politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Steven Woolf, who was odds on favourite to replace Farage, qui

Speedy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Speedy said:

glw said:

Sandpit said:

Ooh. Do we have an actual serious story here, after all the false starts? If she did indeed try and bribe the FBI then she's surely toast, but it's not going to be that simple. It never is with Hillary.

Fat chance of any action before the election, or after. The DOJ is letting her off the hook because it would cause chaos to indict a candidate.

The DOJ is letting her off the hook because otherwise Trump would become President.

Not sure what would happen after the election has passed, though without 67 GOP senators to impeach her, Hillary will still stay in office until she loses the 2020 election as a lame duck.

Mixed metaphors there surely? She won't be a lame duck until 2024 and can't lose the election then when she is.

Hillary won't win re-election, Trump would be too old to run in 2020.

There's no guarantee Hillary won't win re-election, especially if the GOP continues to implode.

Jobabob said:

Speedy said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Scott_P said:

@wikileaks: We can confirm Ecuador cut off Assange's internet access Saturday, 5pm GMT, shortly after publication of Clinton's Goldman Sachs speechs.

I no longer believe a word they say.

Perhaps the words of the Washington Post will carry more weight ?
https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/788086335852666880

The Hillary emails story is one of the dullest stories ever. It is tear inducingly dull - beaten only by Wikileaks' output on anything at all

I tend to switch off when anything to do with Wikileaks comes up. First they were going to bring Hillary Clinton down so that Bernie Sanders could replace her before the first debate, then they moved the great man's speech to Berlin because of a "specific threat", now they issue tweets with 64-digit codes in them. About the only effect they've had on this election was to cause Debbie Wasserman Schultz's resignation. Only an extremely naive whistleblower - and whistleblowers aren't usually naive - would "leak" info to a centralised address run by bods whose aim in life seems to be to think of themselves as a world power as they do deals with the New York Times and the Guardian, stopping occasionally to swan about in the Frontline Club.

Philip_Thompson said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Essexit said:

MarqueeMark said:

SeanT said:

Agreed. When haggling, you have to be willing to walk away with no deal.

Which is where Cameron so utterly failed.

It's carpet haggling 1.01...

Carpet haggling 1.02 is "don't let on what type of carpet you want - nor how much you are prepared to pay". A lesson that the Remoaners need to learn. They are as idiotic as Cameron was.

More likely they're well aware of 1.02, but are just desperately trying anything to delay the triggering of Article 50 and/or send us into negotiations as weak and hamstrung as possible in the vain hope that they can find a way to throw a spanner in the works of Brexit. All rather sad.

The problem is that (a) we decided to buy the Carpet publiclly by referendum before deciding what 1.01 and 1.02 are ( b) We still haven't decided what 1.01 and 1.02 are and in a democracy can't really be kept secret from the Carpet Seller. ( c) Once A50 is invoked we have to buy a carpet at the end of two years. We can't walk away. Only the quality of the carpet is at stake. ( d ) 48% of hagglers didn't want to buy the Carpet in the first place. ( e) of the 52% that did want floor covering there were huge disagreement what sort. ( f ) The Carpet Seller is unconventional. They don't want repeat trade. They either want you not to enter the shop in the first place or buy a **** carpet you'll hate. They don't want success.

We have to buy a carpet but there's no guarantee which carpet we will buy.

And neither the buyer nor the seller wish to conduct their negotiations with megaphones across the marketplace full of other buyers and sellers.

YellowSubmarine said:

Essexit said:

MarqueeMark said:

SeanT said:

Agreed. When haggling, you have to be willing to walk away with no deal.

Which is where Cameron so utterly failed.

It's carpet haggling 1.01...

Carpet haggling 1.02 is "don't let on what type of carpet you want - nor how much you are prepared to pay". A lesson that the Remoaners need to learn. They are as idiotic as Cameron was.

More likely they're well aware of 1.02, but are just desperately trying anything to delay the triggering of Article 50 and/or send us into negotiations as weak and hamstrung as possible in the vain hope that they can find a way to throw a spanner in the works of Brexit. All rather sad.

The problem is that (a) we decided to buy the Carpet publiclly by referendum before deciding what 1.01 and 1.02 are ( b) We still haven't decided what 1.01 and 1.02 are and in a democracy can't really be kept secret from the Carpet Seller. ( c) Once A50 is invoked we have to buy a carpet at the end of two years. We can't walk away. Only the quality of the carpet is at stake. ( d ) 48% of hagglers didn't want to buy the Carpet in the first place. ( e) of the 52% that did want floor covering there were huge disagreement what sort. ( f ) The Carpet Seller is unconventional. They don't want repeat trade. They either want you not to enter the shop in the first place or buy a **** carpet you'll hate. They don't want success.

(a) In hindsight, having Remain / EEA / Not EEA on the ballot might have been better, but we are where we are.

(b) Governments are entitled to keep some cards close to their chest. Cameron didn't spell out every detail before his 'renegotiation', just a few big-picture aims, which is what I'd expect from May/Davis.

(c) We can walk away (WTO rules). I think we both agree that's not desirable, but to get a good carpet we have to be clear we'll take no carpet rather than pay over the odds for a mediocre one.

(d) 52% did, and most of the 48% I know accept that we are buying a carpet and want the best one.

(e) see (a)

(f) Perhaps true - but a good argument for buying a good carpet if we can and sodding off rather than whatever the equivalent of Remain is in this now rather convoluted analogy.

justin124 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

It all depends what people mean by an early election. Next Spring is certainly very possible. Too late now. No one will want an election after the clocks go back plus the £ is too unsettled. The big problem is the shape of Brexit isn't in the Goldilocks Zone yet. For a successful Brexit election you need enough of an outline to claim a mandate but not enough of an outline to maximise opposition or get bogged down in the details. The other issue, May having ruled an election out, is you need a casus beli. You need either a Bruxelles or Parliamentary blockage to be cleared. But we won't get these ( if they happen ) till the middle of next year. ECA repeal isn't until the new session. Tusk's ' Hard Brexit or No Brexit ' wouldn't play until A50 is invoked.

The Earliest I can see is if the Supreme Court rules an Act of Parliament is needed to invoke A50. May tries to rush through a one clause bill then a pro Single Market Commons and Lords passes it but wth multiple Sunrise and Sunset clauses. May abandons it and goes to the country on the first Thursday in May. Or Mayday as the Sun will call it.

