politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mega By-Election Week (Day Two) plus a Copeland cartoon
Comments
-
One would hope they have grander ambitions that that though, and if they squeak through the two wins, it's not exactly heartening for their longer term chances. Now, if they comfortably hold both, he has more to suggest they are in with a chance at a GE, even if plenty of other factors still make the opposite argument.HYUFD said:
If Corbyn holds Copeland or Stoke or both though and especially if UKIP also comes third in Stoke that will show precisely that he is not leading Labour to destruction, they may be a hapless, useless opposition who May will trounce but they will still be the main party of oppositionJason said:I'm torn over the by-elections. One half of me wants the Tories to take Copeland, just to break out the popcorn again to watch Labour implode over the coming weeks. The other half of me wants Labour to retain the seat by a small margin, same for Stoke, so that Corbyn hangs on for grim life and leads Labour to extinction at the next GE. So do I take the short lived buzz of gaining a seat, or see the longer team treat of Labour's destruction at a future election?
0 -
It does say a lot about our ability to predict the results of complex systems. You sometimes can't put all the variables into a spreadsheet.RepublicanTory said:
Our finance department were surprised.Gallowgate said:The company I work for, a very small part of a large American multinational has made an unexpected extra 400k profit so far this year due to the strength(weakness) of the pound, this is despite a lot of our raw materials being imported. Our finance department were surprised.
That doesn't say a lot for your finance department
0 -
I don't think Corbyn is quite as irritable and angry as IDS can sometimes be, though IDS probably is better than Corbyn in most other areas, not that it is much of a contestRepublicanTory said:
Im struggling to think of ANY level that he isn't worse ontyson said:
As a diehard lefty....I was really quite happy when the Tories got rid of IDS.....Jason said:I'm torn over the by-elections. One half of me wants the Tories to take Copeland, just to break out the popcorn again to watch Labour implode over the coming weeks. The other half of me wants Labour to retain the seat by a small margin, same for Stoke, so that Corbyn hangs on for grim life and leads Labour to extinction at the next GE. So do I take the short lived buzz of gaining a seat, or see the longer team treat of Labour's destruction at a future election?
Forgive me....but you cannot have some stupid fucking unelectable wanker leading one of the main political parties.....
And on many levels Corbyn is worse than IDS......0 -
Corbyn understands the role of the judiciary better than IDS does.RepublicanTory said:
I'm struggling to think of ANY level that he isn't worse ontyson said:
As a diehard lefty....I was really quite happy when the Tories got rid of IDS.....Jason said:I'm torn over the by-elections. One half of me wants the Tories to take Copeland, just to break out the popcorn again to watch Labour implode over the coming weeks. The other half of me wants Labour to retain the seat by a small margin, same for Stoke, so that Corbyn hangs on for grim life and leads Labour to extinction at the next GE. So do I take the short lived buzz of gaining a seat, or see the longer team treat of Labour's destruction at a future election?
Forgive me....but you cannot have some stupid fucking unelectable wanker leading one of the main political parties.....
And on many levels Corbyn is worse than IDS......0 -
O/T France - The Bayrou impact
Strong moves on Betfair following Bayrou'announcement that he will not run and that he will support Macron.
Macron is again favorite at 2.67 (3.3 yesterday).
Fillon is now 3.3 (3.05 yesterday) and Le Pen is at 3.7 (3.5 yesterday).
The move seems logical but it might be an over-reaction. The polling with or without Bayrou done in the last week gave pretty similar trends (Fillon 3 points clear of Macronfor Elabe, Macron and Fillon tied for Ifop). The Rolling Opinionway poll without Bayrou gave Macron a 1 point lead yesterday.
The question now is to see if Bayrou's official support creates a real movement in the polls. We will probably have to wait a few days to see the long-term impact. At the moment, I would guess it may not be a massive boost for Macron but it is a good opportunity for him to stop his slide and the narrative that his campaign is in trouble.0 -
-
Corbyn disapproved of the Iraq war, and saw through the dodgy dossier.Pulpstar said:
Corbyn understands the role of the judiciary better than IDS does.RepublicanTory said:
I'm struggling to think of ANY level that he isn't worse ontyson said:
As a diehard lefty....I was really quite happy when the Tories got rid of IDS.....Jason said:I'm torn over the by-elections. One half of me wants the Tories to take Copeland, just to break out the popcorn again to watch Labour implode over the coming weeks. The other half of me wants Labour to retain the seat by a small margin, same for Stoke, so that Corbyn hangs on for grim life and leads Labour to extinction at the next GE. So do I take the short lived buzz of gaining a seat, or see the longer team treat of Labour's destruction at a future election?
Forgive me....but you cannot have some stupid fucking unelectable wanker leading one of the main political parties.....
And on many levels Corbyn is worse than IDS......0 -
Just up the road from me in Epping Forest too, at least Chigwell will tell us where the WAGs and soap stars and Birds of a Feather vote is going and I believe Lord Sugar lives there tooSunil_Prasannan said:Chigwell village is right next door to Ilford North
0 -
Even if Labour holds them by 1 vote the Corbynistas will trumpet it as a triumph for the Messiah against the odds!!kle4 said:
One would hope they have grander ambitions that that though, and if they squeak through the two wins, it's not exactly heartening for their longer term chances. Now, if they comfortably hold both, he has more to suggest they are in with a chance at a GE, even if plenty of other factors still make the opposite argument.HYUFD said:
If Corbyn holds Copeland or Stoke or both though and especially if UKIP also comes third in Stoke that will show precisely that he is not leading Labour to destruction, they may be a hapless, useless opposition who May will trounce but they will still be the main party of oppositionJason said:I'm torn over the by-elections. One half of me wants the Tories to take Copeland, just to break out the popcorn again to watch Labour implode over the coming weeks. The other half of me wants Labour to retain the seat by a small margin, same for Stoke, so that Corbyn hangs on for grim life and leads Labour to extinction at the next GE. So do I take the short lived buzz of gaining a seat, or see the longer team treat of Labour's destruction at a future election?
0 -
A pineapple just won't fit up the arse of even the most enthusiastic catamite.GeoffM said:0 -
And which way round, you’re holding the pineapple.GeoffM said:0 -
Wasn't Macron supposed to reveal his budgetary framework today?Chris_from_Paris said:O/T France - The Bayrou impact
Strong moves on Betfair following Bayrou'announcement that he will not run and that he will support Macron.
Macron is again favorite at 2.67 (3.3 yesterday).
Fillon is now 3.3 (3.05 yesterday) and Le Pen is at 3.7 (3.5 yesterday).
The move seems logical but it might be an over-reaction. The polling with or without Bayrou done in the last week gave pretty similar trends (Fillon 3 points clear of Macronfor Elabe, Macron and Fillon tied for Ifop). The Rolling Opinionway poll without Bayrou gave Macron a 1 point lead yesterday.
The question now is to see if Bayrou's official support creates a real movement in the polls. We will probably have to wait a few days to see the long-term impact. At the moment, I would guess it may not be a massive boost for Macron but it is a good opportunity for him to stop his slide and the narrative that his campaign is in trouble.
I despise Le Pen's programme, but the "I'm not wearing a headscarf for no Mufti" stroke she pulled in the Lebanon was masterful.
She would also probably chew Macron's nuts off in any televised debate.0 -
I get your point but Dupont Aignan deserves his 499/1 status. Whatever the merits of the 10%, he is no the right martyr. Bayrou, perhaps.Cyan said:
Thanks for this. I was a few days out of date. This is sad. Mélenchon could have named his price for putting Hamon almost through the threshold of the Elysée. There is an obvious policy too that the left could unite around: the guaranteed minimum income. Mélenchon had better have a damned good plan for the TV debates.TheWhiteRabbit said:
http://www.liberation.fr/elections-presidentielle-legislatives-2017/2017/02/19/hamon-melenchon-c-est-mort_1549639Cyan said:
Why are you so sure their talks will fail?
Not sure if you speak French Cyan but I think the knock-out quote was Mélenchon describing the Socialist Party as a hearse...
I'm not Dupont-Aignan's agent but I've been trying to craft an argument for why the TV channels should invite all nominated candidates and not just those who are polling at least 10%.
It was quite easy. There are already two stages of narrowing the field - the "parrainage" requirement and the first round - so why should opinion polls and TV channels impose another?
These stages are at 1.1%, because to get on the ballot a candidate must obtain nominations from 500 of the 47000-strong elected nominariat; and at somewhere around 16%-19%.
2012: 10 candidates: % required to beat third-placed candidate: 17.9
2007 12 candidates: -"- :18.6
2002 16 candidates: -"- :16.2
So why have a middle stage of whittling at 10%? This time there will probably be no more than 10 candidates. Having each been backed by 1.1% of the nominariat, don't all 10 have an equal right to take part in the debates?
The idea in the constitution is that the gladiatorial stuff happens between two candidates after the first round.
We are now two months out, so I've also been looking at what the opinion polls were saying two months before the LR and PS primaries.
LR (average of three polls, 20-26 Sep 2016)
Juppé 37%
Sarkozy 33%
Le Maire 12%
Fillon 8%
Kosciusko-Morizet 4%
SP (13 Nov 2016, "non-candidates" Filoche, Lienemann and Macron included; I have done some magic with these figures; Hollande withdrew; Macron didn't stand; etc.; but DYOR)
Valls 26%
Hollande 22%
Montebourg 20%
Macron 17%
Hamon 8%
Pinel 2%
Lienemann 2%
Filoche 2%
de Rugy 1%
Bennahmias 1%
Peillon 0%
Aubry 0%
Larrouturou 0%
After the certification of candidates, averaging the first three polls (2-6 Jan) (the first round itself was on 22 Jan):
Valls 38%
Montebourg 24%
Hamon 21%
Peillon 9%
Pinel 5%
de Rugy 2%
Bennahmi 2%0 -
The thing about that though, is I have trouble believing he did any sort of assessing or weighing of options at all - he has principles which he rigidly sticks to no matter what, and on occasion those will lead him down the correct path, so well done him, but it was in essence pure luck since he was probably just acting out a default position.foxinsoxuk said:
Corbyn disapproved of the Iraq war, and saw through the dodgy dossier.Pulpstar said:
Corbyn understands the role of the judiciary better than IDS does.RepublicanTory said:
I'm struggling to think of ANY level that he isn't worse ontyson said:
As a diehard lefty....I was really quite happy when the Tories got rid of IDS.....Jason said:I'm torn over the by-elections. One half of me wants the Tories to take Copeland, just to break out the popcorn again to watch Labour implode over the coming weeks. The other half of me wants Labour to retain the seat by a small margin, same for Stoke, so that Corbyn hangs on for grim life and leads Labour to extinction at the next GE. So do I take the short lived buzz of gaining a seat, or see the longer team treat of Labour's destruction at a future election?
Forgive me....but you cannot have some stupid fucking unelectable wanker leading one of the main political parties.....
And on many levels Corbyn is worse than IDS......0 -
It does seem that Classical Greek radishes were much larger than contemporary salad radishes:Sean_F said:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/clahresearch.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/obscenity-of-the-month-2-some-musing-on-what-is-obscene-with-vegetables/amp/
presumably the heat of tbe radish also adds piquancy to the sensation.0 -
The Government is under pressure to prove that none of the £20 million paid to British terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay ended up in the hands of Isil.
