Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Biden moving back up on the Betfair WH2020 “next president” ma

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 7 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Biden moving back up on the Betfair WH2020 “next president” market

The recent spate of good national and state polls for Joe Biden has led to something of a turnaround in the betting. After a long period when the Trump position got a better and better things seemed to have changed with punters now more ready to risk their cash on a Biden victory.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012
    First.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 35,647
    Will these ballots ever be counted though?
  • Scott_xP said:
    James O'Brien is whinging about Brexiters?

    In that case I take back everything I ever said, in light of this new and shocking development that James O'Brien is upset about Brexit I recant my politics, my philosophy and everything I have ever said on this subject. If James O'Brien is unhappy then we have really reached Defcon 1 and it is time to rethink everything.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 35,647
    edited September 7
    A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515191-democrats-sound-alarm-on-possible-election-chaos
  • FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,290

    A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515191-democrats-sound-alarm-on-possible-election-chaos

    It could be a surreal couple of weeks.

    I've decided to take some of it off...
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 16,372

    A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515191-democrats-sound-alarm-on-possible-election-chaos

    In play betting baby.

    In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"

    After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
  • Alistair said:

    A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515191-democrats-sound-alarm-on-possible-election-chaos

    In play betting baby.

    In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"

    After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
    Yes and no.

    In the Senate 2018 was a hugely disappointing night for the Democrats, going backwards.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 5,995
    Is Boris really going to tear up the fabled 'Oven Ready' deal? This was the crowning boast of his GE campaign and the very embodiment of his Brexit vision and claims to statesmanship. To do so would be an utter humiliation. I think Boris will step back from the abyss.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,290
    Alistair said:

    A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515191-democrats-sound-alarm-on-possible-election-chaos

    In play betting baby.

    In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"

    After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
    Easy money on Dem gain House very very late in the day, I recall.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,224

    Scott_xP said:
    James O'Brien is whinging about Brexiters?

    In that case I take back everything I ever said, in light of this new and shocking development that James O'Brien is upset about Brexit I recant my politics, my philosophy and everything I have ever said on this subject. If James O'Brien is unhappy then we have really reached Defcon 1 and it is time to rethink everything.
    Today Scott has just posted tweet after tweet from anti Brexit anti Government commentators moaning about Brexit. One wonders what the point is in doing this.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,391
    Broadly agree with this, I'm not on Texas directly though - it'll pay via ECV spreads if it comes in. 538 has it after IA, OH, GA, FL and AZ (And PA, WI, MI) to fall to Biden.

    I can see it ending up more Democrat than Ohio and Iowa but probably not Georgia, Florida and North Carolina so I'd have thought the fewest ECVs Biden could realistically gain TX with would be 372.
    Fivethirtyeight identifies a slightly more extreme scenario where PA, NH, MN and NE-2 are GOP and TX goes red. That's 337 ECVs and as far as you can credibly stretch underlying 2020 state swing - any other scenario of TX going blue with fewer ECVs is sub 1%.

  • FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    Given 67% of Democrats are going to vote by mail in November but only 28% of Republicans with 57% of Republicans voting in person on election day compared to only 37% of Democrats, I really would not be relying too much on absentee ballot request information.

    https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/august-2020-presidential-race-tightens-after-party-conventions
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 37,075

    Scott_xP said:
    James O'Brien is whinging about Brexiters?

    In that case I take back everything I ever said, in light of this new and shocking development that James O'Brien is upset about Brexit I recant my politics, my philosophy and everything I have ever said on this subject. If James O'Brien is unhappy then we have really reached Defcon 1 and it is time to rethink everything.
    Scott might be more convincing if he didn't tweet the loons, like James O'Brien, Andrew Adonis or Tim Walker.

    Unfortunately, he can't help himself.
  • These degenerate Mancs shouldn’t be allowed to play football for England ever again.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 7
    Alistair said:

    A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515191-democrats-sound-alarm-on-possible-election-chaos

    In play betting baby.

    In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"

    After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
    By 4am on election night actually Pelosi had declared victory and effectively won enough seats to become House Speaker
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,391

    Alistair said:

    A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515191-democrats-sound-alarm-on-possible-election-chaos

    In play betting baby.

    In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"

    After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
    Yes and no.

    In the Senate 2018 was a hugely disappointing night for the Democrats, going backwards.
    If 2020 were to be a repeat of 2018's senate results it'd be ~289 Democrat ECVs with the gain of AZ, PA, WI and MI. That'd be enough.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 37,075

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
  • FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 3,602

    A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515191-democrats-sound-alarm-on-possible-election-chaos

    The exit poll predictions in the US come out state by state when each state closes the doors to the polling stations. I have always considered this bad electoral practice, as the western states still have people voting, when they have a good idea of the result.

    If this year the postal votes and in-person votes are not properly weighted together when the exit polls are anounced, this could considerably distort the voting in western states.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 35,647

    Is Boris really going to tear up the fabled 'Oven Ready' deal? This was the crowning boast of his GE campaign and the very embodiment of his Brexit vision and claims to statesmanship. To do so would be an utter humiliation. I think Boris will step back from the abyss.