I'm well aware how many variables there are in scenario. It's highly speculative. And of course Governments can stage false flag casus beli very easierly. But in a curious way if May wants the option of an early election the Supreme Court mandating an A50 bill may be her best bet.

And what happens if Corbyn refuses to play ball with any wish by TM to call an election for May 4th next year?

Oppositions can't refuse elections. They'd look frit.

Jobabob said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

That said, and playing with electoral calculus, it is amazing how low Labour's support has to go before they are overtaken.

Even if you input a result of

45 Tories

20 Lib Dems

10 Labour

10 UKIP

5 Greens

Labour are STILL the second largest party!

FPTP will keep Labour alive for a long long time, even if it condemns them to semi-permanent opposition. Piquant.

At that level of swing calculators aren't worth anything.

Still, it would take an earthquake to dislodge Labour from its 100 safest seats. That earthquake might have been UKIP. Not any more. Labour aren't going to die out any time soon.

Remember they only died in Scotland coz there was a vivid alternative, the SNP. Lacking that, Labour in England will endure, and surely revive one day

Agreed. If the Liberals had an eye catching leader they could challenge well for centrist and centre left votes, particularly in areas where Labour are nowhere. Then the Tories would again be under threat from a Lib Lab pact.

Maybe not yet, but the Tories appear very likely indeed to lose their majority. More likely still is the unlikelihood of any other party winning an overall majority in 2020.
For that reason, I keep asking for and getting 3.0 on Betfair on a "No Overall Majority" outcome at the next GE. Pretty close to being free money imho, at surprisingly good odds, albeit that one probably has to wait three and a half years to collect, unless deciding to trade out in the meantime.
I sense that were Rod Crosby to return to PB.com, he'd be shouting the virtues of such a bet from the rooftops!

Indigo said:

chestnut said:

Indigo said:

SeanT said:

chestnut said:

SeanT said:

Some interesting articles in the FT

Heathrow almost certain..

https://www.ft.com/content/d389df74-9486-11e6-a1dc-bdf38d484582

Hammond and May are fighting the Hard Brexiteers?

https://www.ft.com/content/2633a1dc-9465-11e6-a80e-bcd69f323a8b

Janan Ganesh thinks voters will change their minds on Brexit, when inflation kicks in

https://www.ft.com/content/15dadb7e-944d-11e6-a80e-bcd69f323a8b

Unless inflation goes absolutely crazy, I can't see it personally.

Most Brexit supporters are of an age where they can recall real inflation, while ultra-low interest rates of 0.25% have been terrible for the prudent.

It's also worth noting that outright owners who were heavily in favour of Leave and most likely to vote, account for a third of all households. They are safe from mortgage rate changes.

A great many also feel that house prices should fall for the benefit of their children and grandchildren who form generation rent.

People were told all the worst case scenarios - penury, world war 3, no one will talk to us or deal with us, back of the queue etc - and still voted Leave.

It's difficult to envisage all but the very softest leavers having a change of heart.

Yes, I think it's wishful thinking by Ganesh. However I do think it's possible, indeed probable, that public opinion will swing behind a Very Soft Brexit as the economic indicators go negative (and they will). There is already evidence of this in the ComRes poll showing voters emphasising trade.

But that could be me - a Soft Brexiteer - indulging my own wishful thinking!

What is this "Soft BrExit" of which you speak ?

We have to at least entertain the possibility that Tusk was speaking the truth, that is Hard BrExit or No BrExit. The later of which is a guaranteed election loss.

Canada are negotiating very significant trade access with no obligation on FoM.

Is that Hard, Soft, Remain?

The Spanish Foreign Minister was suggesting that option was open to us.

Canada didn't just vote to leave the EU.

I never think it is a good idea to underestimate the small mindedness of our EU "friends" when their unrealistic fantasy dream is under threat.

When many Leavers, particularly of the UKIP variety, regularly make it clear they want to bring down the EU is it really any surprise that the EU is reluctant to do us any favours? Whether we like it or not UKIP are the public face of Britain in the European Parliament, given their track record of winning friends and influencing people we'll be lucky if we get any deal at all.

Mortimer said:

justin124 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

It all depends what people mean by an early election. Next Spring is certainly very possible. Too late now. No one will want an election after the clocks go back plus the £ is too unsettled. The big problem is the shape of Brexit isn't in the Goldilocks Zone yet. For a successful Brexit election you need enough of an outline to claim a mandate but not enough of an outline to maximise opposition or get bogged down in the details. The other issue, May having ruled an election out, is you need a casus beli. You need either a Bruxelles or Parliamentary blockage to be cleared. But we won't get these ( if they happen ) till the middle of next year. ECA repeal isn't until the new session. Tusk's ' Hard Brexit or No Brexit ' wouldn't play until A50 is invoked.

The Earliest I can see is if the Supreme Court rules an Act of Parliament is needed to invoke A50. May tries to rush through a one clause bill then a pro Single Market Commons and Lords passes it but wth multiple Sunrise and Sunset clauses. May abandons it and goes to the country on the first Thursday in May. Or Mayday as the Sun will call it.

I'm well aware how many variables there are in scenario. It's highly speculative. And of course Governments can stage false flag casus beli very easierly. But in a curious way if May wants the option of an early election the Supreme Court mandating an A50 bill may be her best bet.

And what happens if Corbyn refuses to play ball with any wish by TM to call an election for May 4th next year?

Oppositions can't refuse elections. They'd look frit.

Especially if the alternative is voting for the Tories in a confidence vote.

justin124 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

It all depends what people mean by an early election. Next Spring is certainly very possible. Too late now. No one will want an election after the clocks go back plus the £ is too unsettled. The big problem is the shape of Brexit isn't in the Goldilocks Zone yet. For a successful Brexit election you need enough of an outline to claim a mandate but not enough of an outline to maximise opposition or get bogged down in the details. The other issue, May having ruled an election out, is you need a casus beli. You need either a Bruxelles or Parliamentary blockage to be cleared. But we won't get these ( if they happen ) till the middle of next year. ECA repeal isn't until the new session. Tusk's ' Hard Brexit or No Brexit ' wouldn't play until A50 is invoked.