It has emerged that four of the 17 British detainees thought to have been given compensation have been accused of links to Islamist groups or individuals in Syria.
One of the men went on a trip with “Jihadi John”, the hostage killer, to Portugal less than a year after the compensation deal was granted, while another has seen three of his nephews fight in Syria.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/22/did-uk-guantanamo-payouts-go-isil-government-pressure-prove/
Apparently Cuddly Ken Clarke was the one who did this deal.
0 -
Someone called Hugo patronising the locals on Newsnight Stoke By Election special. I'm a Remainer, but this guy personifies the disconnect between metropolitan areas and towns/rural England.0
-
ORHYUFD said:
If Corbyn holds Copeland or Stoke or both though and especially if UKIP also comes third in Stoke that will show precisely that he is not leading Labour to destruction, they may be a hapless, useless opposition who May will trounce but they will still be the main party of opposition, UKIP will have completely failed in their objective of beating Labour in their heartlands and the LDs are still too small to make much difference outside of wealthy seats with lots of graduatesJason said:I'm torn over the by-elections. One half of me wants the Tories to take Copeland, just to break out the popcorn again to watch Labour implode over the coming weeks. The other half of me wants Labour to retain the seat by a small margin, same for Stoke, so that Corbyn hangs on for grim life and leads Labour to extinction at the next GE. So do I take the short lived buzz of gaining a seat, or see the longer team treat of Labour's destruction at a future election?
That Labour -in spite of Jezz is actually quite strong.
OR
That Labour is stronger on the ground under Jezz than we realise and the polling companies dont know how to pick this up.
My Moniker clearly states my political party support-but i am also genuinely a Republican and perhaps I therefore view labour and Jezz differently to other Tories.
To me Labour under Blair were an electable juggernaut that couldn't be stopped but that stood for nothing. (As an aside people talk about what a great cabinet he had-REALLY-how many of them have truly left a mark??) But the juggernaut had a blow out and the legacy is pretty appalling when you consider what they could have achieved.
But Labour under Jezz superficially has the electoral power of a clapped out Rickshaw,
But
All the polling, All the conventional thinking is based on the over 65's win you the election.
And yet the same conventional thinking didn't foresee Brexit, Trump, the SNP virtual clean sweep or for that matter Jezz.
As a Tory I, and i know many others, do seriously wonder if we have really read this correctly or has someone finally come along who will actually get the young to vote?
Because if he has -then 2020 really could be a completely different contest to the one conventional thinking currently expects.0 -
-
Pearl Harbor necklace???AlastairMeeks said:I had a Hawaiian tonight, enjoyed it and I don't care who knows it.
0 -
Wait till his other half finds out.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Pearl Harbor necklace???AlastairMeeks said:I had a Hawaiian tonight, enjoyed it and I don't care who knows it.
0 -
RepublicanTory said:
ORHYUFD said:
If Corbyn holds Copeland or Stoke or both though and especially if UKIP also comes third in Stoke that will show precisely that he is not leading Labour to destruction, they may be a hapless, useless opposition who May will trounce but they will still be the main party of opposition, UKIP will have completely failed in their objective of beating Labour in their heartlands and the LDs are still too small to make much difference outside of wealthy seats with lots of graduatesJason said:I'm torn over the by-elections. One half of me wants the Tories to take Copeland, just to break out the popcorn again to watch Labour implode over the coming weeks. The other half of me wants Labour to retain the seat by a small margin, same for Stoke, so that Corbyn hangs on for grim life and leads Labour to extinction at the next GE. So do I take the short lived buzz of gaining a seat, or see the longer team treat of Labour's destruction at a future election?
That Labour -in spite of Jezz is actually quite strong.
OR
That Labour is stronger on the ground under Jezz than we realise and the polling companies dont know how to pick this up.
My Moniker clearly states my political party support-but i am also genuinely a Republican and perhaps I therefore view labour and Jezz differently to other Tories.
To me Labour under Blair were an electable juggernaut that couldn't be stopped but that stood for nothing. (As an aside people talk about what a great cabinet he had-REALLY-how many of them have truly left a mark??) But the juggernaut had a blow out and the legacy is pretty appalling when you consider what they could have achieved.
But Labour under Jezz superficially has the electoral power of a clapped out Rickshaw,
But
All the polling, All the conventional thinking is based on the over 65's win you the election.
And yet the same conventional thinking didn't foresee Brexit, Trump, the SNP virtual clean sweep or for that matter Jezz.
As a Tory I, and i know many others, do seriously wonder if we have really read this correctly or has someone finally come along who will actually get the young to vote?
Because if he has -then 2020 really could be a completely different contest to the one conventional thinking currently expects.
Even Michael Foot won Copeland and Stoke Central in a general election Thatcher won with a majority of 144, all holding either seat would show is that Corbyn has not yet led Labour to complete Scottish Labour/Clegg LDs obliteration, not that there is much life left in the corpse under his leadership0 -
Hugo who?AramintaMoonbeamQC said:Someone called Hugo patronising the locals on Newsnight Stoke By Election special. I'm a Remainer, but this guy personifies the disconnect between metropolitan areas and towns/rural England.
0 -
He came from Stoke, just moved to Oxford later in life. At least I think that was his story. Part of the problem of Stoke is that the best prospects lie elsewhere, and people of ability do tend to leave.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:Someone called Hugo patronising the locals on Newsnight Stoke By Election special. I'm a Remainer, but this guy personifies the disconnect between metropolitan areas and towns/rural England.
It was worth watching though, not least the only panel member who got a clap was the woman at the end who summed it up (paraphrased): What the people here want is not to be ignored, and to have their voice heard, but the only reason that they are being listened to is because of the byelection. When that is over the attention will go too. (clapping).
I am sure she is right.
0 -
Winklebury last night shows us that Comrade Corbyn is surely on course to be our next PM!HYUFD said:RepublicanTory said:
ORHYUFD said:
If Corbyn holds Copeland or Stoke or both though and especially if UKIP also comes third in Stoke that will show precisely that he is not leading Labour to destruction, they may be a hapless, useless opposition who May will trounce but they will still be the main party of opposition, UKIP will have completely failed in their objective of beating Labour in their heartlands and the LDs are still too small to make much difference outside of wealthy seats with lots of graduatesJason said:I'm torn over the by-elections. One half of me wants the Tories to take Copeland, just to break out the popcorn again to watch Labour implode over the coming weeks. The other half of me wants Labour to retain the seat by a small margin, same for Stoke, so that Corbyn hangs on for grim life and leads Labour to extinction at the next GE. So do I take the short lived buzz of gaining a seat, or see the longer team treat of Labour's destruction at a future election?
That Labour -in spite of Jezz is actually quite strong.
OR
That Labour is stronger on the ground under Jezz than we realise and the polling companies dont know how to pick this up.
My Moniker clearly states my political party support-but i am also genuinely a Republican and perhaps I therefore view labour and Jezz differently to other Tories.
To me Labour under Blair were an electable juggernaut that couldn't be stopped but that stood for nothing. (As an aside people talk about what a great cabinet he had-REALLY-how many of them have truly left a mark??) But the juggernaut had a blow out and the legacy is pretty appalling when you consider what they could have achieved.
But Labour under Jezz superficially has the electoral power of a clapped out Rickshaw,
But
All the polling, All the conventional thinking is based on the over 65's win you the election.
And yet the same conventional thinking didn't foresee Brexit, Trump, the SNP virtual clean sweep or for that matter Jezz.
As a Tory I, and i know many others, do seriously wonder if we have really read this correctly or has someone finally come along who will actually get the young to vote?
Because if he has -then 2020 really could be a completely different contest to the one conventional thinking currently expects.
Even Michael Foot won Copeland and Stoke Central in a general election Thatcher won with a majority of 144, all holding either seat would show is that Corbyn has not yet let Labour to complete Scottish Labour/Clegg LDs obliteration, not that there is much life left in the corpse under his leadership0 -
Geoff Evans is from Stoke, he's a Professor at Oxford. Hugo, it transpires, is a Guardian journo.foxinsoxuk said:
He came from Stoke, just moved to Oxford later in life. At least I think that was his story. Part of the problem of Stoke is that the best prospects lie elsewhere, and people of ability do tend to leave.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:Someone called Hugo patronising the locals on Newsnight Stoke By Election special. I'm a Remainer, but this guy personifies the disconnect between metropolitan areas and towns/rural England.
It was worth watching though, not least the only panel member who got a clap was the woman at the end who summed it up (paraphrased): What the people here want is not to be ignored, and to have their voice heard, but the only reason that they are being listened to is because of the byelection. When that is over the attention will go too. (clapping).
I am sure she is right.
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/hugo-dixon0 -
On that basis William Hague should have won the 2001 election by a landslide given the number of council by elections he won!Sunil_Prasannan said:
Winklebury last night shows us that Comrade Corbyn is surely on course to be our next PM!HYUFD said:RepublicanTory said:
ORHYUFD said:
If Corbyn holds Copeland or Stoke or both though and especially if UKIP also comes third in Stoke that will show precisely that he is not leading Labour to destruction, they may be a hapless, useless opposition who May will trounce but they will still be the main party of opposition, UKIP will have completely failed in their objective of beating Labour in their heartlands and the LDs are still too small to make much difference outside of wealthy seats with lots of graduatesJason said:I'm torn over the by-elections. One half of me wants the Tories to take Copeland, just to break out the popcorn again to watch Labour implode over the coming weeks. The other half of me wants Labour to retain the seat by a small margin, same for Stoke, so that Corbyn hangs on for grim life and leads Labour to extinction at the next GE. So do I take the short lived buzz of gaining a seat, or see the longer team treat of Labour's destruction at a future election?
That Labour -in spite of Jezz is actually quite strong.
OR
That Labour is stronger on the ground under Jezz than we realise and the polling companies dont know how to pick this up.
My Moniker clearly states my political party support-but i am also genuinely a Republican and perhaps I therefore view labour and Jezz differently to other Tories.
To me Labour under Blair were an electable juggernaut that couldn't be stopped but that stood for nothing. (As an aside people talk about what a great cabinet he had-REALLY-how many of them have truly left a mark??) But the juggernaut had a blow out and the legacy is pretty appalling when you consider what they could have achieved.
But Labour under Jezz superficially has the electoral power of a clapped out Rickshaw,
But
All the polling, All the conventional thinking is based on the over 65's win you the election.
And yet the same conventional thinking didn't foresee Brexit, Trump, the SNP virtual clean sweep or for that matter Jezz.
As a Tory I, and i know expects.
Even Michael Foot won Copeland and Stoke Central in a general election Thatcher won with a majority of 144, all holding either seat would show is that Corbyn has not yet let Labour to complete Scottish Labour/Clegg LDs obliteration, not that there is much life left in the corpse under his leadership0 -
Macron has pushed back his budgetary Framework announcement to the end of next week.Cyan said:
Wasn't Macron supposed to reveal his budgetary framework today?Chris_from_Paris said:O/T France - The Bayrou impact
Strong moves on Betfair following Bayrou'announcement that he will not run and that he will support Macron.
Macron is again favorite at 2.67 (3.3 yesterday).
Fillon is now 3.3 (3.05 yesterday) and Le Pen is at 3.7 (3.5 yesterday).