    Dunno. Let's ask Dom what he is going to tell Johnson to do.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 9,703

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
    I’m not sure what the Supreme Court will able to do about it?
  • FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.

    I would also add "and, therefore, its interests" to that.

    But you are right, of course. This kind of nihilism is not going to help us either build a happier country or a more prosperous one.



  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,403
    edited September 7

    Scott_xP said:
    James O'Brien is whinging about Brexiters?

    In that case I take back everything I ever said, in light of this new and shocking development that James O'Brien is upset about Brexit I recant my politics, my philosophy and everything I have ever said on this subject. If James O'Brien is unhappy then we have really reached Defcon 1 and it is time to rethink everything.
    Today Scott has just posted tweet after tweet from anti Brexit anti Government commentators moaning about Brexit. One wonders what the point is in doing this.
    If fewer than 100 anti-Brexit tweets are reposted per hour, then the EU is automatically renamed 'The Farage Imperium' and the only drink legally available will be warm beer.

    Or at least that's what some believe... :wink:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 7

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
    Boris has a majority now and under our constitution Parliament is sovereign and the Supreme Court must obey Parliamentary statute.

    The SC could only overrule Boris last year as Boris did not have the majority in Parliament he needed to pass key statutes
  • FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    We meant it at the time and we honoured it at the time, but now time has changed.

    We were explicit that we would be looking to make new arrangements after the transition. The Europeans wanted to sequence talks this way, we were quite clear we didn't. The Europeans can't pretend to be shocked and horrified now that the UK has issues with how things were done, that was always clear and they knew that when they sequenced talks this way.

    They made this bed. They chose the sequencing. When they want to decide future arrangements we'll still be here but they chose to ensure the trade deal only lasted 12 months. Their choice, they can live with the consequences.
  • FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
    I’m not sure what the Supreme Court will able to do about it?
    I did see that it might be an issue as violating the Withdrawal Agreement means we’re violating the Good Friday Agreement and some people in Northern Ireland may have issue with that.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 21,361
    Not a huge fan of the government not honouring the WA. It's not good for our reputation internationally and will hurt our ability to sign trade deals with countries outside of the EU. If the government thinks the WA needs changing then take it to arbitration under the auspices of the EU forcing us to sign it under duress or something.

    There's no mileage in abrogating from a treaty when our next 5 years is going to be spent signing trade treaties with 50-60 other countries.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533
    edited September 7
    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
    Boris has a majority now and under our constitution Parliament is sovereign and the Supreme Court must obey Parliamentary statute.

    The SC could only overrule Boris last year as Boris did not have the majority in Parliament he needed to pass key statutes
    Pretty sure the British parliament has multiple houses, the PM can't just change the law on a whim.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,340
    Joe has the big Mo!
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 9,703

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    We meant it at the time and we honoured it at the time, but now time has changed.

    We were explicit that we would be looking to make new arrangements after the transition. The Europeans wanted to sequence talks this way, we were quite clear we didn't. The Europeans can't pretend to be shocked and horrified now that the UK has issues with how things were done, that was always clear and they knew that when they sequenced talks this way.

    They made this bed. They chose the sequencing. When they want to decide future arrangements we'll still be here but they chose to ensure the trade deal only lasted 12 months. Their choice, they can live with the consequences.
    TL;DR “It’s the EU’s fault we look like pillocks”
  • FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    We meant it at the time and we honoured it at the time, but now time has changed.

    We were explicit that we would be looking to make new arrangements after the transition. The Europeans wanted to sequence talks this way, we were quite clear we didn't. The Europeans can't pretend to be shocked and horrified now that the UK has issues with how things were done, that was always clear and they knew that when they sequenced talks this way.

    They made this bed. They chose the sequencing. When they want to decide future arrangements we'll still be here but they chose to ensure the trade deal only lasted 12 months. Their choice, they can live with the consequences.
    TL;DR “It’s the EU’s fault we look like pillocks”
    No.

    TL;DR "I couldn't care less how you think we look"

    I want the UK government to look after UK interests. Just as the EUs governments are answerable to their voters not you or me.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 6,746
    Having cheered the WA, and cheered the threat to renege on the WA, will the fanbois now cheer the U-turn on the U-turn?

    No prizes for guessing...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 37,075

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
    He has to go.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533
    MaxPB said:

    If the government thinks the WA needs changing then take it to arbitration under the auspices of the EU forcing us to sign it under duress or something.

    Can a country plead diminished mental capacity?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,493



    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.

    O wad some Power the giftie gie us
    To see oursels as ithers see us!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 7

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
    Boris has a majority now and under our constitution Parliament is sovereign and the Supreme Court must obey Parliamentary statute.

