politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Clinton price moves to a record high on Betfair

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

FPT

On rolling the dice and getting double sixes vs snake eyes, well Brexit is neither. It is pre-emptive action to protect the nation from a future populist uprising that we've been seeing in the US. They are very lucky that Nige is ineligible to run for president over there, he would have absolutely walked it, and the problems in America don't go away when Trump loses.

All across the EU we're seeing populists in the ascendancy or rising. Fidesz won in Poland, Orban is dominant in Hungary, Bepe Grillo is probably going to be the next Italian PM, Le Pen is in with a shout in France, the FPO will probably win the rerun in Austria, AfD will comfortably be the largest non-governing party in the Bundestag. There are also more UKIP style parties in Northern Europe, PVV in the Netherlands, the True Finns are in the governing coalition, the Sweden Democrats are polling relatively well and will gain seats, possibly end up as the largest party.

So looking across the channel at the rebellion against the establishment, Brexit is a symptom of the larger disease of wealth and income inequality. It is at times like these that we must look after our own and get our own house in order or everything we've built will be swept away. I'd rather Brexit than deal with a very messy populist uprising in 10-15 years.

What of a populist uprising in five years time when the voters rise up against the Leavers who promised them economic sunny uplands if they voted Leave turns out to be an economic disaster?

An economic disaster for you and I perhaps, it is our industry which is most at risk of being traded for migrant curbs. I'm not sure that someone earning the minimum wage working in Argos really gives a shit though. In fact that person will be earning £9/h in 2020, so should have seen a fairly large real terms pay increase. The short term issues we might have today are worth the long term stability that comes with making our democracy legitimate. Moving power one step closer to the people can only be a good thing, when it becomes too remote people become rebellious. With more decisions being made in Westminster we can hold our politicians to account in a way we've never been able to do with Brussels.

Very few Remainers on this site address anything other than short-term economic outcomes.

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

FPT

On rolling the dice and getting double sixes vs snake eyes, well Brexit is neither. It is pre-emptive action to protect the nation from a future populist uprising that we've been seeing in the US. They are very lucky that Nige is ineligible to run for president over there, he would have absolutely walked it, and the problems in America don't go away when Trump loses.

All across the EU we're seeing populists in the ascendancy or rising. Fidesz won in Poland, Orban is dominant in Hungary, Bepe Grillo is probably going to be the next Italian PM, Le Pen is in with a shout in France, the FPO will probably win the rerun in Austria, AfD will comfortably be the largest non-governing party in the Bundestag. There are also more UKIP style parties in Northern Europe, PVV in the Netherlands, the True Finns are in the governing coalition, the Sweden Democrats are polling relatively well and will gain seats, possibly end up as the largest party.

So looking across the channel at the rebellion against the establishment, Brexit is a symptom of the larger disease of wealth and income inequality. It is at times like these that we must look after our own and get our own house in order or everything we've built will be swept away. I'd rather Brexit than deal with a very messy populist uprising in 10-15 years.

What of a populist uprising in five years time when the voters rise up against the Leavers who promised them economic sunny uplands if they voted Leave turns out to be an economic disaster?

The likelihood is it will be neither an economic disaster, nor an economic boom.

I would agree. Things are very rarely as good as they seem or as bad as they seem. Markets and economies always overreact to events.

MaxPB said:

An economic disaster for you and I perhaps, it is our industry which is most at risk of being traded for migrant curbs. I'm not sure that someone earning the minimum wage working in Argos really gives a shit though.

Quite possibly not. That might be however, because they haven't the faintest clue about the fact that London accounts for something like one third of all tax revenues. Ministers are not in a position to ignore such realities. At least, one hopes not.

IanB2 said:

MaxPB said:

FPT

On rolling the dice and getting double sixes vs snake eyes, well Brexit is neither. It is pre-emptive action to protect the nation from a future populist uprising that we've been seeing in the US. They are very lucky that Nige is ineligible to run for president over there, he would have absolutely walked it, and the problems in America don't go away when Trump loses.

All across the EU we're seeing populists in the ascendancy or rising. Fidesz won in Poland, Orban is dominant in Hungary, Bepe Grillo is probably going to be the next Italian PM, Le Pen is in with a shout in France, the FPO will probably win the rerun in Austria, AfD will comfortably be the largest non-governing party in the Bundestag. There are also more UKIP style parties in Northern Europe, PVV in the Netherlands, the True Finns are in the governing coalition, the Sweden Democrats are polling relatively well and will gain seats, possibly end up as the largest party.