The move seems logical but it might be an over-reaction. The polling with or without Bayrou done in the last week gave pretty similar trends (Fillon 3 points clear of Macronfor Elabe, Macron and Fillon tied for Ifop). The Rolling Opinionway poll without Bayrou gave Macron a 1 point lead yesterday.
The question now is to see if Bayrou's official support creates a real movement in the polls. We will probably have to wait a few days to see the long-term impact. At the moment, I would guess it may not be a massive boost for Macron but it is a good opportunity for him to stop his slide and the narrative that his campaign is in trouble.
I despise Le Pen's programme, but the "I'm not wearing a headscarf for no Mufti" stroke she pulled in the Lebanon was masterful.
She would also probably chew Macron's nuts off in any televised debate.
Le Pen's incident in Lebanon was quite obviously staged but went down well. The fact that her chief of staff was arrested and indicted yesterday, less so.
Still, the press is not pushing her that much on her Financial scandals. They have apparently decided that the public does not care about scandals when it's about le pen.
I agree that she would destroy Macron in a debate.0 -
An Guardian journo on Newsnight...thats the law now right? Every segment on Newsnight must include a current or former Guardian journo.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:
Geoff Evans is from Stoke, he's a Professor at Oxford. Hugo, it transpires, is a Guardian journo.foxinsoxuk said:
He came from Stoke, just moved to Oxford later in life. At least I think that was his story. Part of the problem of Stoke is that the best prospects lie elsewhere, and people of ability do tend to leave.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:Someone called Hugo patronising the locals on Newsnight Stoke By Election special. I'm a Remainer, but this guy personifies the disconnect between metropolitan areas and towns/rural England.
It was worth watching though, not least the only panel member who got a clap was the woman at the end who summed it up (paraphrased): What the people here want is not to be ignored, and to have their voice heard, but the only reason that they are being listened to is because of the byelection. When that is over the attention will go too. (clapping).
I am sure she is right.
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/hugo-dixon0 -
An amusing reminder on the previous thread of the Pro-Euro Conservative party ie these clowns:
' William Hague faced renewed pressure yesterday when a fresh poll showed that pro-European Tories could win 11 per cent of the vote in June's European elections if they formed a breakaway party.
Two dissident Tory Euro-MPs, who commissioned the poll after they quit the party over Mr Hague's opposition to the European single currency, hailed the findings as a sure indication of Mr Hague's weakening position.
Brendan Donnelly, the MEP for Sussex South and Crawley, said: 'With this level of support, a pro-euro list could win anything up to half a dozen seats. It could also reduce support for William Hague's Conservative party to as little as 20 per cent of the votes, probably giving it no more seats than it won in 1994. I cannot believe that Mr Hague's leadership would survive such a humiliation.'
In the survey, which was completed this week, MORI asked a representative sample of 2,000 people how they would react 'if breakaway Conservatives formed their own political party supporting entry to the single European currency'. The survey showed that support for mainstream Tories plummeted from 27 per cent to 20 per cent. The breakaway Conservatives would win 11 per cent, with the Liberal Democrats gaining 13 per cent. '
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/feb/17/uk.politicalnews2
And in those European elections the Pro-Euro Conservative Party achieved 1% of the vote compared to 36% for the actual Conservative Party and another 7% for UKIP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_1999_(United_Kingdom)
With their dismal failure the Pro-Euro Conservatives might well have started Britain on the road to leaving the EU.
0 -
But Hague wasn't as progressive as Jeremy!HYUFD said:
On that basis William Hague should have won the 2001 election by a landslide given the number of council by elections he won!Sunil_Prasannan said:
Winklebury last night shows us that Comrade Corbyn is surely on course to be our next PM!HYUFD said:RepublicanTory said:
ORHYUFD said:
If Corbyn holds Copeland or Stoke or both though and especially if UKIP also comes third in Stoke that will show precisely that he is not leading Labour to destruction, they may be a hapless, useless opposition who May will trounce but they will still be the main party of opposition, UKIP will have completely failed in their objective of beating Labour in their heartlands and the LDs are still too small to make much difference outside of wealthy seats with lots of graduatesJason said:I'm torn over the by-elections. One half of me wants the Tories to take Copeland, just to break out the popcorn again to watch Labour implode over the coming weeks. The other half of me wants Labour to retain the seat by a small margin, same for Stoke, so that Corbyn hangs on for grim life and leads Labour to extinction at the next GE. So do I take the short lived buzz of gaining a seat, or see the longer team treat of Labour's destruction at a future election?
That Labour -in spite of Jezz is actually quite strong.
OR
That Labour is stronger on the ground under Jezz than we realise and the polling companies dont know how to pick this up.
My Moniker clearly states my political party support-but i am also genuinely a Republican and perhaps I therefore view labour and Jezz differently to other Tories.
To me Labour under Blair were an electable juggernaut that couldn't be stopped but that stood for nothing. (As an aside people talk about what a great cabinet he had-REALLY-how many of them have truly left a mark??) But the juggernaut had a blow out and the legacy is pretty appalling when you consider what they could have achieved.
But Labour under Jezz superficially has the electoral power of a clapped out Rickshaw,
But
All the polling, All the conventional thinking is based on the over 65's win you the election.
And yet the same conventional thinking didn't foresee Brexit, Trump, the SNP virtual clean sweep or for that matter Jezz.
As a Tory I, and i know expects.
Even Michael Foot won Copeland and Stoke Central in a general election Thatcher won with a majority of 144, all holding either seat would show is that Corbyn has not yet let Labour to complete Scottish Labour/Clegg LDs obliteration, not that there is much life left in the corpse under his leadership
0 -
My mistake, I misremembered the biographies at the beginning.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:
Geoff Evans is from Stoke, he's a Professor at Oxford. Hugo, it transpires, is a Guardian journo.foxinsoxuk said:
He came from Stoke, just moved to Oxford later in life. At least I think that was his story. Part of the problem of Stoke is that the best prospects lie elsewhere, and people of ability do tend to leave.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:Someone called Hugo patronising the locals on Newsnight Stoke By Election special. I'm a Remainer, but this guy personifies the disconnect between metropolitan areas and towns/rural England.
It was worth watching though, not least the only panel member who got a clap was the woman at the end who summed it up (paraphrased): What the people here want is not to be ignored, and to have their voice heard, but the only reason that they are being listened to is because of the byelection. When that is over the attention will go too. (clapping).
I am sure she is right.
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/hugo-dixon
0 -
ooh, like Raphanus, the genus name for radishes. Hurrah.Ishmael_Z said:
Rafanido-oh, roughly speaking.foxinsoxuk said:
It is a word that I never knew that I needed! Slightly difficult to work into a conversation though. Do you have a phonetic pronunciation?Ishmael_Z said:Fun classical word of the day: ῥαφανιδόω, meaning to shove a radish up someone's arse - a punishment for adulterers in Athens.
You think a raphanistration might not be so much of a punishment depending on the preferences of yr adulterer. R. sativus comes in many shapes and sizes. Daikon for the worst offenders?0 -
He was suddenly tremendously concerned about urban regeneration, and Debbie Abrahams MP is a convert to a massive housebuilding programme (despite thousands of houses being demolished, instead of refurbished, in Stoke during the disgraceful 'Pathfinder' programme so beloved of the Labour Party).FrancisUrquhart said:
An Guardian journo on Newsnight...thats the law now right? Every segment on Newsnight must include a current or former Guardian journo.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:
Geoff Evans is from Stoke, he's a Professor at Oxford. Hugo, it transpires, is a Guardian journo.foxinsoxuk said:
He came from Stoke, just moved to Oxford later in life. At least I think that was his story. Part of the problem of Stoke is that the best prospects lie elsewhere, and people of ability do tend to leave.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:Someone called Hugo patronising the locals on Newsnight Stoke By Election special. I'm a Remainer, but this guy personifies the disconnect between metropolitan areas and towns/rural England.
It was worth watching though, not least the only panel member who got a clap was the woman at the end who summed it up (paraphrased): What the people here want is not to be ignored, and to have their voice heard, but the only reason that they are being listened to is because of the byelection. When that is over the attention will go too. (clapping).
I am sure she is right.
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/hugo-dixon
No wonder people are fed up of this crap.
0 -
to have two of them in the same band (Miles and John Coltrane)...tyson said:
I kind of think Miles Davis was like Leonardo, or Einstein...just one of those very few human being who possessed unbelievable wisdom and insight into how things work....
simply incredible0 -
To be fair, house prices in Stoke are some of the most affordable in England. Terraced houses start at £30 000 on Rightmove, and £50 000 will get a 3 bed semi. That is probably cheaper than their replacement costs to build.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:
He was suddenly tremendously concerned about urban regeneration, and Debbie Abrahams MP is a convert to a massive housebuilding programme (despite thousands of houses being demolished, instead of refurbished, in Stoke during the disgraceful 'Pathfinder' programme so beloved of the Labour Party).FrancisUrquhart said:
An Guardian journo on Newsnight...thats the law now right? Every segment on Newsnight must include a current or former Guardian journo.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:
Geoff Evans is from Stoke, he's a Professor at Oxford. Hugo, it transpires, is a Guardian journo.foxinsoxuk said:
He came from Stoke, just moved to Oxford later in life. At least I think that was his story. Part of the problem of Stoke is that the best prospects lie elsewhere, and people of ability do tendAramintaMoonbeamQC said:Someone called Hugo patronising the locals on Newsnight Stoke By Election special. I'm a Remainer, but this guy personifies the disconnect between metropolitan areas and towns/rural England.
I am sure she is right.
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/hugo-dixon
No wonder people are fed up of this crap.
House prices often give a pointer to economic prospects. No one could answer how Brexit would help Stoke, the closest response was a bloke who thought that part of our EU contributions could be used to fund Stoke, but even he had no suggestion on how that money would help.
The people wanted well paid manufacturing and graduate level jobs. I cannnot see how Brexit will help with those.0 -
OK, I've now officially lost half of my nerve. Having been stalwart in my pro-Labour betting position in both seats for weeks, I've just caved in on Copeland and neutralised my position (in fact, I make a small amount on a Tory win and lose a few quid on a Labour win).
In Stoke I'm staying with the triumphant sweep of the popular Corbyn movement, but I reckon the Conservatives will come second. If by any chance it's a Tory gain, I'm more than covered.
I've sold UKIP (Stoke) on SPIN at 9.25 so I'm unfussed if they come second, pleased if they come third, but discombobulated if they actually win - in the latter case, I'll lose both on SPIN and on my bets on the outcome.
We shall see!0 -
http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/developers-discuss-old-victoria-ground-lies/story-25966951-detail/story.htmlfoxinsoxuk said:
To be fair, house prices in Stoke are some of the most affordable in England. Terraced houses start at £30 000 on Rightmove, and £50 000 will get a 3 bed semi. That is probably cheaper than their replacement costs to build.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:
He was suddenly tremendously concerned about urban regeneration, and Debbie Abrahams MP is a convert to a massive housebuilding programme (despite thousands of houses being demolished, instead of refurbished, in Stoke during the disgraceful 'Pathfinder' programme so beloved of the Labour Party).FrancisUrquhart said:
An Guardian journo on Newsnight...thats the law now right? Every segment on Newsnight must include a current or former Guardian journo.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:
Geoff Evans is from Stoke, he's a Professor at Oxford. Hugo, it transpires, is a Guardian journo.foxinsoxuk said:
He came from Stoke, just moved to Oxford later in life. At least I think that was his story. Part of the problem of Stoke is that the best prospects lie elsewhere, and people of ability do tendAramintaMoonbeamQC said:Someone called Hugo patronising the locals on Newsnight Stoke By Election special. I'm a Remainer, but this guy personifies the disconnect between metropolitan areas and towns/rural England.