    The SC could only overrule Boris last year as Boris did not have the majority in Parliament he needed to pass key statutes
    Pretty sure the British parliament has multiple houses, the PM can't just change the law on a whim.
    The Lords can only block legislation for a year, then the Commons can overrule it. The monarch must then sign legislation passed by Parliament. The Supreme Court must accept statutes passed by Parliament too.

    Under the UK constitution a PM with no majority is virtually powerless as May was and Boris was last year, a PM with a big majority in the Commons though as Boris has now is a virtual dictator until the next election
  • FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    We meant it at the time and we honoured it at the time, but now time has changed.

    We were explicit that we would be looking to make new arrangements after the transition. The Europeans wanted to sequence talks this way, we were quite clear we didn't. The Europeans can't pretend to be shocked and horrified now that the UK has issues with how things were done, that was always clear and they knew that when they sequenced talks this way.

    They made this bed. They chose the sequencing. When they want to decide future arrangements we'll still be here but they chose to ensure the trade deal only lasted 12 months. Their choice, they can live with the consequences.

    We signed an international treaty, we are now choosing to renege on it. That is our decision, our fault, no-one else's. If we cannot even take responsibility for the choices we freely make then we have no chance of salvaging anything from the mess Johnson and his mates are creating.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 21,361

    MaxPB said:

    If the government thinks the WA needs changing then take it to arbitration under the auspices of the EU forcing us to sign it under duress or something.

    Can a country plead diminished mental capacity?
    Maybe?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 13,980
    Pulpstar said:

    Broadly agree with this, I'm not on Texas directly though - it'll pay via ECV spreads if it comes in. 538 has it after IA, OH, GA, FL and AZ (And PA, WI, MI) to fall to Biden.

    I can see it ending up more Democrat than Ohio and Iowa but probably not Georgia, Florida and North Carolina so I'd have thought the fewest ECVs Biden could realistically gain TX with would be 372.
    Fivethirtyeight identifies a slightly more extreme scenario where PA, NH, MN and NE-2 are GOP and TX goes red. That's 337 ECVs and as far as you can credibly stretch underlying 2020 state swing - any other scenario of TX going blue with fewer ECVs is sub 1%.

    My main bets come into their own in the event of a clear Biden victory. Then I've dropped on just the one mitigator the other way. Trump to hang on to Florida on the fixed odds.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 9,703
    edited September 7

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    We meant it at the time and we honoured it at the time, but now time has changed.

    We were explicit that we would be looking to make new arrangements after the transition. The Europeans wanted to sequence talks this way, we were quite clear we didn't. The Europeans can't pretend to be shocked and horrified now that the UK has issues with how things were done, that was always clear and they knew that when they sequenced talks this way.

    They made this bed. They chose the sequencing. When they want to decide future arrangements we'll still be here but they chose to ensure the trade deal only lasted 12 months. Their choice, they can live with the consequences.
    TL;DR “It’s the EU’s fault we look like pillocks”
    No.

    TL;DR "I couldn't care less how you think we look"

    I want the UK government to look after UK interests. Just as the EUs governments are answerable to their voters not you or me.
    Plenty of your fellow government fans on here don’t agree with you that reneging on our agreements negotiated in good faith is a good idea, or in our interests.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,241
    Alistair said:

    A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515191-democrats-sound-alarm-on-possible-election-chaos

    In play betting baby.

    In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"

    After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
    If Trump wins on the night he will declare victory...
  • FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.

    As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 12,019
    Scott_xP said:
    Ge the daily U-turn in by lunchtime. Very efficient.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 9,703

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.

    As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.

    Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
    Boris has a majority now and under our constitution Parliament is sovereign and the Supreme Court must obey Parliamentary statute.

    The SC could only overrule Boris last year as Boris did not have the majority in Parliament he needed to pass key statutes
    Pretty sure the British parliament has multiple houses, the PM can't just change the law on a whim.
    The Lords can only block legislation for a year, then the Commons can overrule it. The monarch must then sign legislation passed by Parliament. The Supreme Court must accept statutes passed by Parliament too.

    Under the UK constitution a PM with no majority is virtually powerless as May was and Boris was last year, a PM with a big majority in the Commons though as Boris has now is a virtual dictator until the next election
    Virtual? Well I suppose he has to answer to Cummings.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
    I’m not sure what the Supreme Court will able to do about it?
    I did see that it might be an issue as violating the Withdrawal Agreement means we’re violating the Good Friday Agreement and some people in Northern Ireland may have issue with that.
    No, the UK government will not be building any border or imposing customs posts within Ireland, if the EU want to build them that is up to them.

    The UK government will simply not impose a border in the Irish Sea between NI and GB if No Deal now it seems
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 37,075
    It's possible this blows up the whole talks, which weren't going well anyway.

    My take on State Aid (where I agree the UK has some cause for concern) is that if we want to push our case with the EU we should have bloody well worked out what our proposition is by now, and discussed the surveillance and oversight mechanisms on top too.