The Earliest I can see is if the Supreme Court rules an Act of Parliament is needed to invoke A50. May tries to rush through a one clause bill then a pro Single Market Commons and Lords passes it but wth multiple Sunrise and Sunset clauses. May abandons it and goes to the country on the first Thursday in May. Or Mayday as the Sun will call it.

I'm well aware how many variables there are in scenario. It's highly speculative. And of course Governments can stage false flag casus beli very easierly. But in a curious way if May wants the option of an early election the Supreme Court mandating an A50 bill may be her best bet.

And what happens if Corbyn refuses to play ball with any wish by TM to call an election for May 4th next year?

Corbyn has already shot his mouth off calling for an immeadiate GE and is, if we are frank, too thick to think strategically about the way ahead. But I agree Labour should set certain " tests " for a Brexit election. Blocking democracy would be impossible but saying the British people deserve to know X,Y,Z about Brexit policy before an election was granted could be pulled off.

YellowSubmarine said:

I'd always assumed Clinton would be a one term president. However Trump is so nuts we could easierly now seen a Trump Party GoP House Majority sweep in in 2018 on an impeachment ticket. After two years of horrific culture wars and at least one shutdown she could be narrowly reelected.

The economy would be in worse shape by then, and the crisis in foreign policy will get worse too.

She has zero chance, she won't be facing Trump in 2020.

The GOP won't allow an independent to run in 2020, they will probably change the rules so that only those who have held elected positions will be allowed to run.

The only question is will America still exist by 2020 or will it implode before then, given that Hillary is a terrible manager.

Mortimer said:

justin124 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

It all depends what people mean by an early election. Next Spring is certainly very possible. Too late now. No one will want an election after the clocks go back plus the £ is too unsettled. The big problem is the shape of Brexit isn't in the Goldilocks Zone yet. For a successful Brexit election you need enough of an outline to claim a mandate but not enough of an outline to maximise opposition or get bogged down in the details. The other issue, May having ruled an election out, is you need a casus beli. You need either a Bruxelles or Parliamentary blockage to be cleared. But we won't get these ( if they happen ) till the middle of next year. ECA repeal isn't until the new session. Tusk's ' Hard Brexit or No Brexit ' wouldn't play until A50 is invoked.

The Earliest I can see is if the Supreme Court rules an Act of Parliament is needed to invoke A50. May tries to rush through a one clause bill then a pro Single Market Commons and Lords passes it but wth multiple Sunrise and Sunset clauses. May abandons it and goes to the country on the first Thursday in May. Or Mayday as the Sun will call it.

I'm well aware how many variables there are in scenario. It's highly speculative. And of course Governments can stage false flag casus beli very easierly. But in a curious way if May wants the option of an early election the Supreme Court mandating an A50 bill may be her best bet.

And what happens if Corbyn refuses to play ball with any wish by TM to call an election for May 4th next year?

Oppositions can't refuse elections. They'd look frit.

The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of an election is he? Oh, if I were going to cut and run I'd have gone after the Falklands. Afraid? Frightened? Frit? Couldn't take it? Couldn't stand it? - M. H. Thatcher, PMQs, 19/4/83

4 May would be an auspicious day for an election. It would inevitably be known as the Star Wars election. With a bit of luck the British public would come back from the dark side.

IanB2 said:

Essexit said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Essexit said:

MarqueeMark said:

SeanT said:

Agreed. When haggling, you have to be willing to walk away with no deal.

Which is where Cameron so utterly failed.

It's carpet haggling 1.01...

Carpet haggling 1.02 is "don't let on what type of carpet you want - nor how much you are prepared to pay". A lesson that the Remoaners need to learn. They are as idiotic as Cameron was.

More likely they're well aware of 1.02, but are just desperately trying anything to delay the triggering of Article 50 and/or send us into negotiations as weak and hamstrung as possible in the vain hope that they can find a way to throw a spanner in the works of Brexit. All rather sad.

The problem is that (a) we decided to buy the Carpet publiclly by referendum before deciding what 1.01 and 1.02 are ( b) We still haven't decided what 1.01 and 1.02 are and in a democracy can't really be kept secret from the Carpet Seller. ( c) Once A50 is invoked we have to buy a carpet at the end of two years. We can't walk away. Only the quality of the carpet is at stake. ( d ) 48% of hagglers didn't want to buy the Carpet in the first place. ( e) of the 52% that did want floor covering there were huge disagreement what sort. ( f ) The Carpet Seller is unconventional. They don't want repeat trade. They either want you not to enter the shop in the first place or buy a **** carpet you'll hate. They don't want success.

(a) In hindsight, having Remain / EEA / Not EEA on the ballot might have been better, but we are where we are.

(b) Governments are entitled to keep some cards close to their chest. Cameron didn't spell out every detail before his 'renegotiation', just a few big-picture aims, which is what I'd expect from May/Davis.

(c) We can walk away (WTO rules). I think we both agree that's not desirable, but to get a good carpet we have to be clear we'll take no carpet rather than pay over the odds for a mediocre one.

(d) 52% did, and most of the 48% I know accept that we are buying a carpet and want the best one.

(e) see (a)

(f) Perhaps true - but a good argument for buying a good carpet if we can and sodding off rather than whatever the equivalent of Remain is in this now rather convoluted analogy.

So far we have had a failing marriage, membership of a golf club, eating smelly food in a office, and whether and how to get out of a car. Now I see we are buying a carpet. If anyone feels genuinely enlightened by these increasingly bizarre analogies into our country's future role in world affairs, please do not hold your peace....

Bizarre analogies are what makes PB what It is.

Mortimer said:

justin124 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

It all depends what people mean by an early election. Next Spring is certainly very possible. Too late now. No one will want an election after the clocks go back plus the £ is too unsettled. The big problem is the shape of Brexit isn't in the Goldilocks Zone yet. For a successful Brexit election you need enough of an outline to claim a mandate but not enough of an outline to maximise opposition or get bogged down in the details. The other issue, May having ruled an election out, is you need a casus beli. You need either a Bruxelles or Parliamentary blockage to be cleared. But we won't get these ( if they happen ) till the middle of next year. ECA repeal isn't until the new session. Tusk's ' Hard Brexit or No Brexit ' wouldn't play until A50 is invoked.