I am sure she is right.
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/hugo-dixon
No wonder people are fed up of this crap.
House prices often give a pointer to economic prospects. No one could answer how Brexit would help Stoke, the closest response was a bloke who thought that part of our EU contributions could be used to fund Stoke, but even he had no suggestion on how that money would help.
The people wanted well paid manufacturing and graduate level jobs. I cannnot see how Brexit will help with those.
maybe this is symbolic - it's just not profitable for development0 -
What is your prognosis if Le Pen herself is arrested and indicted? I was thinking that unlike Fillon and Macron it is EU money rather than French parliamentary or government money that she is accused of wrongly obtaining, and that if she feels the heat she can link it to a France versus the EU narrative, but that may not hold if she gets her collar felt by French flics.Chris_from_Paris said:
Macron has pushed back his budgetary Framework announcement to the end of next week.Cyan said:
Wasn't Macron supposed to reveal his budgetary framework today?Chris_from_Paris said:O/T France - The Bayrou impact
Strong moves on Betfair following Bayrou'announcement that he will not run and that he will support Macron.
Macron is again favorite at 2.67 (3.3 yesterday).
Fillon is now 3.3 (3.05 yesterday) and Le Pen is at 3.7 (3.5 yesterday).
The move seems logical but it might be an over-reaction. The polling with or without Bayrou done in the last week gave pretty similar trends (Fillon 3 points clear of Macronfor Elabe, Macron and Fillon tied for Ifop). The Rolling Opinionway poll without Bayrou gave Macron a 1 point lead yesterday.
The question now is to see if Bayrou's official support creates a real movement in the polls. We will probably have to wait a few days to see the long-term impact. At the moment, I would guess it may not be a massive boost for Macron but it is a good opportunity for him to stop his slide and the narrative that his campaign is in trouble.
I despise Le Pen's programme, but the "I'm not wearing a headscarf for no Mufti" stroke she pulled in the Lebanon was masterful.
She would also probably chew Macron's nuts off in any televised debate.
Le Pen's incident in Lebanon was quite obviously staged but went down well. The fact that her chief of staff was arrested and indicted yesterday, less so.
Still, the press is not pushing her that much on her Financial scandals. They have apparently decided that the public does not care about scandals when it's about le pen.
I agree that she would destroy Macron in a debate.0 -
Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, has received half a million pounds in donations from Max Mosley in less than a year, official records show.
“I’m proud to call Max Mosley a friend and I’m delighted he has made a financial contribution to Labour,” Watson said. “His generous donation will help the party develop strong policies for our next manifesto.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/22/tom-watson-given-500k-in-donations-by-max-mosley-in-past-year
Given how fond of funding the second homes of lawyers Max is, I will simply mention the old saying "You can judge a man by the company he keeps".0 -
Three: Bill Evans.dugarbandier said:
to have two of them in the same band (Miles and John Coltrane)...tyson said:
I kind of think Miles Davis was like Leonardo, or Einstein...just one of those very few human being who possessed unbelievable wisdom and insight into how things work....
simply incredible0 -
I think she won't get indicted in France now because it would be difficult to say she has profited herself (as opposed to her party) from the system of paying her advisors with EU money.Cyan said:
What is your prognosis if Le Pen herself is arrested and indicted? I was thinking that unlike Fillon and Macron it is EU money rather than French parliamentary or government money that she is accused of wrongly obtaining, and that if she feels the heat she can link it to a France versus the EU narrative, but that may not hold if she gets her collar felt by French flics.Chris_from_Paris said:
Macron has pushed back his budgetary Framework announcement to the end of next week.Cyan said:
Wasn't Macron supposed to reveal his budgetary framework today?Chris_from_Paris said:O/T France - The Bayrou impact
Strong moves on Betfair following Bayrou'announcement that he will not run and that he will support Macron.
Macron is again favorite at 2.67 (3.3 yesterday).
Fillon is now 3.3 (3.05 yesterday) and Le Pen is at 3.7 (3.5 yesterday).
The move seems logical but it might be an over-reaction. The polling with or without Bayrou done in the last week gave pretty similar trends (Fillon 3 points clear of Macronfor Elabe, Macron and Fillon tied for Ifop). The Rolling Opinionway poll without Bayrou gave Macron a 1 point lead yesterday.
The question now is to see if Bayrou's official support creates a real movement in the polls. We will probably have to wait a few days to see the long-term impact. At the moment, I would guess it may not be a massive boost for Macron but it is a good opportunity for him to stop his slide and the narrative that his campaign is in trouble.
I despise Le Pen's programme, but the "I'm not wearing a headscarf for no Mufti" stroke she pulled in the Lebanon was masterful.
She would also probably chew Macron's nuts off in any televised debate.
Le Pen's incident in Lebanon was quite obviously staged but went down well. The fact that her chief of staff was arrested and indicted yesterday, less so.
Still, the press is not pushing her that much on her Financial scandals. They have apparently decided that the public does not care about scandals when it's about le pen.
I agree that she would destroy Macron in a debate.
The advisors (including the chief of staff) are another matter because they directly received the money.
The big difference with Fillon is that she has already been judged guilty by the european parliament and this month they will start to retain half her EMP salary to repay the money unduly paid to her advisors. But that's a european political process nobody really understands.
And yes I think that for many voters there is a sense that stealing from the EU is more acceptable than from the State...
0 -
Stoke Central is 82nd on the Tory target list for 2020, if May won it she would be heading for a bigger Tory majority than Thatcher got in 1983 and the biggest Tory win since that of Baldwin's Tory dominated National Government in October 1931Richard_Nabavi said:OK, I've now officially lost half of my nerve. Having been stalwart in my pro-Labour betting position in both seats for weeks, I've just caved in on Copeland and neutralised my position (in fact, I make a small amount on a Tory win and lose a few quid on a Labour win).
In Stoke I'm staying with the triumphant sweep of the popular Corbyn movement, but I reckon the Conservatives will come second. If by any chance it's a Tory gain, I'm more than covered.
I've sold UKIP (Stoke) on SPIN at 9.25 so I'm unfussed if they come second, pleased if they come third, but discombobulated if they actually win - in the latter case, I'll lose both on SPIN and on my bets on the outcome.
We shall see!
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative0 -
Pathfinder demolished reasonable houses with outside space that families could live in, and delivered the land to developers to build unaffordable shoebox flats no one wanted. It was a waste of time and huge resources.foxinsoxuk said:
To be fair, house prices in Stoke are some of the most affordable in England. Terraced houses start at £30 000 on Rightmove, and £50 000 will get a 3 bed semi. That is probably cheaper than their replacement costs to build.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:
He was suddenly tremendously concerned about urban regeneration, and Debbie Abrahams MP is a convert to a massive housebuilding programme (despite thousands of houses being demolished, instead of refurbished, in Stoke during the disgraceful 'Pathfinder' programme so beloved of the Labour Party).FrancisUrquhart said:
An Guardian journo on Newsnight...thats the law now right? Every segment on Newsnight must include a current or former Guardian journo.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:
Geoff Evans is from Stoke, he's a Professor at Oxford. Hugo, it transpires, is a Guardian journo.foxinsoxuk said:
He came from Stoke, just moved to Oxford later in life. At least I think that was his story. Part of the problem of Stoke is that the best prospects lie elsewhere, and people of ability do tendAramintaMoonbeamQC said:Someone called Hugo patronising the locals on Newsnight Stoke By Election special. I'm a Remainer, but this guy personifies the disconnect between metropolitan areas and towns/rural England.
I am sure she is right.
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/hugo-dixon
No wonder people are fed up of this crap.
House prices often give a pointer to economic prospects. No one could answer how Brexit would help Stoke, the closest response was a bloke who thought that part of our EU contributions could be used to fund Stoke, but even he had no suggestion on how that money would help.
The people wanted well paid manufacturing and graduate level jobs. I cannnot see how Brexit will help with those.
Brexit won't help Stoke, but I understood then, as I do now, why people are cynical and disaffected. The young female panellist was right - spotlight on Stoke for a few weeks during the by-election, and then they go back to being ignored.
With two big universities churning out graduates and cheap housing an obvious lure, trying to attract employers other than distribution hubs and call centres should be a priority for Stoke Council/regional development bodies, but nothing has changed for Stoke since I lived there (and subsequently left for a well paid job elsewhere) 20 years ago.
Compared to Derby/Nottingham/Birmingham, it has fared poorly.0 -
Not an impossible GE scenario against Corbyn, but in any case there's the complicating factor of UKIP in Stoke Central. It's possible to see how a Tory win might happen here tomorrow on a low turnout - a combination of 2015 Labour voters either staying at home or switching to UKIP, and some UKIP voters switching to the Conservatives, and the Conservative vote holding up relatively well because of the current good ratings of the party.HYUFD said:Stoke Central is 82nd on the Tory target list for 2020, if May won it she would be heading for a bigger Tory majority than Thatcher got in 1983 and the biggest Tory win since that of Baldwin's Tory dominated National Government in October 1931
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative
Still, I'm not saying that's likely; more likely a Labour hold by a reasonable margin.0 -
good point!pbr2013 said:
Three: Bill Evans.dugarbandier said:
to have two of them in the same band (Miles and John Coltrane)...tyson said:
I kind of think Miles Davis was like Leonardo, or Einstein...just one of those very few human being who possessed unbelievable wisdom and insight into how things work....
simply incredible0 -
Yes I think Labour hold Stoke with the Tories second and the Tories just take Copeland, maybe after a recountRichard_Nabavi said:
Not an impossible GE scenario against Corbyn, but in any case there's the complicating factor of UKIP in Stoke Central. It's possible to see how a Tory win might happen here tomorrow on a low turnout - a combination of 2015 Labour voters either staying at home or switching to UKIP, and some UKIP voters switching to the Conservatives, and the Conservative vote holding up relatively well because of the current good ratings of the party.HYUFD said:Stoke Central is 82nd on the Tory target list for 2020, if May won it she would be heading for a bigger Tory majority than Thatcher got in 1983 and the biggest Tory win since that of Baldwin's Tory dominated National Government in October 1931
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative
Still, I'm not saying that's likely; more likely a Labour hold by a reasonable margin.0 -
Non Jazz folks should look him up. Although his time with Miles did leave him with a heroin addiction.dugarbandier said:
good point!pbr2013 said:
Three: Bill Evans.dugarbandier said:
to have two of them in the same band (Miles and John Coltrane)...tyson said:
I kind of think Miles Davis was like Leonardo, or Einstein...just one of those very few human being who possessed unbelievable wisdom and insight into how things work....
simply incredible
https://youtu.be/dH3GSrCmzC80 -
I don't blame you on that, but unless there's private polling data underpinning the con price in Copeland, a Lab hold @ 9/4 still looks like a great value bet.Richard_Nabavi said:OK, I've now officially lost half of my nerve. Having been stalwart in my pro-Labour betting position in both seats for weeks, I've just caved in on Copeland and neutralised my position (in fact, I make a small amount on a Tory win and lose a few quid on a Labour win).