So looking across the channel at the rebellion against the establishment, Brexit is a symptom of the larger disease of wealth and income inequality. It is at times like these that we must look after our own and get our own house in order or everything we've built will be swept away. I'd rather Brexit than deal with a very messy populist uprising in 10-15 years.

Except that Brexit does next to nothing to address the real concerns that you rightly highlight, and if the economy goes pear shaped the wealth/inequality is likely to become worse rather than better. All the other things that May spelled out as aspirations in her conference speech (as yet unsupported by any actual proposals as to how to achieve them) could have been done with or without Brexit.

It might, it might not. We've been through this before. Telling people who have very little to lose that it will get worse is not going to win any arguments. The worst case scenario for many people is no change, maybe a few things get more expensive but at the same time housing costs might go down as well.

The question is really, would staying in the EU have made anything better, the answer was a pretty resounding no. Again, easier for people at the top of the income scale, we benefit from globalisation and from the EU single market, at least in monetary terms. At the bottom end it meant an unlimited pool of unskilled labour to drive down wages. It meant higher housing costs in perpetuity due to continued migration, it meant a continuation of New Labour's culture war on the WWC. None of these was desirable, and when the alternative is merely going to the same in a worst case scenario, well we know what happened.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Incidentally, I thought the sense-of-humour-failure amongst a string of Leavers on the last thread was very telling indeed.

I don't find it rib-tickingly funny to be described as "nihilistic cunts" but everyone's sense of humour is different.

We need post debate polls, not pre-debate ones.

That's the problem, sure before the debate Trump was losing 48 states, but after his debate victory what is the picture ?

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Incidentally, I thought the sense-of-humour-failure amongst a string of Leavers on the last thread was very telling indeed.

I don't find it rib-tickingly funny to be described as "nihilistic cunts" but everyone's sense of humour is different.

I was referring to the Fascinating Aida piece.

I agree tyson is extremely unfunny.

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Incidentally, I thought the sense-of-humour-failure amongst a string of Leavers on the last thread was very telling indeed.

I don't find it rib-tickingly funny to be described as "nihilistic cunts" but everyone's sense of humour is different.

I found it greatly amusing, who knew Leavers were such delicate flowers.

I'm sure all those PBers offended by Tyson's comments were similarly outraged on the many occasions when SeanT calls remainers 'Traitorous c*nts'

I have not seen the debate last night between Trump and Clinton but two thoughts struck me looking at the commentary ad it was in areas that have received less attention but which prove to be the most important influencers on the campaign:

(1) Clinton's comments about swinging the Supreme Court to a more liberal bent. My bet is that persuades many conservatives that, no matter how unpalatable Trump is personally, they need to vote for him, if only to stop SCOTUS swinging to the left for an entire generation. In that way, HRC may have - inadvertedly - done Trump a huge favour.

A few people have mentioned on here that the GOP is looking to bolster the Senate in order to block any nominations by a President HRC - that would be a non-starter: whilst the Senate could theoretically block appointments, to block at least one and possibly up to three appointments for anywhere up to four years would be politically impossible and probably lead to the GOP losing the Senate.

(2) By admitting that the Wikileaks on the comments to bankers are essentially true, HRC risks alienating several groups - Midwest voters concerned about the impact of free trade on jobs; Bernie supporters who believe HRC is in the pockets of Goldman Sachs; and so forth.

PS Re what I commented on the polling earlier, one other thing is this: in the GE of 2015, a thread on here stated that the polls were right, we were just looking at the wrong question i.e. we should have been looking at voters views on a suitable PM and not their party voting. Now look at the US - the percentage of people who say the country is on the wrong track is c. a net 40% ahead. For a continuity candidate such as HRC, that is poison.

Still, as I was saying for about five years before June 23rd, it would have been more sensible for those advocating Brexit to have had the debate about what it might look like before the decision was taken.

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

FPT

On rolling the dice and getting double sixes vs snake eyes, well Brexit is neither. It is pre-emptive action to protect the nation from a future populist uprising that we've been seeing in the US. They are very lucky that Nige is ineligible to run for president over there, he would have absolutely walked it, and the problems in America don't go away when Trump loses.