The Earliest I can see is if the Supreme Court rules an Act of Parliament is needed to invoke A50. May tries to rush through a one clause bill then a pro Single Market Commons and Lords passes it but wth multiple Sunrise and Sunset clauses. May abandons it and goes to the country on the first Thursday in May. Or Mayday as the Sun will call it.

I'm well aware how many variables there are in scenario. It's highly speculative. And of course Governments can stage false flag casus beli very easierly. But in a curious way if May wants the option of an early election the Supreme Court mandating an A50 bill may be her best bet.

And what happens if Corbyn refuses to play ball with any wish by TM to call an election for May 4th next year?

Oppositions can't refuse elections. They'd look frit.

If oppositions are calling for an election every time the govt is in trouble, then they'd look like real muppets for not agreeing to one when offered. But this is Corbyn we're talking about.

The FTPA was designed around a coalition government, and it served that purpose well. It doesn't work in a 'normal' Parliament with a small government majority.

IanB2 said:

Essexit said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Essexit said:

MarqueeMark said:

SeanT said:

Agreed. When haggling, you have to be willing to walk away with no deal.

Which is where Cameron so utterly failed.

It's carpet haggling 1.01...

Carpet haggling 1.02 is "don't let on what type of carpet you want - nor how much you are prepared to pay". A lesson that the Remoaners need to learn. They are as idiotic as Cameron was.

More likely they're well aware of 1.02, but are just desperately trying anything to delay the triggering of Article 50 and/or send us into negotiations as weak and hamstrung as possible in the vain hope that they can find a way to throw a spanner in the works of Brexit. All rather sad.

The problem is that (a) we decided to buy the Carpet publiclly by referendum before deciding what 1.01 and 1.02 are ( b) We still haven't decided what 1.01 and 1.02 are and in a democracy can't really be kept secret from the Carpet Seller. ( c) Once A50 is invoked we have to buy a carpet at the end of two years. We can't walk away. Only the quality of the carpet is at stake. ( d ) 48% of hagglers didn't want to buy the Carpet in the first place. ( e) of the 52% that did want floor covering there were huge disagreement what sort. ( f ) The Carpet Seller is unconventional. They don't want repeat trade. They either want you not to enter the shop in the first place or buy a **** carpet you'll hate. They don't want success.

(a) In hindsight, having Remain / EEA / Not EEA on the ballot might have been better, but we are where we are.

(b) Governments are entitled to keep some cards close to their chest. Cameron didn't spell out every detail before his 'renegotiation', just a few big-picture aims, which is what I'd expect from May/Davis.

(c) We can walk away (WTO rules). I think we both agree that's not desirable, but to get a good carpet we have to be clear we'll take no carpet rather than pay over the odds for a mediocre one.

(d) 52% did, and most of the 48% I know accept that we are buying a carpet and want the best one.

(e) see (a)

(f) Perhaps true - but a good argument for buying a good carpet if we can and sodding off rather than whatever the equivalent of Remain is in this now rather convoluted analogy.

So far we have had a failing marriage, membership of a golf club, eating smelly food in a office, and whether and how to get out of a car. Now I see we are buying a carpet. If anyone feels genuinely enlightened by these increasingly bizarre analogies into our country's future role in world affairs, please do not hold your peace....

The PB anecdote is a feature of the site. We even have them in the leaders from time to time!

AlastairMeeks said:

4 May would be an auspicious day for an election. It would inevitably be known as the Star Wars election. With a bit of luck the Remoaning Minnies would come back from the dark side.

[Sunil and TSE confront each other, after the former has learnt that the latter has turned to the Daft Side]

Sunil: You have allowed this Europhile Chancellor to twist your mind, until now, until now you've become the very thing you swore to destroy.

TSE: Don't lecture me, Sunil! I see through the lies of the LEAVE campaign. I do not fear the European Union as you do. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire!

Sunil: Your new Empire?

TSE: Don't make me MODERATE you.

Sunil: TSE, my allegiance is to the Republic Monarchy, to democracy!

TSE: If you're not with me, then you're my enemy.

Sunil: [realizing that TSE is consumed by evil and there's no reasoning with him anymore] Only a Europhile deals in absolutes.
[draws his lightsaber] I will do what I must!

TSE: You will try!
[draws his own lightsaber and confronts Sunil!]

[later during a pause in the battle]

Sunil: I have failed you, TSE. I have failed you.

TSE: I should have known the LEAVERS were plotting to take over. Chancellor Osborne has showed me the true ways of the Force.

Sunil: TSE, Chancellor Osborne is evil! The Europhiles are evil. The Daft Side of the Force is an evil presence.

TSE: From my point of view, it is the LEAVERS who are evil.

Sunil: Well, then you really are lost!

TSE: [raises his lightsaber] This is the end for you... my former master.


[the battle resumes, but even later on, Sunil manages to reach a vantage point overlooking TSE]


Sunil: It's over TSE, I have the high ground!

TSE: You MISUNDERESTIMATE my power!

Sunil: Don't try it!

[TSE leaps at Sunil, but the latter anticipates his move and promptly lightsabers TSE's rather fetching Red Shoes of Power off, leaving him writhing in pain on the ground, crippled and bereft of his Force abilities!]

Sunil: You were the chosen one! It was said that you would destroy the Europhiles, not join them! You were to bring balance to PoliticalBetting.com, not leave it in Daftness!

TSE: [shouts] I HATE you!

Sunil: You were my brother, TSE. I loved you.

[Sunil, unable to bring himself to finish off poor TSE, walks away from the scene, disconsolate...

To Be Continued....]

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

IanB2 said:

Essexit said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Essexit said:

More likely they're well aware of 1.02, but are just desperately trying anything to delay the triggering of Article 50 and/or send us into negotiations as weak and hamstrung as possible in the vain hope that they can find a way to throw a spanner in the works of Brexit. All rather sad.

The problem is that (a) we decided to buy the Carpet publiclly by referendum before deciding what 1.01 and 1.02 are ( b) We still haven't decided what 1.01 and 1.02 are and in a democracy can't really be kept secret from the Carpet Seller. ( c) Once A50 is invoked we have to buy a carpet at the end of two years. We can't walk away. Only the quality of the carpet is at stake. ( d ) 48% of hagglers didn't want to buy the Carpet in the first place. ( e) of the 52% that did want floor covering there were huge disagreement what sort. ( f ) The Carpet Seller is unconventional. They don't want repeat trade. They either want you not to enter the shop in the first place or buy a **** carpet you'll hate. They don't want success.