In Stoke I'm staying with the triumphant sweep of the popular Corbyn movement, but I reckon the Conservatives will come second. If by any chance it's a Tory gain, I'm more than covered.
I've sold UKIP (Stoke) on SPIN at 9.25 so I'm unfussed if they come second, pleased if they come third, but discombobulated if they actually win - in the latter case, I'll lose both on SPIN and on my bets on the outcome.
We shall see!
My general betting position is anti-UKIP in Stoke for a lot and anti-con in Copeland for a small amount, with a large green on the tories in stoke.
Given the lack of any published constituency polls, expectations may well be mis-calibrated.
I wouldn't have a heart attack if it was a lib dem double.0 -
almost an occupational hazard in those days!pbr2013 said:
Non Jazz folks should look him up. Although his time with Miles did leave him with a heroin addiction.0 -
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2932204/ministers-to-give-parliament-to-get-brexit-veto/
so the climb down begins, the EU gives us a crap deal knowing parliament will veto it and then we can't go WTO because parliament will veto that too and net result we stay in EU . so why should EU give us a good deal knowing they can keep us in because parliament will veto the crap deal and wto? the great fudge to keep us in has begun0 -
I always thought it was 50/50 labour ukip in stoke and bet accordingly, hencePong said:
I don't blame you on that, but unless there's private polling data underpinning the con price in Copeland, A Lab hold @ 9/4 still looks like a great value bet.Richard_Nabavi said:OK, I've now officially lost half of my nerve. Having been stalwart in my pro-Labour betting position in both seats for weeks, I've just caved in on Copeland and neutralised my position (in fact, I make a small amount on a Tory win and lose a few quid on a Labour win).
In Stoke I'm staying with the triumphant sweep of the popular Corbyn movement, but I reckon the Conservatives will come second. If by any chance it's a Tory gain, I'm more than covered.
I've sold UKIP (Stoke) on SPIN at 9.25 so I'm unfussed if they come second, pleased if they come third, but discombobulated if they actually win - in the latter case, I'll lose both on SPIN and on my bets on the outcome.
We shall see!
My general betting position is anti-UKIP in Stoke for a lot and anti-con in Copeland for a small amount, with a large green on the tories in stoke.
Given the lack of any published constituency polls, expectations may well be mis-calibrated.
I wouldn't have a heart attack if it was a lib dem double.
+4.6 ukip
0 Lib dem
-0.3 Con
-2.4 lab
Slightly underwater
0 -
Or the government are thinking that Parliament would not reject their deal since it would be take it our leave it.kjohnw said:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2932204/ministers-to-give-parliament-to-get-brexit-veto/
so the climb down begins, the EU gives us a crap deal knowing parliament will veto it and then we can't go WTO because parliament will veto that too and net result we stay in EU . so why should EU give us a good deal knowing they can keep us in because parliament will veto the crap deal and wto? the great fudge to keep us in has begun0 -
Different boundaries in 1983. Copeland would have been Tory that year on present boundaries - and possibly also in 1987.HYUFD said:RepublicanTory said:
ORHYUFD said:
If Corbyn holds Copeland or Stoke or both though and especially if UKIP also comes third in Stoke that will show precisely that he is not leading Labour to destruction, they may be a hapless, useless opposition who May will trounce but they will still be the main party of opposition, UKIP will have completely failed in their objective of beating Labour in their heartlands and the LDs are still too small to make much difference outside of wealthy seats with lots of graduatesJason said:I'm torn over the by-elections. One half of me wants the Tories to take Copeland, just to break out the popcorn again to watch Labour implode over the coming weeks. The other half of me wants Labour to retain the seat by a small margin, same for Stoke, so that Corbyn hangs on for grim life and leads Labour to extinction at the next GE. So do I take the short lived buzz of gaining a seat, or see the longer team treat of Labour's destruction at a future election?
That Labour -in spite of Jezz is actually quite strong.
OR
That Labour is stronger on the ground under Jezz than we realise and the polling companies dont know how to pick this up.
My Moniker clearly states my political party support-but i am also genuinely a Republican and perhaps I therefore view labour and Jezz differently to other Tories.
To me Labour under Blair were an electable juggernaut that couldn't be stopped but that stood for nothing. (As an aside people talk about what a great cabinet he had-REALLY-how many of them have truly left a mark??) But the juggernaut had a blow out and the legacy is pretty appalling when you consider what they could have achieved.
But Labour under Jezz superficially has the electoral power of a clapped out Rickshaw,
But
All the polling, All the conventional thinking is based on the over 65's win you the election.
And yet the same conventional thinking didn't foresee Brexit, Trump, the SNP virtual clean sweep or for that matter Jezz.
As a Tory I, and i know many others, do seriously wonder if we have really read this correctly or has someone finally come along who will actually get the young to vote?
Because if he has -then 2020 really could be a completely different contest to the one conventional thinking currently expects.
Even Michael Foot won Copeland and Stoke Central in a general election Thatcher won with a majority of 144, all holding either seat would show is that Corbyn has not yet led Labour to complete Scottish Labour/Clegg LDs obliteration, not that there is much life left in the corpse under his leadership0 -
*once the candidates were announced, at first I thought labour were a shoo inisam said:
I always* thought it was 50/50 labour ukip in stoke and bet accordingly, hencePong said:
I don't blame you on that, but unless there's private polling data underpinning the con price in Copeland, A Lab hold @ 9/4 still looks like a great value bet.Richard_Nabavi said:OK, I've now officially lost half of my nerve. Having been stalwart in my pro-Labour betting position in both seats for weeks, I've just caved in on Copeland and neutralised my position (in fact, I make a small amount on a Tory win and lose a few quid on a Labour win).
In Stoke I'm staying with the triumphant sweep of the popular Corbyn movement, but I reckon the Conservatives will come second. If by any chance it's a Tory gain, I'm more than covered.
I've sold UKIP (Stoke) on SPIN at 9.25 so I'm unfussed if they come second, pleased if they come third, but discombobulated if they actually win - in the latter case, I'll lose both on SPIN and on my bets on the outcome.
We shall see!
My general betting position is anti-UKIP in Stoke for a lot and anti-con in Copeland for a small amount, with a large green on the tories in stoke.
Given the lack of any published constituency polls, expectations may well be mis-calibrated.
I wouldn't have a heart attack if it was a lib dem double.
+4.6 ukip
0 Lib dem
-0.3 Con
-2.4 lab
Slightly underwater0 -
but according to this in the sun ministers will give parliament the right to say no the deal AND NO to no deal as well meaning we have to stay in or renegotiate or have i read it incorrectlyRobD said:
Or the government are thinking that Parliament would not reject their deal since it would be take it our leave it.kjohnw said:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2932204/ministers-to-give-parliament-to-get-brexit-veto/
so the climb down begins, the EU gives us a crap deal knowing parliament will veto it and then we can't go WTO because parliament will veto that too and net result we stay in EU . so why should EU give us a good deal knowing they can keep us in because parliament will veto the crap deal and wto? the great fudge to keep us in has begun
0 -
has staying helped? No.foxinsoxuk said:
To be fair, house prices in Stoke are some of the most affordable in England. Terraced houses start at £30 000 on Rightmove, and £50 000 will get a 3 bed semi. That is probably cheaper than their replacement costs to build.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:
He was suddenly tremendously concerned about urban regeneration, and Debbie Abrahams MP is a convert to a massive housebuilding programme (despite thousands of houses being demolished, instead of refurbished, in Stoke during the disgraceful 'Pathfinder' programme so beloved of the Labour Party).FrancisUrquhart said:
An Guardian journo on Newsnight...thats the law now right? Every segment on Newsnight must include a current or former Guardian journo.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:
Geoff Evans is from Stoke, he's a Professor at Oxford. Hugo, it transpires, is a Guardian journo.foxinsoxuk said:
He came from Stoke, just moved to Oxford later in life. At least I think that was his story. Part of the problem of Stoke is that the best prospects lie elsewhere, and people of ability do tendAramintaMoonbeamQC said:Someone called Hugo patronising the locals on Newsnight Stoke By Election special. I'm a Remainer, but this guy personifies the disconnect between metropolitan areas and towns/rural England.
I am sure she is right.
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/hugo-dixon
No wonder people are fed up of this crap.
House prices often give a pointer to economic prospects. No one could answer how Brexit would help Stoke, the closest response was a bloke who thought that part of our EU contributions could be used to fund Stoke, but even he had no suggestion on how that money would help.
The people wanted well paid manufacturing and graduate level jobs. I cannnot see how Brexit will help with those.0 -
As for the shityness of towns like stoke....I'm afraid there shittyness will continue as big reginal cities like manchester, birmingham and leeds continue to suck in talent, jobs and investment. This is a deliberate policy by both parties to centralise things to make them "hubs" because it worked for london so it will work everywhere else......so dumb.0
-
and also why would ministers be in secret talks about this when they have already promised a final vote on the deal. no something has changed here the government is afraid of legal challenge so parliament will be given a veto on no deal tookjohnw said:
but according to this in the sun ministers will give parliament the right to say no the deal AND NO to no deal as well meaning we have to stay in or renegotiate or have i read it incorrectlyRobD said:
Or the government are thinking that Parliament would not reject their deal since it would be take it our leave it.kjohnw said:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2932204/ministers-to-give-parliament-to-get-brexit-veto/
so the climb down begins, the EU gives us a crap deal knowing parliament will veto it and then we can't go WTO because parliament will veto that too and net result we stay in EU . so why should EU give us a good deal knowing they can keep us in because parliament will veto the crap deal and wto? the great fudge to keep us in has begun0 -
Nothing cultured about them pearls.....Sunil_Prasannan said:
Pearl Harbor necklace???AlastairMeeks said:I had a Hawaiian tonight, enjoyed it and I don't care who knows it.
0 -
Given that Parliament will have voted on A50, I would have thought there would be less room for legal challenges. I can see why Parliament has to approve a deal, given it is effectively an international treaty, I can't see how they can reject a lack of a deal.kjohnw said:
and also why would ministers be in secret talks about this when they have already promised a final vote on the deal. no something has changed here the government is afraid of legal challenge so parliament will be given a veto on no deal tookjohnw said:
but according to this in the sun ministers will give parliament the right to say no the deal AND NO to no deal as well meaning we have to stay in or renegotiate or have i read it incorrectlyRobD said:
Or the government are thinking that Parliament would not reject their deal since it would be take it our leave it.kjohnw said:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2932204/ministers-to-give-parliament-to-get-brexit-veto/
so the climb down begins, the EU gives us a crap deal knowing parliament will veto it and then we can't go WTO because parliament will veto that too and net result we stay in EU . so why should EU give us a good deal knowing they can keep us in because parliament will veto the crap deal and wto? the great fudge to keep us in has begun0 -
Because Parliament is sovereign. They can fire Theresa May tomorrow and send Tim Farron in her place to Brussels if that's what they want.RobD said:
Given that Parliament will have voted on A50, I would have thought there would be less room for legal challenges. I can see why Parliament has to approve a deal, given it is effectively an international treaty, I can't see how they can reject a lack of a deal.kjohnw said:
and also why would ministers be in secret talks about this when they have already promised a final vote on the deal. no something has changed here the government is afraid of legal challenge so parliament will be given a veto on no deal tookjohnw said:
but according to this in the sun ministers will give parliament the right to say no the deal AND NO to no deal as well meaning we have to stay in or renegotiate or have i read it incorrectlyRobD said:
Or the government are thinking that Parliament would not reject their deal since it would be take it our leave it.kjohnw said:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2932204/ministers-to-give-parliament-to-get-brexit-veto/
so the climb down begins, the EU gives us a crap deal knowing parliament will veto it and then we can't go WTO because parliament will veto that too and net result we stay in EU . so why should EU give us a good deal knowing they can keep us in because parliament will veto the crap deal and wto? the great fudge to keep us in has begun0 -
"Marine Le Pen has a better chance in France than you think" (Sudhir Hazareesingh in the Financial Times).
