a General Election a mere two years hence and that this would be followed only another two years later still by yet another General Election in 2019? Yet those seemingly generous folk at SkyBet are willing to offer odds of 25/1 against the next GE taking place in 2021 or 22/1 against it being held in 2022. By backing both these options and staking 46.9% and 53.1% respectively, one will receive winning odds of 11.2% should either of these year-long bets prove successful. I'm not going to even contemplate the sort of circumstances which could conceivably result in such timing of a General Election. Better at this stage to sum up up the combined possibilities in four brief words uttered by Wilson's predecessor, Harold Macmillan ... "Events, Dear Boy, Events"!
I think the 5-6 about 2024 is much better
Yes, I tend to agree - but an odds-on-on bet that ties cash up for over 4 years has little appeal to me.
If one week really is a long time in politics as Harold Wilson once said, then two years let alone three years is surely an eternity. Who would have guessed in 2015 that we would be facing a General Election a mere two years hence and that this would be followed only another two years later still by yet another General Election in 2019? Yet those seemingly generous folk at SkyBet are willing to offer odds of 25/1 against the next GE taking place in 2021 or 22/1 against it being held in 2022. By backing both these options and staking 46.9% and 53.1% respectively, one will receive winning odds of 11.2% should either of these year-long bets prove successful. I'm not going to even contemplate the sort of circumstances which could conceivably result in such timing of a General Election. Better at this stage to sum up up the combined possibilities in four brief words uttered by Wilson's predecessor, Harold Macmillan ... "Events, Dear Boy, Events"!
Of course the difference between now and then is that the government now has a very healthy majority. The current working majority is 87. After 2017 the government was a minority government so an early election made a lot of sense so long as it looked winnable. After 2015 the government had a very small majority so an early election made some sense when it looked like a landslide would be the result. Why go early now?
I think the odds of an extremely early election this Parliament to be well below 11%.
1. There are any number of reasons why we might have a GE in 2021 or 2022, quite apart from the Gov't deciding to "go early" ... indeed the Gov't might not have much part in the decision making process.
2. I don't consider a General Election held in 2021 or 2022 to be "extremely" early.
3. For those uninitiated when it comes to betting, odds of 11.2/1 which apply here, represent a winning chance in percentage terms of 8.2%, not 11% as referred to.
It is not really that alarming, considering a few years ago ISIS controlled most of Syria and the second biggest city in Iraq, Mosul, the fact a handful of fighters are struggling along between Kurdistan and Iraq is not much of a threat
The fact some votes lose doesn't mean they don't count, its just democracy in action. Democracy doesn't mean "prizes for all".
I get it: you're in favour of safe seats, zero representation for huge swathes of the population, and elective dictatorship.
But don't pretend that is democracy in action.
Don't pretend that all votes have equal weight when it takes 865,697 Green voters to get one vote in the Commons, but 25,882 SNP voters to get one vote in the Commons. And poor old Brexit Partly Ltd voters get no representation at all.
And try not to use dumb right-wing buzz phrases like "prizes for all". Particularly not in a completely incorrect context.
The fact some votes lose doesn't mean they don't count, its just democracy in action. Democracy doesn't mean "prizes for all".
I get it: you're in favour of safe seats, zero representation for huge swathes of the population, and elective dictatorship.
But don't pretend that is democracy in action.
Don't pretend that all votes have equal weight when it takes 865,697 Green voters to get one vote in the Commons, but 25,882 SNP voters to get one vote in the Commons. And poor old Brexit Partly Ltd voters get no representation at all.
And try not to use dumb right-wing buzz phrases like "prizes for all". Particularly not in a completely incorrect context.
He is just trying to wind you up.
If all votes had equal weight, parties wouldn't spend all their time focusing on those that matter in the places that matter, and ignoring the most of us.
Comments
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/isis-recruiter-is-claiming-uk-benefits-xlm3h5qf2
If one week really is a long time in politics as Harold Wilson once said, then two years let alone three years is surely an eternity.
Who would have guessed in 2015 that we would be facing a General Election a mere two years hence and that this would be followed only another two years later still by yet another General Election in 2019?
Yet those seemingly generous folk at SkyBet are willing to offer odds of 25/1 against the next GE taking place in 2021 or 22/1 against it being held in 2022. By backing both these options and staking 46.9% and 53.1% respectively, one will receive winning odds of 11.2% should either of these year-long bets prove successful.
I'm not going to even contemplate the sort of circumstances which could conceivably result in such timing of a General Election. Better at this stage to sum up up the combined possibilities in four brief words uttered by Wilson's predecessor, Harold Macmillan ... "Events, Dear Boy, Events"!
Even if they have no real plans what to do with it....
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/22/boris-johnson-told-to-stop-campaigning-and-start-governing-ken-clarke-brexit
I think the odds of an extremely early election this Parliament to be well below 11%.
https://twitter.com/crimlawuk/status/1209048073571356672?s=20
The House of Saud have always been baddies. Even without Climate Change getting rid of our reliance on oil and gas makes sense just to be able to get away from the Middle East completely and not rely upon this morally bankrupt nation at all.
The revisionism that is going on at the moment is to alter what has up to now been meant by "No Deal". It`s meaning was leaving the EU without a WA/transitional period. We are leaving the EU 31/1 with a WA. Therefore "No Deal" has been averted.
The tactic remainers are using is to re-energise the term "No Deal" to mean "not achieving a trade deal with the EU by the end of the transitional period".
Remainers have never really understood that leavers (note:I`m not a leaver) wanted to leave the EU - and this will be achieved 31/1. It is not about economics, it is emotional. If there is no trade deal then the electorate will accept this as one of the the risks of leaving.
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/MegaHeid/status/1208758162054172672?s=20
2. I don't consider a General Election held in 2021 or 2022 to be "extremely" early.
3. For those uninitiated when it comes to betting, odds of 11.2/1 which apply here, represent a winning chance in percentage terms of 8.2%, not 11% as referred to.
The fact some votes lose doesn't mean they don't count, its just democracy in action. Democracy doesn't mean "prizes for all".
But don't pretend that is democracy in action.
Don't pretend that all votes have equal weight when it takes 865,697 Green voters to get one vote in the Commons, but 25,882 SNP voters to get one vote in the Commons. And poor old Brexit Partly Ltd voters get no representation at all.
And try not to use dumb right-wing buzz phrases like "prizes for all". Particularly not in a completely incorrect context.
If all votes had equal weight, parties wouldn't spend all their time focusing on those that matter in the places that matter, and ignoring the most of us.