All across the EU we're seeing populists in the ascendancy or rising. Fidesz won in Poland, Orban is dominant in Hungary, Bepe Grillo is probably going to be the next Italian PM, Le Pen is in with a shout in France, the FPO will probably win the rerun in Austria, AfD will comfortably be the largest non-governing party in the Bundestag. There are also more UKIP style parties in Northern Europe, PVV in the Netherlands, the True Finns are in the governing coalition, the Sweden Democrats are polling relatively well and will gain seats, possibly end up as the largest party.

So looking across the channel at the rebellion against the establishment, Brexit is a symptom of the larger disease of wealth and income inequality. It is at times like these that we must look after our own and get our own house in order or everything we've built will be swept away. I'd rather Brexit than deal with a very messy populist uprising in 10-15 years.

What of a populist uprising in five years time when the voters rise up against the Leavers who promised them economic sunny uplands if they voted Leave turns out to be an economic disaster?

An economic disaster for you and I perhaps, it is our industry which is most at risk of being traded for migrant curbs. I'm not sure that someone earning the minimum wage working in Argos really gives a shit though. In fact that person will be earning £9/h in 2020, so should have seen a fairly large real terms pay increase. The short term issues we might have today are worth the long term stability that comes with making our democracy legitimate. Moving power one step closer to the people can only be a good thing, when it becomes too remote people become rebellious. With more decisions being made in Westminster we can hold our politicians to account in a way we've never been able to do with Brussels.

And what decisions are those then Max?

Staying in the single market?
Free movement of people?
Amendments to tens of thousands of items of legislation?

May won't let MPs debate the first two and the third will be done by statutory instrument on which there will be no debate.

But hey, we've "taken back control".

MaxPB said:

IanB2 said:

MaxPB said:

FPT


All across the EU we're seeing populists in the ascendancy or rising. Fidesz won in Poland, Orban is dominant in Hungary, Bepe Grillo is probably going to be the next Italian PM, Le Pen is in with a shout in France, the FPO will probably win the rerun in Austria, AfD will comfortably be the largest non-governing party in the Bundestag. There are also more UKIP style parties in Northern Europe, PVV in the Netherlands, the True Finns are in the governing coalition, the Sweden Democrats are polling relatively well and will gain seats, possibly end up as the largest party.

So looking across the channel at the rebellion against the establishment, Brexit is a symptom of the larger disease of wealth and income inequality. It is at times like these that we must look after our own and get our own house in order or everything we've built will be swept away. I'd rather Brexit than deal with a very messy populist uprising in 10-15 years.

Except that Brexit does next to nothing to address the real concerns that you rightly highlight, and if the economy goes pear shaped the wealth/inequality is likely to become worse rather than better. All the other things that May spelled out as aspirations in her conference speech (as yet unsupported by any actual proposals as to how to achieve them) could have been done with or without Brexit.

It might, it might not. We've been through this before. Telling people who have very little to lose that it will get worse is not going to win any arguments. The worst case scenario for many people is no change, maybe a few things get more expensive but at the same time housing costs might go down as well.

The question is really, would staying in the EU have made anything better, the answer was a pretty resounding no. Again, easier for people at the top of the income scale, we benefit from globalisation and from the EU single market, at least in monetary terms. At the bottom end it meant an unlimited pool of unskilled labour to drive down wages. It meant higher housing costs in perpetuity due to continued migration, it meant a continuation of New Labour's culture war on the WWC. None of these was desirable, and when the alternative is merely going to the same in a worst case scenario, well we know what happened.

But you have shifted the argument. Your point, as I understood it, was better Brexit now than revolution later. But if Brexit does next to nothing to stave off any potential revolution (for which read electing some extremist) then your argument collapses. Indeed Brexit going pear shaped is basically Corbyn's only chance; a chance he wouldn't have had with a remain vote.

(I think Fidesz is Hungary not Poland btw)

Sean_F said:

The likelihood is it will be neither an economic disaster, nor an economic boom.

Roughly agree. Brexit will be a drag rather than a disaster as long as we are sensible - and Mrs May hasn't been entirely sensible so far. But it will be very messy, distracting and bad -tempered. It certainly won't be "freedom" in any sense that is meaningful to me.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Still, as I was saying for about five years before June 23rd, it would have been more sensible for those advocating Brexit to have had the debate about what it might look like before the decision was taken.