(a) In hindsight, having Remain / EEA / Not EEA on the ballot might have been better, but we are where we are.

(b) Governments are entitled to keep some cards close to their chest. Cameron didn't spell out every detail before his 'renegotiation', just a few big-picture aims, which is what I'd expect from May/Davis.

(c) We can walk away (WTO rules). I think we both agree that's not desirable, but to get a good carpet we have to be clear we'll take no carpet rather than pay over the odds for a mediocre one.

(d) 52% did, and most of the 48% I know accept that we are buying a carpet and want the best one.

(e) see (a)

(f) Perhaps true - but a good argument for buying a good carpet if we can and sodding off rather than whatever the equivalent of Remain is in this now rather convoluted analogy.

So far we have had a failing marriage, membership of a golf club, eating smelly food in a office, and whether and how to get out of a car. Now I see we are buying a carpet. If anyone feels genuinely enlightened by these increasingly bizarre analogies into our country's future role in world affairs, please do not hold your peace....

Bizarre analogies are what makes PB what It is.

Bizarre (and obscure) analogies are to PB what Harpagus was to Cyrus the Great.

peter_from_putney said:

Jobabob said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

That said, and playing with electoral calculus, it is amazing how low Labour's support has to go before they are overtaken.

Even if you input a result of

45 Tories

20 Lib Dems

10 Labour

10 UKIP

5 Greens

Labour are STILL the second largest party!

FPTP will keep Labour alive for a long long time, even if it condemns them to semi-permanent opposition. Piquant.

At that level of swing calculators aren't worth anything.

Still, it would take an earthquake to dislodge Labour from its 100 safest seats. That earthquake might have been UKIP. Not any more. Labour aren't going to die out any time soon.

Remember they only died in Scotland coz there was a vivid alternative, the SNP. Lacking that, Labour in England will endure, and surely revive one day

Agreed. If the Liberals had an eye catching leader they could challenge well for centrist and centre left votes, particularly in areas where Labour are nowhere. Then the Tories would again be under threat from a Lib Lab pact.

Maybe not yet, but the Tories appear very likely indeed to lose their majority. More likely still is the unlikelihood of any other party winning an overall majority in 2020.
For that reason, I keep asking for and getting 3.0 on Betfair on a "No Overall Majority" outcome at the next GE. Pretty close to being free money imho, at surprisingly good odds, albeit that one probably has to wait three and a half years to collect, unless deciding to trade out in the meantime.
I sense that were Rod Crosby to return to PB.com, he'd be shouting the virtues of such a bet from the rooftops!

I don't think Rod's methodology predicts hung Parliaments when the governing party is 12 points ahead in mid-term

justin124 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

justin124 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

It all depends what people mean by an early election. Next Spring is certainly very possible. Too late now. No one will want an election after the clocks go back plus the £ is too unsettled. The big problem is the shape of Brexit isn't in the Goldilocks Zone yet. For a successful Brexit election you need enough of an outline to claim a mandate but not enough of an outline to maximise opposition or get bogged down in the details. The other issue, May having ruled an election out, is you need a casus beli. You need either a Bruxelles or Parliamentary blockage to be cleared. But we won't get these ( if they happen ) till the middle of next year. ECA repeal isn't until the new session. Tusk's ' Hard Brexit or No Brexit ' wouldn't play until A50 is invoked.

The Earliest I can see is if the Supreme Court rules an Act of Parliament is needed to invoke A50. May tries to rush through a one clause bill then a pro Single Market Commons and Lords passes it but wth multiple Sunrise and Sunset clauses. May abandons it and goes to the country on the first Thursday in May. Or Mayday as the Sun will call i. And of course Governments can stage false flag casus beli very easierly. But in a curious way if May wants the option of an early election the Supreme Court mandating an A50 bill may be her best bet.

And what happens if Corbyn refuses to play ball with any wish by TM to call an election for May 4th next year?

Corbyn has already shot his mouth off calling for an immeadiate GE and is, if we are frank, too thick to think strategically about the way ahead. But I agree Labour should set certain " tests " for a Brexit election. Blocking democracy would be impossible but saying the British people deserve to know X,Y,Z about Brexit policy before an election was granted could be pulled off.

But Corbyn has not shot his mouth off as much as TM re-election timing. I don't think there is a hope in hell that he would meekly bow to the calling of an election if the Tories stil had a lead of 10% plus. At the very least he would force her down the humiliating avenue of having to table a No Confidence vote in her own Government. That in turn would bring us to the possibility of a repeat of the Balfour/Campbel-Bannerman scenario with TM's Government having to step aside with Corbyn becoming caretaker PM for the election campaign period. Now that would be an interesting scenario!

I'm not an expert but I think the Cabinet manual says May can only resign when she can advise HM who her successor will be. As the Commons wouldn't have expressed confidence in a replacement for 14 days due to the Conservative majority May would be PM still when the automatic dissolution kicked in.

nielh said:

ive just backed farage at 18/1 as next UKIP leader
Must be a high chance he will be persuaded to come back in the circumstances

I did wonder if Woolfe's wording was code.

justin124 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Mortimer said:

justin124 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

It all depends what people mean by an early election. Next Spring is certainly very possible. Too late now. No one will want an election after the clocks go back plus the £ is too unsettled. The big problem is the shape of Brexit isn't in the Goldilocks Zone yet. For a successful Brexit election you need enough of an outline to claim a mandate but not enough of an outline to maximise opposition or get bogged down in the details. The other issue, May having ruled an election out, is you need a casus beli. You need either a Bruxelles or Parliamentary blockage to be cleared. But we won't get these ( if they happen ) till the middle of next year. ECA repeal isn't until the new session. Tusk's ' Hard Brexit or No Brexit ' wouldn't play until A50 is invoked.

The Earliest I can see is if the Supreme Court rules an Act of Parliament is needed to invoke A50. May tries to rush through a one clause bill then a pro Single Market Commons and Lords passes it but wth multiple Sunrise and Sunset clauses. May abandons it and goes to the country on the first Thursday in May. Or Mayday as the Sun will call it.