    We know from the Government hasn't bothered yet as it's still "debating" it (which is code for Cummings hasn't decided and dictated to Boris what it should be yet) so hence the schoolboy like diplomacy and smoke & mirrors.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 35,647
    eek said:

    Alistair said:

    A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515191-democrats-sound-alarm-on-possible-election-chaos

    In play betting baby.

    In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"

    After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
    If Trump wins on the night he will declare victory...
    Yep. He and his GOP enablers will deluge the airways and social media with 'I win' message.

    Anything that happens afterwards will be fraud as far as his supporters are concerned.

    I can see armed Trump militia trying to stop the counting of mail ballots.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 3,602
    edited September 7
    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515191-democrats-sound-alarm-on-possible-election-chaos

    In play betting baby.

    In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"

    After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
    Yes and no.

    In the Senate 2018 was a hugely disappointing night for the Democrats, going backwards.
    If 2020 were to be a repeat of 2018's senate results it'd be ~289 Democrat ECVs with the gain of AZ, PA, WI and MI. That'd be enough.
    Are you assuming that the states which didn't vote in 2018 don't flip? There are 3 or 4 swing states that did not vote for the Senate in 2018.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
    Boris has a majority now and under our constitution Parliament is sovereign and the Supreme Court must obey Parliamentary statute.

    The SC could only overrule Boris last year as Boris did not have the majority in Parliament he needed to pass key statutes
    Pretty sure the British parliament has multiple houses, the PM can't just change the law on a whim.
    The Lords can only block legislation for a year, then the Commons can overrule it. The monarch must then sign legislation passed by Parliament. The Supreme Court must accept statutes passed by Parliament too.

    Under the UK constitution a PM with no majority is virtually powerless as May was and Boris was last year, a PM with a big majority in the Commons though as Boris has now is a virtual dictator until the next election

    So, it is likely that we will not actually formally renege until some time in 2022.

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,284

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
    Boris has a majority now and under our constitution Parliament is sovereign and the Supreme Court must obey Parliamentary statute.

    The SC could only overrule Boris last year as Boris did not have the majority in Parliament he needed to pass key statutes
    Pretty sure the British parliament has multiple houses, the PM can't just change the law on a whim.
    Indeed. And the team that brought us so many extra COVID deaths and lost a bit of its glitter.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,705
    edited September 7
    I agree with @Pulpstar

    Ladbrokes are quoting just 3.5 on Biden winning Texas. That looks to me a very poor bet, compared with backing Biden on the spreads.

    My reasoning is simple. If Texas goes blue, then the very strong likelihood is that Biden will also have won all the 'Lean Dem' states and the tossup states, using the Cook Report categorisations:

    https://cookpolitical.com/sites/default/files/2020-07/EC Ratings.072320.2.pdf?

    That totals 351 ECVs without Texas. If he wins Texas, that's 389, and he'd also have had a good chance of winning Iowa and Ohio in such a scenario. So a bet on Biden winning Texas is a bet on Biden getting probably at least 380 and possibly over 400.

    The current SPIN buy price (provided you use the supremacy market, which for some reason has half the effective spread of the main Biden ECV market), is 29.5 supremacy, corresponding to Biden 283.75, Trump 254.25. So your upside if Texas flips is equivalent to something like 100 ECVs, maybe more.

    But the Biden supremacy bet also wins, albeit not so bigly, all the way down through Biden losing all of Cook's 'toss-up' states (GA, NC, AZ, ME-02). He could also lose FL as well and your losses would be small.

    This is not a symmetrical risk, it seems to me: on the spreads you're in profit for a good hunk of the probability distribution, and in super-profits if Texas flips.

    As ever: this is not investment advice. Do your own research. Spread betting is dangerous. You might lose your shirt etc etc.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 13,980

    MaxPB said:

    If the government thinks the WA needs changing then take it to arbitration under the auspices of the EU forcing us to sign it under duress or something.

    Can a country plead diminished mental capacity?
    If I were the judge presiding I would take such a plea from the UK very seriously indeed. There is a solid body of recent evidence that can be tabled in support of it.
  • FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.

    As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.

    Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
    The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,391
    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Broadly agree with this, I'm not on Texas directly though - it'll pay via ECV spreads if it comes in. 538 has it after IA, OH, GA, FL and AZ (And PA, WI, MI) to fall to Biden.

    I can see it ending up more Democrat than Ohio and Iowa but probably not Georgia, Florida and North Carolina so I'd have thought the fewest ECVs Biden could realistically gain TX with would be 372.
    Fivethirtyeight identifies a slightly more extreme scenario where PA, NH, MN and NE-2 are GOP and TX goes red. That's 337 ECVs and as far as you can credibly stretch underlying 2020 state swing - any other scenario of TX going blue with fewer ECVs is sub 1%.

    My main bets come into their own in the event of a clear Biden victory. Then I've dropped on just the one mitigator the other way. Trump to hang on to Florida on the fixed odds.
    Certainly possible. I don't think Florida is a key state for Biden at any rate - definitely is for Trump.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 37,075

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
    Boris has a majority now and under our constitution Parliament is sovereign and the Supreme Court must obey Parliamentary statute.