Ideally we would have had a choice of:

Absorption into a Euro federal state
The Staus Quo Ante
Cameron's deal
EEA/EFTA
Soft Brexit
Hard Brexit
Hard as Nails banged into your forehead Brexit

All on the ballot paper, and decided by AV.

On topic, before I go bed, I should have trusted my own judgement back in Jan/Feb/March and kept on laying Trump and not gone all ponceyboots Gaylord.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Incidentally, I thought the sense-of-humour-failure amongst a string of Leavers on the last thread was very telling indeed.

I don't find it rib-tickingly funny to be described as "nihilistic cunts" but everyone's sense of humour is different.

I found it greatly amusing, who knew Leavers were such delicate flowers.

I'm sure all those PBers offended by Tyson's comments were similarly outraged on the many occasions when SeanT calls remainers 'Traitorous c*nts'

I'm sure you did find it amusing. But, I think you're also realising that you have little in common now with people on the right of the political spectrum, and much more in common with Tyson et al.

Daniel Hannan is annoyingly disingenuous

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/BenChu_/status/785408575690735616

TheKitchenCabinet said:

I have not seen the debate last night between Trump and Clinton but two thoughts struck me looking at the commentary ad it was in areas that have received less attention but which prove to be the most important influencers on the campaign:

(1) Clinton's comments about swinging the Supreme Court to a more liberal bent. My bet is that persuades many conservatives that, no matter how unpalatable Trump is personally, they need to vote for him, if only to stop SCOTUS swinging to the left for an entire generation. In that way, HRC may have - inadvertedly - done Trump a huge favour.

A few people have mentioned on here that the GOP is looking to bolster the Senate in order to block any nominations by a President HRC - that would be a non-starter: whilst the Senate could theoretically block appointments, to block at least one and possibly up to three appointments for anywhere up to four years would be politically impossible and probably lead to the GOP losing the Senate.

(2) By admitting that the Wikileaks on the comments to bankers are essentially true, HRC risks alienating several groups - Midwest voters concerned about the impact of free trade on jobs; Bernie supporters who believe HRC is in the pockets of Goldman Sachs; and so forth.

PS Re what I commented on the polling earlier, one other thing is this: in the GE of 2015, a thread on here stated that the polls were right, we were just looking at the wrong question i.e. we should have been looking at voters views on a suitable PM and not their party voting. Now look at the US - the percentage of people who say the country is on the wrong track is c. a net 40% ahead. For a continuity candidate such as HRC, that is poison.

On 1.

Voters don't care about the supreme court, Senators do.

They can leave the entire Supreme Court empty and no one would care except Chuck Todd.

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Incidentally, I thought the sense-of-humour-failure amongst a string of Leavers on the last thread was very telling indeed.

I don't find it rib-tickingly funny to be described as "nihilistic cunts" but everyone's sense of humour is different.

I found it greatly amusing, who knew Leavers were such delicate flowers.

I'm sure all those PBers offended by Tyson's comments were similarly outraged on the many occasions when SeanT calls remainers 'Traitorous c*nts'

I'm sure you did find it amusing. But, I think you're also realising that you have little in common now with people on the right of the political spectrum, and much more in common with Tyson et al.

I really don't.

I spent Monday and Tuesday at the Tory conference, and I'm still surrounded by enough like minded people.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Incidentally, I thought the sense-of-humour-failure amongst a string of Leavers on the last thread was very telling indeed.

I don't find it rib-tickingly funny to be described as "nihilistic cunts" but everyone's sense of humour is different.

I found it greatly amusing, who knew Leavers were such delicate flowers.

I'm sure all those PBers offended by Tyson's comments were similarly outraged on the many occasions when SeanT calls remainers 'Traitorous c*nts'

I'm sure you did find it amusing. But, I think you're also realising that you have little in common now with people on the right of the political spectrum, and much more in common with Tyson et al.

I really don't.

Come over to the Dark Side, we have cookies...

ThreeQuidder said:

As was repeatedly pointed out to you before June 23rd, the onus to produce a plan for a Leave vote was on the government as it was the government to implement it. Not only did they not, the previous PM actively prevented any work being done on it. It was the most shocking dereliction of duty and for that alone I'm glad he's gone.