I'm well aware how many variables there are in scenario. It's highly speculative. And of course Governments can stage false flag casus beli very easierly. But in a curious way if May wants the option of an early election the Supreme Court mandating an A50 bill may be her best bet.

And what happens if Corbyn refuses to play ball with any wish by TM to call an election for May 4th next year?

Oppositions can't refuse elections. They'd look frit.

The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of an election is he? Oh, if I were going to cut and run I'd have gone after the Falklands. Afraid? Frightened? Frit? Couldn't take it? Couldn't stand it? - M. H. Thatcher, PMQs, 19/4/83

That was Thatcher in fishwife mode. The public would not be interested in why Corbyn might effectively delay an election. At the end of the day they simply would have to remind people who introduced the FTA - that would suffice I think. TM could be accused of trying to play fast & loose with the Constitution for electoral gain.

Not really. Labour members didn't join the party to keep the Tories in power.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Mortimer said:

justin124 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

It all depends what people mean by an early election. Next Spring is certainly very possible. Too late now. No one will want an election after the clocks go back plus the £ is too unsettled. The big problem is the shape of Brexit isn't in the Goldilocks Zone yet. For a successful Brexit election you need enough of an outline to claim a mandate but not enough of an outline to maximise opposition or get bogged down in the details. The other issue, May having ruled an election out, is you need a casus beli. You need either a Bruxelles or Parliamentary blockage to be cleared. But we won't get these ( if they happen ) till the middle of next year. ECA repeal isn't until the new session. Tusk's ' Hard Brexit or No Brexit ' wouldn't play until A50 is invoked.

The Earliest I can see is if the Supreme Court rules an Act of Parliament is needed to invoke A50. May tries to rush through a one clause bill then a pro Single Market Commons and Lords passes it but wth multiple Sunrise and Sunset clauses. May abandons it and goes to the country on the first Thursday in May. Or Mayday as the Sun will call it.

I'm well aware how many variables there are in scenario. It's highly speculative. And of course Governments can stage false flag casus beli very easierly. But in a curious way if May wants the option of an early election the Supreme Court mandating an A50 bill may be her best bet.

And what happens if Corbyn refuses to play ball with any wish by TM to call an election for May 4th next year?

Oppositions can't refuse elections. They'd look frit.

The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of an election is he? Oh, if I were going to cut and run I'd have gone after the Falklands. Afraid? Frightened? Frit? Couldn't take it? Couldn't stand it? - M. H. Thatcher, PMQs, 19/4/83

I actually didn't know that quote. Splendid!

Jobabob said:

Dromedary said:

Jobabob said:

Speedy said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Scott_P said:

@wikileaks: We can confirm Ecuador cut off Assange's internet access Saturday, 5pm GMT, shortly after publication of Clinton's Goldman Sachs speechs.

I no longer believe a word they say.

Perhaps the words of the Washington Post will carry more weight ?
https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/788086335852666880

The Hillary emails story is one of the dullest stories ever. It is tear inducingly dull - beaten only by Wikileaks' output on anything at all

I tend to switch off when anything to do with Wikileaks comes up. First they were going to bring Hillary Clinton down so that Bernie Sanders could replace her before the first debate, then they moved the great man's speech to Berlin because of a "specific threat", now they issue tweets with 64-digit codes in them. About the only effect they've had on this election was to cause Debbie Wasserman Schultz's resignation. Only an extremely naive whistleblower - and whistleblowers aren't usually naive - would "leak" info to a centralised address run by bods whose aim in life seems to be to think of themselves as a world power as they do deals with the New York Times and the Guardian, stopping occasionally to swan about in the Frontline Club.

Sandpit said:

Dromedary said:

Jobabob said:

Speedy said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Scott_P said:

@wikileaks: We can confirm Ecuador cut off Assange's internet access Saturday, 5pm GMT, shortly after publication of Clinton's Goldman Sachs speechs.

I no longer believe a word they say.

Perhaps the words of the Washington Post will carry more weight ?
https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/788086335852666880

The Hillary emails story is one of the dullest stories ever. It is tear inducingly dull - beaten only by Wikileaks' output on anything at all

...the Frontline Club.

Wow, that's a name from the past. I did some work for them when they first opened, maybe a dozen years ago. Vaughan Smith set it up. What's it like these days, anyone been there recently?

Is it that restaurant in Paddington? I ate there a few years ago - not only was it very good it had a niche market in those days, being the only place in W2 which didn't carry a major health risk to its patrons

That's the one. Was set up as a club for journalists, their talks are supposed to be very good as well as the food.

@justin124


' TM could be accused of trying to play fast & loose with the Constitution for electoral gain.'

Wow that issue would get voters going to the polls in their droves.

YellowSubmarine said:

If the GoP tighten the primary rules on Trump like candidates the next Trump can run as an independent. Equally if Hillary is a disaster the next Sanders can challenger her in the primary. Herding the atomised cats of 21st century democracy into a two party system won't get any easier. I'm just suggesting the value in the betting may be counter intuitive. Bet on the GoP retaking the House and Senate in '18 after a Hillary landslide in '16. Bet on Hillary's reelection in '20 after the democrats are shellacked in the '18 midterms.

While I think the latest HRC revelation is not a game-changer, it is likely to provide some queasiness (amongst independents, in particular) about giving her too much power. "Quid pro quo" is also a catchy phrase which sticks in peoples' minds.Thus, I do not think that there will be a clean sweep for the Democrats of the House and Senate and the Presidency - I think too many Americans distrust her to allow her to have such untrammelled power.

Interestingly, while (as you would expect) Fox has it as top billing, CBS has it as their top story on their website with a non-to helpful headline (ABC has it way down the page; NBC roll it into a general story about the e-mails; and CNN has it fairly down the list as well).

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Mortimer said:

justin124 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

It all depends what people mean by an early election. Next Spring is certainly very possible. Too late now. No one will want an election after the clocks go back plus the £ is too unsettled. The big problem is the shape of Brexit isn't in the Goldilocks Zone yet. For a successful Brexit election you need enough of an outline to claim a mandate but not enough of an outline to maximise opposition or get bogged down in the details. The other issue, May having ruled an election out, is you need a casus beli. You need either a Bruxelles or Parliamentary blockage to be cleared. But we won't get these ( if they happen ) till the middle of next year. ECA repeal isn't until the new session. Tusk's ' Hard Brexit or No Brexit ' wouldn't play until A50 is invoked.