What a pushy headline!
(Hazareesingh, who works at Balliol, calls the ENA a "cocoon for the French elite". I wonder what he calls Balliol.)0 -
HM would only appoint him if he could command a majority in the Commons. Parliament will have voted for the triggering of Article 50 which states that at the end of two years a country will leave the EU. I don't see how they can veto a deal, also veto no deal, and expect to stay in.williamglenn said:
Because Parliament is sovereign. They can fire Theresa May tomorrow and send Tim Farron in her place to Brussels if that's what they want.RobD said:
Given that Parliament will have voted on A50, I would have thought there would be less room for legal challenges. I can see why Parliament has to approve a deal, given it is effectively an international treaty, I can't see how they can reject a lack of a deal.kjohnw said:
and also why would ministers be in secret talks about this when they have already promised a final vote on the deal. no something has changed here the government is afraid of legal challenge so parliament will be given a veto on no deal tookjohnw said:
but according to this in the sun ministers will give parliament the right to say no the deal AND NO to no deal as well meaning we have to stay in or renegotiate or have i read it incorrectlyRobD said:
Or the government are thinking that Parliament would not reject their deal since it would be take it our leave it.kjohnw said:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2932204/ministers-to-give-parliament-to-get-brexit-veto/
so the climb down begins, the EU gives us a crap deal knowing parliament will veto it and then we can't go WTO because parliament will veto that too and net result we stay in EU . so why should EU give us a good deal knowing they can keep us in because parliament will veto the crap deal and wto? the great fudge to keep us in has begun0 -
All things being equal... which in 2 years' time they won't be.RobD said:
HM would only appoint him if he could command a majority in the Commons. Parliament will have voted for the triggering of Article 50 which states that at the end of two years a country will leave the EU. I don't see how they can veto a deal, also veto no deal, and expect to stay in.williamglenn said:
Because Parliament is sovereign. They can fire Theresa May tomorrow and send Tim Farron in her place to Brussels if that's what they want.RobD said:
Given that Parliament will have voted on A50, I would have thought there would be less room for legal challenges. I can see why Parliament has to approve a deal, given it is effectively an international treaty, I can't see how they can reject a lack of a deal.kjohnw said:
and also why would ministers be in secret talks about this when they have already promised a final vote on the deal. no something has changed here the government is afraid of legal challenge so parliament will be given a veto on no deal tookjohnw said:
but according to this in the sun ministers will give parliament the right to say no the deal AND NO to no deal as well meaning we have to stay in or renegotiate or have i read it incorrectlyRobD said:
Or the government are thinking that Parliament would not reject their deal since it would be take it our leave it.kjohnw said:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2932204/ministers-to-give-parliament-to-get-brexit-veto/
so the climb down begins, the EU gives us a crap deal knowing parliament will veto it and then we can't go WTO because parliament will veto that too and net result we stay in EU . so why should EU give us a good deal knowing they can keep us in because parliament will veto the crap deal and wto? the great fudge to keep us in has begun0 -
These might do the trick ...dugarbandier said:
ooh, like Raphanus, the genus name for radishes. Hurrah.Ishmael_Z said:
Rafanido-oh, roughly speaking.foxinsoxuk said:
It is a word that I never knew that I needed! Slightly difficult to work into a conversation though. Do you have a phonetic pronunciation?Ishmael_Z said:Fun classical word of the day: ῥαφανιδόω, meaning to shove a radish up someone's arse - a punishment for adulterers in Athens.
You think a raphanistration might not be so much of a punishment depending on the preferences of yr adulterer. R. sativus comes in many shapes and sizes. Daikon for the worst offenders?
http://static2.akpool.de/images/cards/64/640387.jpg0 -
Funnily enough, I can speak to that last point, having been tutored by Sudhir, who is a very nice fellow by the way. His thesis on the difference between ENA and Oxbridge and their respective roles in the countries' elites is that they are very different, because:Cyan said:"Marine Le Pen has a better chance in France than you think" (Sudhir Hazareesingh in the Financial Times).
What a pushy headline!
(Hazareesingh, who works at Balliol, calls the ENA a "cocoon for the French elite". I wonder what he calls Balliol.)
a) ENA gives a narrow political and administrative education, more focused even than PPE in churning out people who will rule the country, let alone the whole Oxbridge intake, only a tiny proportion of whom will go on to be part of the country's political elite;
b) Oxbridge (or even one Oxbridge college, like Balliol) has a much larger intake than ENA. ENA's small size (I think a yearly intake of a few dozen) means that everybody in a year will know everybody else, which obviously isn't possible at Oxbridge (yearly intake perhaps a hundred times as large).
c) the ENA selection process looks deliberately at picking future rulers, while Oxbridge is much less specific, simply trying to identify good minds to develop.0 -
Presumably the Sun story is predicated on the " Three Knights " legal opinion commissioned by anti Brexit campaigners. Broadly the legal opinion argues that the A50 Bill in it's current form just authorised invocation not actual departure.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't comment on it's validity as an argument. However the internal logic of the opinion is interesting. It links the Supreme Court's upholding of Parliamentary Soveriegnty with the wording of A50's " constitutional requirements ".
Broadly it argues that unless there is an Act withdrawing us from the EU before the A50 two year window expires then the A50 notice it's self will lapse. This is because the A50 bill it's self says nothing about leaving the EU, the Supreme Court says an Act is needed and the Treaty refers to " constitutional requirements. "0 -
So if the Sun story is correct Ministers don't want to risk the ' Three Knights ' opinion being upheld in the courts and are building the need to affirmative Parliamentary assent into *every* withdrawal option. This seems entirely sensible to me. We are where we are because Parliament passed a poorly drafted Referendum Act. We don't want to make the same mistake with the A50 Act.0
-
Well yes, they could repeal the notification of withdrawal act, but that doesn't undo the invocation of A50.williamglenn said:
All things being equal... which in 2 years' time they won't be.RobD said:
HM would only appoint him if he could command a majority in the Commons. Parliament will have voted for the triggering of Article 50 which states that at the end of two years a country will leave the EU. I don't see how they can veto a deal, also veto no deal, and expect to stay in.williamglenn said:
Because Parliament is sovereign. They can fire Theresa May tomorrow and send Tim Farron in her place to Brussels if that's what they want.RobD said:
Given that Parliament will have voted on A50, I would have thought there would be less room for legal challenges. I can see why Parliament has to approve a deal, given it is effectively an international treaty, I can't see how they can reject a lack of a deal.kjohnw said:
and also why would ministers be in secret talks about this when they have already promised a final vote on the deal. no something has changed here the government is afraid of legal challenge so parliament will be given a veto on no deal tookjohnw said:
but according to this in the sun ministers will give parliament the right to say no the deal AND NO to no deal as well meaning we have to stay in or renegotiate or have i read it incorrectlyRobD said:
Or the government are thinking that Parliament would not reject their deal since it would be take it our leave it.kjohnw said:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2932204/ministers-to-give-parliament-to-get-brexit-veto/
so the climb down begins, the EU gives us a crap deal knowing parliament will veto it and then we can't go WTO because parliament will veto that too and net result we stay in EU . so why should EU give us a good deal knowing they can keep us in because parliament will veto the crap deal and wto? the great fudge to keep us in has begun0 -
To be fair, the people of Stoke have spent the last forty years of EU membership watching other parts of the UK evolve and thrive while their area has suffered as old local industries died out to be replaced with urban decay. It is no surprise that as with the Indy Ref in Scotland, areas like Stoke then voted most strongly for change.foxinsoxuk said:
To be fair, house prices in Stoke are some of the most affordable in England. Terraced houses start at £30 000 on Rightmove, and £50 000 will get a 3 bed semi. That is probably cheaper than their replacement costs to build.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:
He was suddenly tremendously concerned about urban regeneration, and Debbie Abrahams MP is a convert to a massive housebuilding programme (despite thousands of houses being demolished, instead of refurbished, in Stoke during the disgraceful 'Pathfinder' programme so beloved of the Labour Party).FrancisUrquhart said:
An Guardian journo on Newsnight...thats the law now right? Every segment on Newsnight must include a current or former Guardian journo.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:
Geoff Evans is from Stoke, he's a Professor at Oxford. Hugo, it transpires, is a Guardian journo.foxinsoxuk said:
He came from Stoke, just moved to Oxford later in life. At least I think that was his story. Part of the problem of Stoke is that the best prospects lie elsewhere, and people of ability do tendAramintaMoonbeamQC said:Someone called Hugo patronising the locals on Newsnight Stoke By Election special. I'm a Remainer, but this guy personifies the disconnect between metropolitan areas and towns/rural England.
I am sure she is right.
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/hugo-dixon
No wonder people are fed up of this crap.
House prices often give a pointer to economic prospects. No one could answer how Brexit would help Stoke, the closest response was a bloke who thought that part of our EU contributions could be used to fund Stoke, but even he had no suggestion on how that money would help.
The people wanted well paid manufacturing and graduate level jobs. I cannnot see how Brexit will help with those.0 -
Article 50 says:YellowSubmarine said:Presumably the Sun story is predicated on the " Three Knights " legal opinion commissioned by anti Brexit campaigners. Broadly the legal opinion argues that the A50 Bill in it's current form just authorised invocation not actual departure.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't comment on it's validity as an argument. However the internal logic of the opinion is interesting. It links the Supreme Court's upholding of Parliamentary Soveriegnty with the wording of A50's " constitutional requirements ".
Broadly it argues that unless there is an Act withdrawing us from the EU before the A50 two year window expires then the A50 notice it's self will lapse. This is because the A50 bill it's self says nothing about leaving the EU, the Supreme Court says an Act is needed and the Treaty refers to " constitutional requirements. "
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
The bill says:
"The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European
Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU."