It was 'pointed out', as you put it, most unconvincingly, by Leavers embarrassed at their own side's dereliction of duty. Quite how on earth David Cameron was supposed to make the difficult political choices inherent in the incoherence of the Leave economic case was never explained. What's more, he would have been bitterly attacked if he had tried to. What kind of Brexit was he supposed to have been planning for?

foxinsoxuk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Incidentally, I thought the sense-of-humour-failure amongst a string of Leavers on the last thread was very telling indeed.

I don't find it rib-tickingly funny to be described as "nihilistic cunts" but everyone's sense of humour is different.

I found it greatly amusing, who knew Leavers were such delicate flowers.

I'm sure all those PBers offended by Tyson's comments were similarly outraged on the many occasions when SeanT calls remainers 'Traitorous c*nts'

I'm sure you did find it amusing. But, I think you're also realising that you have little in common now with people on the right of the political spectrum, and much more in common with Tyson et al.

I really don't.

Come over to the Dark Side, we have cookies...

The trouble with TSE is that he is too sensible to see that his own side don't want him any more...

ThreeQuidder said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Still, as I was saying for about five years before June 23rd, it would have been more sensible for those advocating Brexit to have had the debate about what it might look like before the decision was taken.

I looked at the list posted earlier of the Leave campaign board. I counted approximately three current Cabinet ministers.

As was repeatedly pointed out to you before June 23rd, the onus to produce a plan for a Leave vote was on the government as it was the government to implement it. Not only did they not, the previous PM actively prevented any work being done on it. It was the most shocking dereliction of duty and for that alone I'm glad he's gone.

I know we have gone over this a hundred times before. Who says the onus is on those that warn that a particular decision will be a disaster to make the plans for the implementation of said disaster because those cheerleading it don't want make their own plans that would would reveal just how much of a disaster it would be?

Richard_Nabavi said:

It was 'pointed out', as you put it, most unconvincingly, by Leavers embarrassed at their own side's dereliction of duty. Quite how on earth David Cameron was supposed to make the difficult political choices inherent in the incoherence of the Leave economic case was never explained. What's more, he would have been bitterly attacked if he had tried to. What kind of Brexit was he supposed to have been planning for?

Are the Brexiteers really still whining that they wanted the Remain camp to clean up their shit?

Will they ever grow out of it?

Scott_P said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It was 'pointed out', as you put it, most unconvincingly, by Leavers embarrassed at their own side's dereliction of duty. Quite how on earth David Cameron was supposed to make the difficult political choices inherent in the incoherence of the Leave economic case was never explained. What's more, he would have been bitterly attacked if he had tried to. What kind of Brexit was he supposed to have been planning for?

Are the Brexiteers really still whining that they wanted the Remain camp to clean up their shit?

Will they ever grow out of it?

They are too busy moaning to be cleaning anything up!

Scott_P said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It was 'pointed out', as you put it, most unconvincingly, by Leavers embarrassed at their own side's dereliction of duty. Quite how on earth David Cameron was supposed to make the difficult political choices inherent in the incoherence of the Leave economic case was never explained. What's more, he would have been bitterly attacked if he had tried to. What kind of Brexit was he supposed to have been planning for?

Are the Brexiteers really still whining that they wanted the Remain camp to clean up their shit?

Will they ever grow out of it?

It's as it Jeremy Corbyn walked into Downing Street and spent the next 6 months attacking the Tories for not making any contingency plans for his victory.

"Why did you hold a General Election if there were no preparations to implement my policies?!"

IanB2 said:

RoyalBlue said:

The Guardian is running this rather excitable article:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/10/tory-mps-clamour-for-more-say-as-davis-rules-out-vote-on-brexit-terms

I think the parliamentary maths means it's all a waste of time.

Tory MPs: 329

Plus

UKIP: 1

DUP: 8

Labour Leave: 10

MPs for majority: 323 (excludes Speaker and Sinn Fein)

So there can be up to 25 Tory rebels and May can still do as she likes.

13 rebels if they all vote the other way

No - 348 Tories plus Brexiteers, 297 other. TM can have 25 direct switchers and still win.

Is there a debate on Article 50 in the Commons tomorrow?

ThreeQuidder said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Speedy said:

Chris_A said:

Speaking of idiots there was a chap on the BBC News at Ten this evening bleating that "no-one had said that the prices of ordinary items would go up". Just what bloody planet was he on in June?