The Earliest I can see is if the Supreme Court rules an Act of Parliament is needed to invoke A50. May tries to rush through a one clause bill then a pro Single Market Commons and Lords passes it but wth multiple Sunrise and Sunset clauses. May abandons it and goes to the country on the first Thursday in May. Or Mayday as the Sun will call it.

I'm well aware how many variables there are in scenario. It's highly speculative. And of course Governments can stage false flag casus beli very easierly. But in a curious way if May wants the option of an early election the Supreme Court mandating an A50 bill may be her best bet.

And what happens if Corbyn refuses to play ball with any wish by TM to call an election for May 4th next year?

Oppositions can't refuse elections. They'd look frit.

The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of an election is he? Oh, if I were going to cut and run I'd have gone after the Falklands. Afraid? Frightened? Frit? Couldn't take it? Couldn't stand it? - M. H. Thatcher, PMQs, 19/4/83

Just been watching an old rerun of Goodnight Sweetheart.

What is scary is that that HoC exchange is nearly as long ago as WW2 was when said TV programme was made and certainly longer ago than WW2 was when dads army was made....

@chestnut

'Rubbish so far, probably 'cos @TSE is there. '

And that's being polite .

Sunil_Prasannan said:

AlastairMeeks said:

4 May would be an auspicious day for an election. It would inevitably be known as the Star Wars election. With a bit of luck the Remoaning Minnies would come back from the dark side.

[Sunil and TSE confront each other, after the former has learnt that the latter has turned to the Daft Side]

Sunil: You have allowed this Europhile Chancellor to twist your mind, until now, until now you've become the very thing you swore to destroy.

TSE: Don't lecture me, Sunil! I see through the lies of the LEAVE campaign. I do not fear the European Union as you do. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire!

Sunil: Your new Empire?

TSE: Don't make me MODERATE you.

Sunil: TSE, my allegiance is to the Republic Monarchy, to democracy!

TSE: If you're not with me, then you're my enemy.

Sunil: [realizing that TSE is consumed by evil and there's no reasoning with him anymore] Only a Europhile deals in absolutes.
[draws his lightsaber] I will do what I must!

TSE: You will try!
[draws his own lightsaber and confronts Sunil!]

[later during a pause in the battle]

Sunil: I have failed you, TSE. I have failed you.

TSE: I should have known the LEAVERS were plotting to take over. Chancellor Osborne has showed me the true ways of the Force.

Sunil: TSE, Chancellor Osborne is evil! The Europhiles are evil. The Daft Side of the Force is an evil presence.

TSE: From my point of view, it is the LEAVERS who are evil.

Sunil: Well, then you really are lost!

TSE: [raises his lightsaber] This is the end for you... my former master.


[the battle resumes, but even later on, Sunil manages to reach a vantage point overlooking TSE]


Sunil: It's over TSE, I have the high ground!

TSE: You MISUNDERESTIMATE my power!

Sunil: Don't try it!

[TSE leaps at Sunil, but the latter anticipates his move and promptly lightsabers TSE's rather fetching Red Shoes of Power off, leaving him writhing in pain on the ground, crippled and bereft of his Force abilities!]

Sunil: You were the chosen one! It was said that you would destroy the Europhiles, not join them! You were to bring balance to PoliticalBetting.com, not leave it in Daftness!

TSE: [shouts] I HATE you!

Sunil: You were my brother, TSE. I loved you.

[Sunil, unable to bring himself to finish off poor TSE, walks away from the scene, disconsolate...

To Be Continued....]

I'm startled someone as credible as @Peter_from_Putney is predicting.a Hung Parliament. I'd like to read a thread on it.

If anyone tried to intimidate me into not voting for someone, it would backfire badly.

Rep. Bob Brady (D-Penn.) tells me what Philly Dems will do if Trump poll watchers challenge them (cc @jmartNYT) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/17/rigged-election-talk-didnt-start-with-trump/ …

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am feeling very left out...Am I the only person that hasn't been approached to become a secret operative? It seems a very common story these days among those who get their collar felt.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3844990/Boney-M-singer-s-brother-explosives-home-spurned-MI5.html

Some of my Cambridge friends were invited for special interviews. One signed up. I never was; MI5/6 missed out big time.

HHemmelig said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Mortimer said:

justin124 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

It all depends what people mean by an early election. Next Spring is certainly very possible. Too late now. No one will want an election after the clocks go back plus the £ is too unsettled. The big problem is the shape of Brexit isn't in the Goldilocks Zone yet. For a successful Brexit election you need enough of an outline to claim a mandate but not enough of an outline to maximise opposition or get bogged down in the details. The other issue, May having ruled an election out, is you need a casus beli. You need either a Bruxelles or Parliamentary blockage to be cleared. But we won't get these ( if they happen ) till the middle of next year. ECA repeal isn't until the new session. Tusk's ' Hard Brexit or No Brexit ' wouldn't play until A50 is invoked.

The Earliest I can see is if the Supreme Court rules an Act of Parliament is needed to invoke A50. May tries to rush through a one clause bill then a pro Single Market Commons and Lords passes it but wth multiple Sunrise and Sunset clauses. May abandons it and goes to the country on the first Thursday in May. Or Mayday as the Sun will call it.

I'm well aware how many variables there are in scenario. It's highly speculative. And of course Governments can stage false flag casus beli very easierly. But in a curious way if May wants the option of an early election the Supreme Court mandating an A50 bill may be her best bet.

And what happens if Corbyn refuses to play ball with any wish by TM to call an election for May 4th next year?

Oppositions can't refuse elections. They'd look frit.

The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of an election is he? Oh, if I were going to cut and run I'd have gone after the Falklands. Afraid? Frightened? Frit? Couldn't take it? Couldn't stand it? - M. H. Thatcher, PMQs, 19/4/83

Just been watching an old rerun of Goodnight Sweetheart.

What is scary is that that HoC exchange is nearly as long ago as WW2 was when said TV programme was made and certainly longer ago than WW2 was when dads army was made....

I think you need some maths lessons mate. Goodnight Sweetheart was made in the 1990s, so 50+ years after WW2. Maggie's HoC exchange was a mere 33 years ago.

Just checked - it started in 93. So 48 years after. 33 years is a stretch indeed for almost but it is just under 75% of the way there which is almost as bad.