    The SC could only overrule Boris last year as Boris did not have the majority in Parliament he needed to pass key statutes
    Pretty sure the British parliament has multiple houses, the PM can't just change the law on a whim.
    FPT - we'll get a lot of "hot takes" in November, once Biden wins, that it's the End of Populism, which will, of course, be a lot of nonsense. None of the concerns about economic stagnation, democratic control, the self-servingness and pomposity of elites and mass immigration/cultural change have gone away. In fact, many have gotten worse over the last few years.

    Biden will win because Trump is a reckless amoral demagogue that needs stopping to save the US constitution and democracy, and restore sanity.

    I expect the liberal intelligentsia to treat it as a crushing victory and a sign that they can all go back to business as normal, as they were before.

    They will be about as right as the Bourbons were.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.

    As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.

    Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
    The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
    If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.

    The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately

  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 3,602
    eek said:

    Alistair said:

    A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515191-democrats-sound-alarm-on-possible-election-chaos

    In play betting baby.

    In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"

    After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
    If Trump wins on the night he will declare victory...
    But declaring victory means nothing if the opponent doesn't concede, and the count is still continuing. The important thing is that every vote gets counted in the individual states, and the media report the current situation properly.

    Trump can rant and rave as much as he likes, but if he loses the election, he's not going to be President on 21st January
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 3,602
    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Broadly agree with this, I'm not on Texas directly though - it'll pay via ECV spreads if it comes in. 538 has it after IA, OH, GA, FL and AZ (And PA, WI, MI) to fall to Biden.

    I can see it ending up more Democrat than Ohio and Iowa but probably not Georgia, Florida and North Carolina so I'd have thought the fewest ECVs Biden could realistically gain TX with would be 372.
    Fivethirtyeight identifies a slightly more extreme scenario where PA, NH, MN and NE-2 are GOP and TX goes red. That's 337 ECVs and as far as you can credibly stretch underlying 2020 state swing - any other scenario of TX going blue with fewer ECVs is sub 1%.

    My main bets come into their own in the event of a clear Biden victory. Then I've dropped on just the one mitigator the other way. Trump to hang on to Florida on the fixed odds.
    Certainly possible. I don't think Florida is a key state for Biden at any rate - definitely is for Trump.
    Agree.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 13,980

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
    He has to go.
    The demise of both Donald Trump and Boris Johnson in the near future would for me signify a return towards some semblance of maturity in politics. I'm more confident of the first than the second however.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 3,602
    Scott_xP said:
    So that nuanced debate this morning about invasions of Great Britain was well worth it then.
  • HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.

    As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.

    Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
    The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
    If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.

    The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately

    Eh? You think governments never pass a law, take actions they think are allowed under the new law and judges rule against them? It happens very regularly, because politicians, especially this lot, think laws dont apply to them.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 2,002
    eristdoof said:

    eek said:

    Alistair said:

    A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515191-democrats-sound-alarm-on-possible-election-chaos

    In play betting baby.

    In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"

    After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
    If Trump wins on the night he will declare victory...
    But declaring victory means nothing if the opponent doesn't concede, and the count is still continuing. The important thing is that every vote gets counted in the individual states, and the media report the current situation properly.

    Trump can rant and rave as much as he likes, but if he loses the election, he's not going to be President on 21st January
    I do hope you are right but I can envisage lots of unpleasant scenarios that aren't as straight forward as that.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 6,746
    eristdoof said:

    So that nuanced debate this morning about invasions of Great Britain was well worth it then.

    After a solid 12 hours of the fanbois proclaiming BoZo's genius for reneging on his own deal, BoZo has shafted them. Again. So they must cheer louder...
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 15,025
    Negotiation for Dummies needs a new Chapter
  • kinabalu said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
    He has to go.
    The demise of both Donald Trump and Boris Johnson in the near future would for me signify a return towards some semblance of maturity in politics. I'm more confident of the first than the second however.
    An antagonistic no deal Brexit in 2020 would fit the BJ retiring in 2021 rumours very well. He can claim sunny success in delivering what the people wanted, and let someone else clean up his shitty mess.
  • FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    We meant it at the time and we honoured it at the time, but now time has changed.

    We were explicit that we would be looking to make new arrangements after the transition. The Europeans wanted to sequence talks this way, we were quite clear we didn't. The Europeans can't pretend to be shocked and horrified now that the UK has issues with how things were done, that was always clear and they knew that when they sequenced talks this way.

    They made this bed. They chose the sequencing. When they want to decide future arrangements we'll still be here but they chose to ensure the trade deal only lasted 12 months. Their choice, they can live with the consequences.
    TL;DR “It’s the EU’s fault we look like pillocks”
    No.