Well prices have not gone up, inflation was 0.6% in August.

Tell that to anyone booking a winter break in the Canaries.

He said "ordinary items".

Petrol not "ordinary" enough for you?

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Stepping back and looking at the evidence:

(1) There have been several examples within the past 12 months of where the political polling has been out by a considerable margin - Brexit / Spain / Austria

(2) Political polls seem to be particularly prone to be out when one view is particularly controversial / considered toxic - Brexit post-the Jo Cox murder / Austria again with Hofer / AfD in the state polls in Germany to a lesser degree (ps before anyone starts claiming with Brexit that the polls were "right all along", that is a revisionist argument by the polling companies to save themselves: they generally were not).

We know that Trump is considered toxic and also that he attracts a lot of bile. So, if we are assuming that the polls are right in this election, then that would mean that:

(1) US polling is of higher infinitely quality than that in Europe and / or;
(2) That US voters are willing to state their views in a way that European voters are not

I definitely do not see much evidence of (1) and, given the US is probably more PC-led than Europe, I have considerable doubts about (2).

So, while Trump looks the underdog, it would be dangerous to place too much emphasis on the polls.

Finally, a point that was raised by Williamglenn earlier - what is interesting about the polls is that, in many cases, the two combined struggle to score above a combined percentage of 90% and that, generally, when Clinton's lead extends, it is more because Trump's score falls than HRC's rises. That may - but only may - be a sign of "Shy Trumpsters".

Except this time Clinton's share is actually rising. And one argument for a Clinton "shy" vote rather than a Trump one could be this Many more husbands say they think their wives will vote for Trump then wives think their husbands will vote for Clinton. If women are lying to the husbands then a small number could be lying not the polls. I think one poll found a MAJORITY of husbands/boyfriends belive their spouses will vote with them for Trump when that just isn't happening.

Also you're wrong on the Hofer election- the polls showed he would win by 6% but in the end was close. A surge in low turnout left leaning voters often happens when a far right extremist candidate looks like they will win.

ThreeQuidder said:

FF43 said:

Daniel Hannan is annoyingly disingenuous

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/BenChu_/status/785408575690735616

He has a very valid point: if the losers hadn't kept fighting the battle they had already lost and had advocated an EEA-type solution, there would have been a majority for it.

And that's why we should have had a two question ballot paper.

Daniel Hannan is always annoyingly disingenuous

FF43 said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Still, as I was saying for about five years before June 23rd, it would have been more sensible for those advocating Brexit to have had the debate about what it might look like before the decision was taken.

I looked at the list posted earlier of the Leave campaign board. I counted approximately three current Cabinet ministers.

As was repeatedly pointed out to you before June 23rd, the onus to produce a plan for a Leave vote was on the government as it was the government to implement it. Not only did they not, the previous PM actively prevented any work being done on it. It was the most shocking dereliction of duty and for that alone I'm glad he's gone.

I know we have gone over this a hundred times before. Who says the onus is on those that warn that a particular decision will be a disaster to make the plans for the implementation of said disaster because those cheerleading it don't want make their own plans that would would reveal just how much of a disaster it would be?

I think most Leavers treated it as a vote of confidence in the EU. And really, how else should they have treated it? The counter-argument was, yes, the EU is awful, but better the devil you know.

Scott_P said:

@DanielJHannan: This is idiotic. Chilean wine 14% more expensive? It's currently subject to a 32% EU tariff, which we can now scrap. http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-w…

@AlbertoNardelli: Unsurprisingly, Hannan is wrong. EU has an FTA with Chile, there are currently no tarrifs on Chilean wine winesofchile.org/en/news/07-201… twitter.com/danieljhannan/…

@DanielJHannan: Turns out the EU applies a 32% tariff to all New World wine except Chile's. Mea culpa.

This, and Douglas Carswell not knowing how the tides work, I have to say, how the feck did we lose a referendum to these bell ends?

It is like losing a military campaign against France.

Truly shameful

Cromwell = Louise Mensch?

https://twitter.com/louisemensch/status/785611528854581248

williamglenn said:

Cromwell = Louise Mensch?

https://twitter.com/louisemensch/status/785611528854581248

Louise Mensch isn't as intelligent as Cromwell, so no.