And only five more years between WW2 and that speech than between now and that speech.

#gettingold

IanB2 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am feeling very left out...Am I the only person that hasn't been approached to become a secret operative? It seems a very common story these days among those who get their collar felt.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3844990/Boney-M-singer-s-brother-explosives-home-spurned-MI5.html

Some of my Cambridge friends were invited for special interviews. One signed up. I never was; MI5/6 missed out big time.

Rather than having attended Oxbridge, it appears these days you need to have a load of explosives in your garage to qualify...

YellowSubmarine said:

I'm startled someone as credible as @Peter_from_Putney is predicting.a Hung Parliament. I'd like to read a thread on it.

The path to PB fame: find ten 10/1 long shots. Tip them one at a time. Save all your posts. The one that comes in will keep you in free drinks for many a year....

justin124 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

justin124 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

justin124 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

It all depends what people mean by an early election. Next Spring is certainly very possible. Too late now. No one will want an election after the clocks go back plus the £ is too unsettled. The big problem is the shape of Brexit isn't in the Goldilocks Zone yet. For a successful Brexit election you need enough of an outline to claim a mandate but not enough of an outline to maximise opposition or get bogged down in the details. The other issue, May having ruled an election out, is you need a casus beli. You need either a Bruxelles or Parliamentary blockage to be cleared. But we won't get these ( if they happen ) till the middle of next year. ECA repeal isn't until the new session. Tusk's ' Hard Brexit or No Brexit ' wouldn't play until A50 is invoked.

And what happens if Corbyn refuses to play ball with any wish by TM to call an election for May 4th next year?

Corbyn has already shot his mouth off calling for an immeadiate GE and is, if we are frank, too thick to think strategically about the way ahead. But I agree Labour should set certain " tests " for a Brexit election. Blocking democracy would be impossible but saying the British people deserve to know X,Y,Z about Brexit policy before an election was granted could be pulled off.

But Corbyn has not shot his mouth off as much as TM re-election timing. I don't think there is a hope in hell that he would meekly bow to the calling of an election if the Tories stil had a lead of 10% plus. At the very least he would force her down the humiliating avenue of having to table a No Confidence vote in her own Government. That in turn would bring us to the possibility of a repeat of the Balfour/Campbel-Bannerman scenario with TM's Government having to step aside with Corbyn becoming caretaker PM for the election campaign period. Now that would be an interesting scenario!

I'm not an expert but I think the Cabinet manual says May can only resign when she can advise HM who her successor will be. As the Commons wouldn't have expressed confidence in a replacement for 14 days due to the Conservative majority May would be PM still when the automatic dissolution kicked in.

I don't think the Cabinet manual has any constitutional force at all per se - it is merely advice to a sitting PM drawn up by civil servants in 2010.. Constitutional precedents - eg December 1905 -would certainly override that.

As Labour would not be able to command the confidence of the house, Corbyn wouldn't be PM.

Peter Griffin On The Trump Bus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDAinHgaViI

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

I'm startled someone as credible as @Peter_from_Putney is predicting.a Hung Parliament. I'd like to read a thread on it.

The path to PB fame: find ten 10/1 long shots. Tip them one at a time. Save all your posts. The one that comes in will keep you in free drinks for many a year....

LOL I often wonder that about OGH's famous Obama 50/1 prediction. Yes its an incredible result in isolation but considering how many hundreds if not thousands of tips/questions over the years of this site the odds are surely that one was bound to happen. Was it a stroke of genius or just a form of positivity bias where we forget all the predictions that never came true?

A bit of both. We all got Corbyn at 100/1 first time around, @AndyJS' EU referendum spreadsheet saw lots of 10/1 bets on what was almost a dead cert when the results started coming in. Collectively PB must be good at spotting value odds in politics markets.

On which subject, Shadsy at Ladbrokes currently has 7/2 for Hillary to win by less than 5% of the national vote.

justin124 said:

Mortimer said:

justin124 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

justin124 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

justin124 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

It all depends what people mean by an early election. Next Spring is certainly very possible. Too late now. No one will want an election after the clocks go back plus the £ is too unsettled. The big problem is the shape of Brexit isn't in the Goldilocks Zone yet. For a successful Brexit election you need enough of an outline to claim a mandate but not enough of an outline to maximise opposition or get bogged down in the details. The other issue, May having ruled an election out, is you need a casus beli. You need either a Bruxelles or Parliamentary blockage to be cleared. But we won't get these ( if they happen ) till the middle of next year. ECA repeal isn't until the new session. Tusk's ' Hard Brexit or No Brexit ' wouldn't play until A50 is invoked.

And what happens if Corbyn refuses to play ball with any wish by TM to call an election for May 4th next year?

Corbyn has already shot his mouth off calling for an immeadiate GE and is, if we are frank, too thick to think strategically about the way ahead. But I agree Labour should set certain " tests " for a Brexit election. Blocking democracy would be impossible but saying the British people deserve to know X,Y,Z about Brexit policy before an election was granted could be pulled off.

I'm not an expert but I think the Cabinet manual says May can only resign when she can advise HM who her successor will be. As the Commons wouldn't have expressed confidence in a replacement for 14 days due to the Conservative majority May would be PM still when the automatic dissolution kicked in.

I don't think the Cabinet has any constitutional force at all - it is merely advice to a sitting PM by civil servants.. Constitutional precedents - eg December 1905 -would certainly override that.

'Precedent' from 1905 would not override the advice of the cabinet secretary. That small straw is broken I'm afraid Justin.

I believe - apologies to him if I am wrong - that David Herdson has made a similar point to my own on this. The Cabinet Secretary at the end of the day does not determine what is proper constitutional practice. Few of them have even been legally trained.

British constitutional practice is to make it up as you go along. You don't need to be legally trained to do that

Watching Terminator 2 on ITV4:

"In an insane world, it was the sanest choice" - Sarah Connor on Brexit

There seems to be a bit of a misapprehension amongst some posters here.

Mrs May is moving left of Cameron, not right of Cameron, a move much facilitated by the welcome collapse of UKIP.

Admittedly she's doing her best to confuse the enemy with a nonsensical diversionary feint on grammar schools, but her tanks are dashing for the centre-ground, not the right flank of the battleground.

The feint seems to be working.