    TL;DR "I couldn't care less how you think we look"

    I want the UK government to look after UK interests. Just as the EUs governments are answerable to their voters not you or me.
    Plenty of your fellow government fans on here don’t agree with you that reneging on our agreements negotiated in good faith is a good idea, or in our interests.
    That's fine. I speak for myself not others.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 7
    kjh said:

    eristdoof said:

    eek said:

    Alistair said:

    A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515191-democrats-sound-alarm-on-possible-election-chaos

    In play betting baby.

    In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"

    After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
    If Trump wins on the night he will declare victory...
    But declaring victory means nothing if the opponent doesn't concede, and the count is still continuing. The important thing is that every vote gets counted in the individual states, and the media report the current situation properly.

    Trump can rant and rave as much as he likes, but if he loses the election, he's not going to be President on 21st January
    I do hope you are right but I can envisage lots of unpleasant scenarios that aren't as straight forward as that.
    Trump on election night, 'I have won the election night vote and been re elected.'

    Biden on election night, 'the mail in ballots are still being processed and I am getting most of them and I will not concede.'

    A very likely scenario which could go on for weeks if not months and need the US Supreme Court to decide as it did in 2000
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 13,980
    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Broadly agree with this, I'm not on Texas directly though - it'll pay via ECV spreads if it comes in. 538 has it after IA, OH, GA, FL and AZ (And PA, WI, MI) to fall to Biden.

    I can see it ending up more Democrat than Ohio and Iowa but probably not Georgia, Florida and North Carolina so I'd have thought the fewest ECVs Biden could realistically gain TX with would be 372.
    Fivethirtyeight identifies a slightly more extreme scenario where PA, NH, MN and NE-2 are GOP and TX goes red. That's 337 ECVs and as far as you can credibly stretch underlying 2020 state swing - any other scenario of TX going blue with fewer ECVs is sub 1%.

    My main bets come into their own in the event of a clear Biden victory. Then I've dropped on just the one mitigator the other way. Trump to hang on to Florida on the fixed odds.
    Certainly possible. I don't think Florida is a key state for Biden at any rate - definitely is for Trump.
    Yes. I've put that on so that if it's a very close Biden EC win I still make a few quid. It would be galling otherwise. Course, if Trump wins the election, it will only cushion my consequential losses a little, but that's fair enough. If Trump is re-elected I've called the whole thing badly wrong and deserve to get a pasting on the £££. And on here of course. :smile:
  • OT

    my son's school is seeing the first blindingly obvious problem with the current Covid strategy.

    The Year 7s, who went back a day early on Wednesday last week, have been told that one of their number has tested positive for Covid 19. As a result the whole Year Group has to self isolate for 14 days. This is bearable but obviously disruptive for them, not least because they have only just started at the senior school.

    The bigger problem for the school is that any of the teaching staff who were in contact with the boy (which for these [purposes means being in the same room) must also self isolate for 14 days. So straight away the teaching staff is being reduced for the rest of the school.

    I don't see how this is going to be a sustainable policy in the medium to long term.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 13,980
    eek said:

    Alistair said:

    A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515191-democrats-sound-alarm-on-possible-election-chaos

    In play betting baby.

    In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"

    After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
    If Trump wins on the night he will declare victory...
    Or if he loses.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,340
    Just received this from my friend Boris.




    We are now entering the final phase of our negotiations with the EU.

    The EU have been very clear about the timetable. I am too.

    There needs to be an agreement with our European friends by the time of the European Council on 15 October.

    If we can’t agree by then, then I do not see that there will be a free trade agreement between us, and we should both accept that and move on.  

    We’ll then have a trading arrangement with the EU like Australia’s.

    I want to be absolutely clear that, as we have said right from the start, that would be a good outcome for the UK.  

    As a Government we’re preparing, at our borders and at our ports, to be ready for it.

    We will have full control over our laws, our rules, and our fishing waters.

    We will have the freedom to do trade deals with every country in the world. And we will prosper mightily as a result.

    We will of course always be ready to talk to our EU friends even in these circumstances.  Our door will never be closed and we will trade as friends and partners – but without a free trade agreement.

    There is still an agreement to be had and we will continue to work hard in September to achieve it.  

    It is one based on our reasonable proposal for a standard free trade agreement like the one the EU has agreed with Canada and so many others.

    Even at this late stage, if the EU are ready to rethink their current positions and agree this I will be delighted.  

    But we cannot and will not compromise on the fundamentals of what it means to be an independent country to get it.

    That is the pledge I make to you. If you stand with me, I hope you’ll join our Party today, so we have the backing we need during this crucial phase of our negotiations >>

    Become a Member

    Yours sincerely,

    Boris Johnson signature
    Boris Johnson
    Prime Minister

    I'm not sure what to reply.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 7

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.

    As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.

    Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
    The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
    If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.