That sounds like it satisfies the constitutional requirement.0 -
Wouldn't it ? That seems far from clear to me given the wording of both A50 it's self and the Supreme Court ruling. At the very least we'd need an ECJ ruling on Revocability.RobD said:
Well yes, they could repeal the notification of withdrawal act, but that doesn't undo the invocation of A50.williamglenn said:
All things being equal... which in 2 years' time they won't be.RobD said:
HM would only appoint him if he could command a majority in the Commons. Parliament will have voted for the triggering of Article 50 which states that at the end of two years a country will leave the EU. I don't see how they can veto a deal, also veto no deal, and expect to stay in.williamglenn said:
Because Parliament is sovereign. They can fire Theresa May tomorrow and send Tim Farron in her place to Brussels if that's what they want.RobD said:
Given that Parliament will have voted on A50, I would have thought there would be less room for legal challenges. I can see why Parliament has to approve a deal, given it is effectively an international treaty, I can't see how they can reject a lack of a deal.kjohnw said:
and also why would ministers be in secret talks about this when they have already promised a final vote on the deal. no something has changed here the government is afraid of legal challenge so parliament will be given a veto on no deal tookjohnw said:
but according to this in the sun ministers will give parliament the right to say no the deal AND NO to no deal as well meaning we have to stay in or renegotiate or have i read it incorrectlyRobD said:
Or the government are thinking that Parliament would not reject their deal since it would be take it our leave it.kjohnw said:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2932204/ministers-to-give-parliament-to-get-brexit-veto/
so the climb down begins, the EU gives us a crap deal knowing parliament will veto it and then we can't go WTO because parliament will veto that too and net result we stay in EU . so why should EU give us a good deal knowing they can keep us in because parliament will veto the crap deal and wto? the great fudge to keep us in has begun
And that's before we get to the fact the A50 period can be extended indefinitely by uninimity. If we decided not to leave after all we could just extend to the next Treaty revision and tidy everything up then.0 -
I don't think so, because it would have been a constitutionally valid declaration at the time. Repealing a law doesn't undo acts made under the provisions of that law.YellowSubmarine said:
Wouldn't it ? That seems far from clear to me given the wording of both A50 it's self and the Supreme Court ruling. At the very least we'd need an ECJ ruling on Revocability.RobD said:
Well yes, they could repeal the notification of withdrawal act, but that doesn't undo the invocation of A50.williamglenn said:
All things being equal... which in 2 years' time they won't be.RobD said:
HM would only appoint him if he could command a majority in the Commons. Parliament will have voted for the triggering of Article 50 which states that at the end of two years a country will leave the EU. I don't see how they can veto a deal, also veto no deal, and expect to stay in.williamglenn said:
Because Parliament is sovereign. They can fire Theresa May tomorrow and send Tim Farron in her place to Brussels if that's what they want.RobD said:
Given that Parliament will have voted on A50, I would have thought there would be less room for legal challenges. I can see why Parliament has to approve a deal, given it is effectively an international treaty, I can't see how they can reject a lack of a deal.kjohnw said:
and also why would ministers be in secret talks about this when they have already promised a final vote on the deal. no something has changed here the government is afraid of legal challenge so parliament will be given a veto on no deal tookjohnw said:
but according to this in the sun ministers will give parliament the right to say no the deal AND NO to no deal as well meaning we have to stay in or renegotiate or have i read it incorrectlyRobD said:
Or the government are thinking that Parliament would not reject their deal since it would be take it our leave it.kjohnw said:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2932204/ministers-to-give-parliament-to-get-brexit-veto/
so the climb down begins, the EU gives us a crap deal knowing parliament will veto it and then we can't go WTO because parliament will veto that too and net result we stay in EU . so why should EU give us a good deal knowing they can keep us in because parliament will veto the crap deal and wto? the great fudge to keep us in has begun
And that's before we get to the fact the A50 period can be extended indefinitely by uninimity. If we decided not to leave after all we could just extend to the next Treaty revision and tidy everything up then.0 -
No wonder voter apathy prevails in Stoke and other similar constituencies. Successful UK Governments have all failed to find the right targeted funding or infrastructure to finally reverse the situation and help encourage this much needed urban regenaration. It is interesting that George Osborne remains just as commited to creating a Northern Power House from the backbenches as he did while he was Chancellor.fitalass said:
To be fair, the people of Stoke have spent the last forty years of EU membership watching other parts of the UK evolve and thrive while their area has suffered as old local industries died out to be replaced with urban decay. It is no surprise that as with the Indy Ref in Scotland, areas like Stoke then voted most strongly for change.foxinsoxuk said:
To be fair, house prices in Stoke are some of the most affordable in England. Terraced houses start at £30 000 on Rightmove, and £50 000 will get a 3 bed semi. That is probably cheaper than their replacement costs to build.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:
He was suddenly tremendously concerned about urban regeneration, and Debbie Abrahams MP is a convert to a massive housebuilding programme (despite thousands of houses being demolished, instead of refurbished, in Stoke during the disgraceful 'Pathfinder' programme so beloved of the Labour Party).FrancisUrquhart said:
An Guardian journo on Newsnight...thats the law now right? Every segment on Newsnight must include a current or former Guardian journo.AramintaMoonbeamQC said:
Geoff Evans is from Stoke, he's a Professor at Oxford. Hugo, it transpires, is a Guardian journo.foxinsoxuk said:
He came from Stoke, just moved to Oxford later in life. At least I think that was his story. Part of the problem of Stoke is that the best prospects lie elsewhere, and people of ability do tendAramintaMoonbeamQC said:Someone called Hugo patronising the locals on Newsnight Stoke By Election special. I'm a Remainer, but this guy personifies the disconnect between metropolitan areas and towns/rural England.
I am sure she is right.
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/hugo-dixon
No wonder people are fed up of this crap.
House prices often give a pointer to economic prospects. No one could answer how Brexit would help Stoke, the closest response was a bloke who thought that part of our EU contributions could be used to fund Stoke, but even he had no suggestion on how that money would help.
The people wanted well paid manufacturing and graduate level jobs. I cannnot see how Brexit will help with those.0 -
@RobD I'm not a lawyer. But having read both the ' Three Knights ' opinion and the Supreme Court ruling in full I can see where they are coming from logically. In the end a court would have to rule on it's legal validity. Conspiracy theorists will note the government's use of the word " intention ". It's almost as if they want to keep avenues for legal challenge open.
0 -
A legal challenge on the definition of the word 'intention' would be ridiculous.YellowSubmarine said:@RobD I'm not a lawyer. But having read both the ' Three Knights ' opinion and the Supreme Court ruling in full I can see where they are coming from logically. In the end a court would have to rule on it's legal validity. Conspiracy theorists will note the government's use of the word " intention ". It's almost as if they want to keep avenues for legal challenge open.
0 -
@RobD Again I'm not a lawyer but you don't need to be to know that's not true. The UK Parliament s Soveriegn. It can act retroactively , legislative time travel, if it wishes. It did so quite recently under the Coalition to reverse a Court Ruling on benefit sanctions. To prevent some JSA claimants it had unlawfully sanctioned back payments it passed an Act of Parliament *retroactively* changing the law.
And that's legal because in the UK the Queen in Parliament is Soveriegn.0 -
Yes, but it can't make the EU Council come along for the ride.YellowSubmarine said:@RobD Again I'm not a lawyer but you don't need to be to know that's not true. The UK Parliament s Soveriegn. It can act retroactively , legislative time travel, if it wishes. It did so quite recently under the Coalition to reverse a Court Ruling on benefit sanctions. To prevent some JSA claimants it had unlawfully sanctioned back payments it passed an Act of Parliament *retroactively* changing the law.
And that's legal because in the UK the Queen in Parliament is Soveriegn.0 -
@RobD No it wouldn't. The A50 notice was issued by one PM. Now another PM has changed his or her mind. Can the UK government do that ? That's one of the two legal questions we are up against here. And no court anywhere has ruled on it. So we don't know.0
-
The 'Three Knights' argument is that the EU couldn't terminate the membership of a member state that had changed its mind, even if Article 50 had been served and that therefore if any of the legislation needed to facilitate Brexit fails to pass, then we must remain.RobD said:I don't think so, because it would have been a constitutionally valid declaration at the time. Repealing a law doesn't undo acts made under the provisions of that law.
it would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles and aims of the European Union for a Member State to be expelled against its will (at least in the absence of some gross violation of the European Union’s fundamental norms). Where a Member State has legitimately reconsidered its decision to withdraw, its forced expulsion would be contrary, at least, to the principle of solidarity and the fundamental European Union citizenship rights and status of nationals of that Member State who, until departure of the Member State, are also citizens of the European Union.
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/02/17/the-three-knights-opinion-on-brexit-a-response/0 -
If Brexit ultimately goes ahead then I'm a Chinaman.0
-
Then that would be up the the EU, since we would have already given a constitutionally valid notice of withdrawal.YellowSubmarine said:@RobD No it wouldn't. The A50 notice was issued by one PM. Now another PM has changed his or her mind. Can the UK government do that ? That's one of the two legal questions we are up against here. And no court anywhere has ruled on it. So we don't know.
0 -
But yet that is what A50 states.williamglenn said:
The 'Three Knights' argument is that the EU couldn't terminate the membership of a member state that had changed its mind, even if Article 50 had been served and that therefore if any of the legislation needed to facilitate Brexit fails to pass, then we must remain.RobD said:I don't think so, because it would have been a constitutionally valid declaration at the time. Repealing a law doesn't undo acts made under the provisions of that law.
it would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles and aims of the European Union for a Member State to be expelled against its will (at least in the absence of some gross violation of the European Union’s fundamental norms). Where a Member State has legitimately reconsidered its decision to withdraw, its forced expulsion would be contrary, at least, to the principle of solidarity and the fundamental European Union citizenship rights and status of nationals of that Member State who, until departure of the Member State, are also citizens of the European Union.
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/02/17/the-three-knights-opinion-on-brexit-a-response/0 -
@RobD Yes it can if the ECJ plays ball. A50 refers to a member state's " constitutional requirements ". So if the UK Supreme Court rules that something is or isn't a valid withdrawal and the UK Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament is Soveriegn.....0
-
But it would have been valid at the time. The UK parliament can time travel all it wants, that doesn't mean it has any power over external bodies.YellowSubmarine said:@RobD Yes it can if the ECJ plays ball. A50 refers to a member state's " constitutional requirements ". So if the UK Supreme Court rules that something is or isn't a valid withdrawal and the UK Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament is Soveriegn.....
Edit: we are not talking about the Supreme Court overturning something (that I accept would lead to the reversal), we are talking about an Act repealing the Notification of Withdrawal Act.0 -
The constitutional requirements of the UK are that any change in law requires primary legislation, and that therefore Brexit can only legally happen once the negotiated terms of Brexit are known and can be voted on by Parliament. Absent this approval by Parliament it would be against the constitution of the United Kingdom for it to cease to be a member of the EU, regardless of any prior notification.RobD said:
But yet that is what A50 states.williamglenn said:
The 'Three Knights' argument is that the EU couldn't terminate the membership of a member state that had changed its mind, even if Article 50 had been served and that therefore if any of the legislation needed to facilitate Brexit fails to pass, then we must remain.RobD said:I don't think so, because it would have been a constitutionally valid declaration at the time. Repealing a law doesn't undo acts made under the provisions of that law.
it would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles and aims of the European Union for a Member State to be expelled against its will (at least in the absence of some gross violation of the European Union’s fundamental norms). Where a Member State has legitimately reconsidered its decision to withdraw, its forced expulsion would be contrary, at least, to the principle of solidarity and the fundamental European Union citizenship rights and status of nationals of that Member State who, until departure of the Member State, are also citizens of the European Union.