Here's my favourite tweet from Louise Mensch this year, from the end of June.

https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/748638550351028224

Scott_P said:

@DanielJHannan: This is idiotic. Chilean wine 14% more expensive? It's currently subject to a 32% EU tariff, which we can now scrap. http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-w…

@AlbertoNardelli: Unsurprisingly, Hannan is wrong. EU has an FTA with Chile, there are currently no tarrifs on Chilean wine winesofchile.org/en/news/07-201… twitter.com/danieljhannan/…

@DanielJHannan: Turns out the EU applies a 32% tariff to all New World wine except Chile's. Mea culpa.

If he is promising cheaper Ozzie and Kiwi wine then at least we will be able to afford some to drown our sorrows at not being able to afford the European stuff.

ThreeQuidder said:

A two question ballot paper would have registered resulted in a majority for either EEA or Completely Out.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Brexit-vote-an-example-of-a-Condorcet-paradox

ThreeQuidder said:

One he would have been happy with. Governments shouldn't put to referendums options which they aren't prepared to carry out.

David Cameron is not so arrogant as to claim infallibility. Others, including some of his senior colleagues, argued that leaving was a good idea. Fair enough. He disagreed, but he held the referendum and the Leave side won. You have to perform some quite extraordinary moral and political gymnastics to blame him, rather than those advocating Leave, for any incoherence in the planning of the course he was advising against.

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

@DanielJHannan: This is idiotic. Chilean wine 14% more expensive? It's currently subject to a 32% EU tariff, which we can now scrap. http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-w…

@AlbertoNardelli: Unsurprisingly, Hannan is wrong. EU has an FTA with Chile, there are currently no tarrifs on Chilean wine winesofchile.org/en/news/07-201… twitter.com/danieljhannan/…

@DanielJHannan: Turns out the EU applies a 32% tariff to all New World wine except Chile's. Mea culpa.

This, and Douglas Carswell not knowing how the tides work, I have to say, how the feck did we lose a referendum to these bell ends?

It is like losing a military campaign against France.

Truly shameful

Two possibilities. Either you made worse arguments, or you were selling a duff product.

He probably did both.

But what can you expect by a campaign lead by Paddy Ashdown, Will Straw and David Cameron.

ThreeQuidder said:

Yes there was. They called the referendum.

Non sequitur much?

Asking people to vote places no obligation on the party campaigning for one side to plan what those on the other side will implement.

Not even Trump is stupid enough to claim that...

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

Except the Civil Service do meet with opposition leaders/shadow cabinet ministers before the election for discussions.

Yes, but normally the opposition has a set of planned policies which they put into a manifesto. In the referendum the Leave side had - deliberately, one assumes - failed to specify what alternative to the EU they were aiming for. That debate has now started, but it beggars belief that anyone can have the temerity to blame the previous government for not making detailed plans for a political scenario which the Leave side adamantly refused to lay out.

Usually, a referendum is called by a government, which sets out a detailed proposal for the people to endorse - or reject.

That could not apply in this case.

ThreeQuidder said:

He has a very valid point: if the losers hadn't kept fighting the battle they had already lost and had advocated an EEA-type solution, there would have been a majority for it.

Remind me again. If we assume that the current government is a LEAVE government (and given that we are executing Order 66 - - then it's a defensible proposition) then what exactly is stopping the current government from going EEA/EFTA?

Leave won. It has agency. Why is it blaming powerless Remainians for anything?

Matt tomorrow is sublime...

Sean_F said:

I think most Leavers treated it as a vote of confidence in the EU. And really, how else should they have treated it? The counter-argument was, yes, the EU is awful, but better the devil you know.

I would expect a political campaign for change to have, if not a worked out plan, at least indications of a policy that could work. They kept it completely vague to win the election. Everyone could project what they wanted onto a Leave vote. It worked in getting a result

Richard_Nabavi said:

ThreeQuidder said:

One he would have been happy with. Governments shouldn't put to referendums options which they aren't prepared to carry out.

David Cameron is not so arrogant as to claim infallibility. Others, including some of his senior colleagues, argued that leaving was a good idea. Fair enough. He disagreed, but he held the referendum and the Leave side won. You have to perform some quite extraordinary moral and political gymnastics to blame him, rather than those advocating Leave, for any incoherence in the planning of the course he was advising against.

There, Cameron has to be given credit. He promised the Referendum, and he delivered it.