    The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately

    Eh? You think governments never pass a law, take actions they think are allowed under the new law and judges rule against them? It happens very regularly, because politicians, especially this lot, think laws dont apply to them.
    If the judges say the executive is acting beyond the powers granted in the statute then the executive with a big majority in Parliament just rewords the statute or passes a new one to grant it those powers explicitly going forward
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,874
    edited September 7
    Scott_xP said:
    I do sympathise with Tories who rushed out to support the stated position, only to find that it had changed. Been there, got the T-shirt. One learns to shut up until the policy settles down.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 6,746

    OT

    my son's school is seeing the first blindingly obvious problem with the current Covid strategy.

    The Year 7s, who went back a day early on Wednesday last week, have been told that one of their number has tested positive for Covid 19. As a result the whole Year Group has to self isolate for 14 days. This is bearable but obviously disruptive for them, not least because they have only just started at the senior school.

    The bigger problem for the school is that any of the teaching staff who were in contact with the boy (which for these [purposes means being in the same room) must also self isolate for 14 days. So straight away the teaching staff is being reduced for the rest of the school.

    I don't see how this is going to be a sustainable policy in the medium to long term.

    It's not. We did mention this last week...
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 6,817
    Barnesian said:

    Just received this from my friend Boris.




    We are now entering the final phase of our negotiations with the EU.

    The EU have been very clear about the timetable. I am too.

    There needs to be an agreement with our European friends by the time of the European Council on 15 October.

    If we can’t agree by then, then I do not see that there will be a free trade agreement between us, and we should both accept that and move on.  

    We’ll then have a trading arrangement with the EU like Australia’s.

    I want to be absolutely clear that, as we have said right from the start, that would be a good outcome for the UK.  

    As a Government we’re preparing, at our borders and at our ports, to be ready for it.

    We will have full control over our laws, our rules, and our fishing waters.

    We will have the freedom to do trade deals with every country in the world. And we will prosper mightily as a result.

    We will of course always be ready to talk to our EU friends even in these circumstances.  Our door will never be closed and we will trade as friends and partners – but without a free trade agreement.

    There is still an agreement to be had and we will continue to work hard in September to achieve it.  

    It is one based on our reasonable proposal for a standard free trade agreement like the one the EU has agreed with Canada and so many others.

    Even at this late stage, if the EU are ready to rethink their current positions and agree this I will be delighted.  

    But we cannot and will not compromise on the fundamentals of what it means to be an independent country to get it.

    That is the pledge I make to you. If you stand with me, I hope you’ll join our Party today, so we have the backing we need during this crucial phase of our negotiations >>

    Become a Member

    Yours sincerely,

    Boris Johnson signature
    Boris Johnson
    Prime Minister

    I'm not sure what to reply.

    I know what I’d say
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 673
    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Broadly agree with this, I'm not on Texas directly though - it'll pay via ECV spreads if it comes in. 538 has it after IA, OH, GA, FL and AZ (And PA, WI, MI) to fall to Biden.

    I can see it ending up more Democrat than Ohio and Iowa but probably not Georgia, Florida and North Carolina so I'd have thought the fewest ECVs Biden could realistically gain TX with would be 372.
    Fivethirtyeight identifies a slightly more extreme scenario where PA, NH, MN and NE-2 are GOP and TX goes red. That's 337 ECVs and as far as you can credibly stretch underlying 2020 state swing - any other scenario of TX going blue with fewer ECVs is sub 1%.

    My main bets come into their own in the event of a clear Biden victory. Then I've dropped on just the one mitigator the other way. Trump to hang on to Florida on the fixed odds.
    Certainly possible. I don't think Florida is a key state for Biden at any rate - definitely is for Trump.
    Yes. I've put that on so that if it's a very close Biden EC win I still make a few quid. It would be galling otherwise. Course, if Trump wins the election, it will only cushion my consequential losses a little, but that's fair enough. If Trump is re-elected I've called the whole thing badly wrong and deserve to get a pasting on the £££. And on here of course. :smile:
    I promised I will be very generous Kinablu :)
  • HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.

    As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.

    Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
    The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
    If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.

    The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately

    Surely Parliament passed a law to approve the WA. As such any subsequent law must abide by the WA or the WA must be amended. Which needs both parties to agree.

    I reckon the Supreme Court would deal with this one in no time at all. You cannot pass laws which contradict existing statute without the existing statute being amended or falling.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,391
    eristdoof said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515191-democrats-sound-alarm-on-possible-election-chaos

    In play betting baby.

    In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"

    After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
    Yes and no.

    In the Senate 2018 was a hugely disappointing night for the Democrats, going backwards.
    If 2020 were to be a repeat of 2018's senate results it'd be ~289 Democrat ECVs with the gain of AZ, PA, WI and MI. That'd be enough.
    Are you assuming that the states which didn't vote in 2018 don't flip? There are 3 or 4 swing states that did not vote for the Senate in 2018.
    I'm assuming Ohio and Montana stay GOP. I mean MT almost certainly will - Ohio could flip but it's got a hefty 2016 margin for Biden to overturn (8.13%).

    Other than that the competitive states unpolled in the senate of 2018 were New Hampshire (Dem), North Carolina for the GOP. Colorado, Iowa, Georgia, Virginia are pretty much collectively a wash/uncompetitive and only really go in a strong victory for either side.