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/02/17/the-three-knights-opinion-on-brexit-a-response/0 -
Then a constitutionally valid notification cannot be given before said vote, and we can't negotiate until we have given a constitutionally valid notification. Chicken and egg problem?williamglenn said:
The constitutional requirements of the UK are that any change in law requires primary legislation, and that therefore Brexit can only legally happen once the negotiated terms of Brexit are known and can be voted on by Parliament. Absent this approval by Parliament it would be against the constitution of the United Kingdom for it to cease to be a member of the EU, regardless of any prior notification.RobD said:
But yet that is what A50 states.williamglenn said:
The 'Three Knights' argument is that the EU couldn't terminate the membership of a member state that had changed its mind, even if Article 50 had been served and that therefore if any of the legislation needed to facilitate Brexit fails to pass, then we must remain.RobD said:I don't think so, because it would have been a constitutionally valid declaration at the time. Repealing a law doesn't undo acts made under the provisions of that law.
it would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles and aims of the European Union for a Member State to be expelled against its will (at least in the absence of some gross violation of the European Union’s fundamental norms). Where a Member State has legitimately reconsidered its decision to withdraw, its forced expulsion would be contrary, at least, to the principle of solidarity and the fundamental European Union citizenship rights and status of nationals of that Member State who, until departure of the Member State, are also citizens of the European Union.
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/02/17/the-three-knights-opinion-on-brexit-a-response/0 -
If notification is conditional, then it can be given. If not then it cannot.RobD said:
Then a constitutionally valid notification cannot be given before said vote, and we can't negotiate until we have given a constitutionally valid notification. Chicken and egg problem?williamglenn said:
The constitutional requirements of the UK are that any change in law requires primary legislation, and that therefore Brexit can only legally happen once the negotiated terms of Brexit are known and can be voted on by Parliament. Absent this approval by Parliament it would be against the constitution of the United Kingdom for it to cease to be a member of the EU, regardless of any prior notification.RobD said:
But yet that is what A50 states.williamglenn said:
The 'Three Knights' argument is that the EU couldn't terminate the membership of a member state that had changed its mind, even if Article 50 had been served and that therefore if any of the legislation needed to facilitate Brexit fails to pass, then we must remain.RobD said:I don't think so, because it would have been a constitutionally valid declaration at the time. Repealing a law doesn't undo acts made under the provisions of that law.
it would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles and aims of the European Union for a Member State to be expelled against its will (at least in the absence of some gross violation of the European Union’s fundamental norms). Where a Member State has legitimately reconsidered its decision to withdraw, its forced expulsion would be contrary, at least, to the principle of solidarity and the fundamental European Union citizenship rights and status of nationals of that Member State who, until departure of the Member State, are also citizens of the European Union.
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/02/17/the-three-knights-opinion-on-brexit-a-response/0 -
But you just said the constitutional requirement is that the negotiated terms are voted on in Parliament. Conditional or not, it has to be constitutionally valid.williamglenn said:
If notification is conditional, then it can be given. If not then it cannot.RobD said:
Then a constitutionally valid notification cannot be given before said vote, and we can't negotiate until we have given a constitutionally valid notification. Chicken and egg problem?williamglenn said:
The constitutional requirements of the UK are that any change in law requires primary legislation, and that therefore Brexit can only legally happen once the negotiated terms of Brexit are known and can be voted on by Parliament. Absent this approval by Parliament it would be against the constitution of the United Kingdom for it to cease to be a member of the EU, regardless of any prior notification.RobD said:
But yet that is what A50 states.williamglenn said:
The 'Three Knights' argument is that the EU couldn't terminate the membership of a member state that had changed its mind, even if Article 50 had been served and that therefore if any of the legislation needed to facilitate Brexit fails to pass, then we must remain.RobD said:I don't think so, because it would have been a constitutionally valid declaration at the time. Repealing a law doesn't undo acts made under the provisions of that law.
it would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles and aims of the European Union for a Member State to be expelled against its will (at least in the absence of some gross violation of the European Union’s fundamental norms). Where a Member State has legitimately reconsidered its decision to withdraw, its forced expulsion would be contrary, at least, to the principle of solidarity and the fundamental European Union citizenship rights and status of nationals of that Member State who, until departure of the Member State, are also citizens of the European Union.
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/02/17/the-three-knights-opinion-on-brexit-a-response/
Note that the constitutional requirement only refers to the intention to leave, not the act of leaving.0 -
Doesn't it bother the French voters that so many of their politicians from the main parties have tended to end up becoming in embroiled in financial scandals of some sort when they become Presidential candidates in recent years?!Chris_from_Paris said:
Macron has pushed back his budgetary Framework announcement to the end of next week.Cyan said:
Wasn't Macron supposed to reveal his budgetary framework today?Chris_from_Paris said:O/T France - The Bayrou impact
Strong moves on Betfair following Bayrou'announcement that he will not run and that he will support Macron.
Macron is again favorite at 2.67 (3.3 yesterday).
Fillon is now 3.3 (3.05 yesterday) and Le Pen is at 3.7 (3.5 yesterday).
The move seems logical but it might be an over-reaction. The polling with or without Bayrou done in the last week gave pretty similar trends (Fillon 3 points clear of Macronfor Elabe, Macron and Fillon tied for Ifop). The Rolling Opinionway poll without Bayrou gave Macron a 1 point lead yesterday.
The question now is to see if Bayrou's official support creates a real movement in the polls. We will probably have to wait a few days to see the long-term impact. At the moment, I would guess it may not be a massive boost for Macron but it is a good opportunity for him to stop his slide and the narrative that his campaign is in trouble.
I despise Le Pen's programme, but the "I'm not wearing a headscarf for no Mufti" stroke she pulled in the Lebanon was masterful.
She would also probably chew Macron's nuts off in any televised debate.
Le Pen's incident in Lebanon was quite obviously staged but went down well. The fact that her chief of staff was arrested and indicted yesterday, less so.
Still, the press is not pushing her that much on her Financial scandals. They have apparently decided that the public does not care about scandals when it's about le pen.
I agree that she would destroy Macron in a debate.0 -
I think the opinion also rests on a reading of EU law that says that a member state cannot be expelled against its will, despite what Article 50 says. Lord Kerr was certainly of the opinion that notification is unilaterally revocable.RobD said:
But you just said the constitutional requirement is that the negotiated terms are voted on in Parliament. Conditional or not, it has to be constitutionally valid.williamglenn said:
If notification is conditional, then it can be given. If not then it cannot.RobD said:
Then a constitutionally valid notification cannot be given before said vote, and we can't negotiate until we have given a constitutionally valid notification. Chicken and egg problem?williamglenn said:
The constitutional requirements of the UK are that any change in law requires primary legislation, and that therefore Brexit can only legally happen once the negotiated terms of Brexit are known and can be voted on by Parliament. Absent this approval by Parliament it would be against the constitution of the United Kingdom for it to cease to be a member of the EU, regardless of any prior notification.RobD said:
But yet that is what A50 states.williamglenn said:
The 'Three Knights' argument is that the EU couldn't terminate the membership of a member state that had changed its mind, even if Article 50 had been served and that therefore if any of the legislation needed to facilitate Brexit fails to pass, then we must remain.RobD said:I don't think so, because it would have been a constitutionally valid declaration at the time. Repealing a law doesn't undo acts made under the provisions of that law.
it would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles and aims of the European Union for a Member State to be expelled against its will (at least in the absence of some gross violation of the European Union’s fundamental norms). Where a Member State has legitimately reconsidered its decision to withdraw, its forced expulsion would be contrary, at least, to the principle of solidarity and the fundamental European Union citizenship rights and status of nationals of that Member State who, until departure of the Member State, are also citizens of the European Union.
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/02/17/the-three-knights-opinion-on-brexit-a-response/
Note that the constitutional requirement only refers to the intention to leave, not the act of leaving.
(O/T. The advert at the top of the thread that automatically rescrolls the page is sooo annoying!)0 -
I don't know what the the French is for "the Three Knights can go fuck themselves", but I suspect if they tried that argument they'd find out.williamglenn said:
The 'Three Knights' argument is that the EU couldn't terminate the membership of a member state that had changed its mind, even if Article 50 had been served and that therefore if any of the legislation needed to facilitate Brexit fails to pass, then we must remain.RobD said:I don't think so, because it would have been a constitutionally valid declaration at the time. Repealing a law doesn't undo acts made under the provisions of that law.
it would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles and aims of the European Union for a Member State to be expelled against its will (at least in the absence of some gross violation of the European Union’s fundamental norms). Where a Member State has legitimately reconsidered its decision to withdraw, its forced expulsion would be contrary, at least, to the principle of solidarity and the fundamental European Union citizenship rights and status of nationals of that Member State who, until departure of the Member State, are also citizens of the European Union.
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/02/17/the-three-knights-opinion-on-brexit-a-response/
I think it's fair to say that if a country is behaving like an eight year old, something has gone wrong. Are they seriously suggesting we give notice with our fingers crossed, so we can go "Nah! Nah! Didn't mean it! I had my fingers crossed, yeah?" if we think our Mum will find out?0 -
@RobD But if Parliament legislated retroactively then it wouldn't have been valid at the time. See the Benefits Sanction example. The strange wording of A50 rooting authority in a state's " Constitutional Requirements " is vague at best. All the vaguer in the UK's case where we have an uncodified constitution.
So we are no further forward. In our " constitutional requirements " we can repeal the A50 Act more so we can bizzarely repeal in such a way as to mean it never held the force of law at all even when it did.
0 -
I think the issue of EU citizens' rights, including UK citizens, is why the discussion around acquired rights is much more complicated than is portrayed by most Brexiteers.viewcode said:
I don't know what the the French is for "the Three Knights can go fuck themselves", but I suspect if they tried that argument they'd find out.williamglenn said:
The 'Three Knights' argument is that the EU couldn't terminate the membership of a member state that had changed its mind, even if Article 50 had been served and that therefore if any of the legislation needed to facilitate Brexit fails to pass, then we must remain.RobD said:I don't think so, because it would have been a constitutionally valid declaration at the time. Repealing a law doesn't undo acts made under the provisions of that law.
it would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles and aims of the European Union for a Member State to be expelled against its will (at least in the absence of some gross violation of the European Union’s fundamental norms). Where a Member State has legitimately reconsidered its decision to withdraw, its forced expulsion would be contrary, at least, to the principle of solidarity and the fundamental European Union citizenship rights and status of nationals of that Member State who, until departure of the Member State, are also citizens of the European Union.
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/02/17/the-three-knights-opinion-on-brexit-a-response/
I think it's fair to say that if a country is behaving like an eight year old, something has gone wrong. Are they seriously suggesting we give notice with our fingers crossed, so we can go "Nah! Nah! Didn't mean it! I had my fingers crossed, yeah?" if we think our Mum will find out?0 -
The benefits sanction was entirely internal to the UK. To use an extremely simplistic analogy, if we repealed the Statute of Westminster 1931 I'm sure the Australians would tell us to do one.YellowSubmarine said:@RobD But if Parliament legislated retroactively then it wouldn't have been valid at the time. See the Benefits Sanction example. The strange wording of A50 rooting authority in a state's " Constitutional Requirements " is vague at best. All the vaguer in the UK's case where we have an uncodified constitution.
So we are no further forward. In our " constitutional requirements " we can repeal the A50 Act more so we can bizzarely repeal in such a way as to mean it never held the force of law at all even when it did.0