    The most important states - PA, WI, MN, NV, MI, AZ and FL all had senate races.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 34,049
    Scott_xP said:
    This clarification is probably aimed at the domestic audience who foolishly thought they really meant it.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 3,602
    kjh said:

    eristdoof said:

    eek said:

    Alistair said:

    A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515191-democrats-sound-alarm-on-possible-election-chaos

    In play betting baby.

    In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"

    After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
    If Trump wins on the night he will declare victory...
    But declaring victory means nothing if the opponent doesn't concede, and the count is still continuing. The important thing is that every vote gets counted in the individual states, and the media report the current situation properly.

    Trump can rant and rave as much as he likes, but if he loses the election, he's not going to be President on 21st January
    I do hope you are right but I can envisage lots of unpleasant scenarios that aren't as straight forward as that.
    Well yes, Trump and many of his supporters are unpleasant people, and he will probably say some very unpleasant things. That does not mean that those responsible for ensuring that democracy in the US is carried out properly, even the Republicans, are so unpleasant that they blatantly overturn the result of the election.

    There is scope for scuffles in one or two states about the vote counting which could go all the way to the Supreme Court, as in 2000, but that still requires the EC to be so close that it still makes a difference (as in 2000).
  • Scott_xP said:

    OT

    my son's school is seeing the first blindingly obvious problem with the current Covid strategy.

    The Year 7s, who went back a day early on Wednesday last week, have been told that one of their number has tested positive for Covid 19. As a result the whole Year Group has to self isolate for 14 days. This is bearable but obviously disruptive for them, not least because they have only just started at the senior school.

    The bigger problem for the school is that any of the teaching staff who were in contact with the boy (which for these [purposes means being in the same room) must also self isolate for 14 days. So straight away the teaching staff is being reduced for the rest of the school.

    I don't see how this is going to be a sustainable policy in the medium to long term.

    It's not. We did mention this last week...
    Sorry I have been off PB for a while as I am having technical issues with it and also too much work.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012

    Scott_xP said:
    I do sympathise with Tories who rushed out to support the stated position, only to find that it had changed. Been there, got the T-shirt. One learns to shut up until the policy settles down.
    Given what this is about, I don't think you can be certain what that Tweet means.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 21,361
    Lol so all the chat this morning was bullshit, government implementing the WA as normal. Honestly, the government needs a completely new communications team.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 6,746
    nichomar said:

    I know what I’d say

    Absolutely, BoZo old chum. The cheque is in the mail. Definitely. No worries on that score. Posted it last week. For sure.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.

    As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.

    Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
    The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
    If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.

    The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately

    Eh? You think governments never pass a law, take actions they think are allowed under the new law and judges rule against them? It happens very regularly, because politicians, especially this lot, think laws dont apply to them.
    If the judges say the executive is acting beyond the powers granted in the statute then the executive with a big majority in Parliament just rewords the statute or passes a new one to grant it those powers explicitly going forward
    Yes! But my point was they will deliberately set up a situation where the judges have to rule against them on a key Brexit issue. This is to weaken the judiciary. It is a well known tool in the authoritarian dictators handbook.

    Of course eventually the govt can get their way (if their way is and stays what they were putting out there overnight).
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.

    As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.

    Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
    The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
    If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.

    The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately

    Eh? You think governments never pass a law, take actions they think are allowed under the new law and judges rule against them? It happens very regularly, because politicians, especially this lot, think laws dont apply to them.
    If the judges say the executive is acting beyond the powers granted in the statute then the executive with a big majority in Parliament just rewords the statute or passes a new one to grant it those powers explicitly going forward
    Since the statute concerned explicitly approves the WA unaltered - as it must do - then the only way to change statute is to renege on the WA.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    glw said:

    Mango said:

    HYUFD said:
    Twats gonna twat.

    Well done all you "soft Brexit" mugs.
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
    Nothing is long-term.

    Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.

    If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?

    If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?

    It's not something I support.

    I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
    Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.

    As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.

    Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
    The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
    If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.

    The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately

    Surely Parliament passed a law to approve the WA. As such any subsequent law must abide by the WA or the WA must be amended. Which needs both parties to agree.

    I reckon the Supreme Court would deal with this one in no time at all. You cannot pass laws which contradict existing statute without the existing statute being amended or falling.
    If the existing WA were amended by Parliament to avoid no border in the Irish Sea and the new law was passed by Parliament to confirm that and signed off by the Crown then the Supreme Court would have to accept that, it is a body which ultimately must respect the will of Crown in Parliament, not respect the norms of international treaties
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 15,025

    Scott_xP said:
    I do sympathise with Tories who rushed out to support the stated position, only to find that it had changed. Been there, got the T-shirt. One learns to shut up until the policy settles down.
    PB Tories demand the PB 5 minute edit post deadline be extended to 5hrs for the life of the BJ Government.
This discussion has been closed.