politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Len McCluskey thinks LAB could be in government after GE2020 –

Tissue_Price said:

40/1 Melenchon to win the first round @ Betfair Sportsbook. You could arb it with the 23.0 to lay @ Betfair Exchange. #headdesk

Merci beaucoup, Monsieur

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

What referendum about PR was that?

Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.

That was a one-off. All previous changes in the voting system have been by decision of Parliament.
We didn’t, for example, have a referendum to lower the voting age, do away with two member and University seats, allow women to vote (twice), introduce the secret ballot and so on.

I think all of those were done under FPTP (although maybe the university seats used a form of PR)?

kle4 said:

RobD said:

kle4 said:

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.



?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

What referendum about PR was that?

Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.

Established a precedent how? There's now law that such a change must be in a referendum, and parliaments do not bind their successors.

It may be that it is a good idea, and that it would and should be criticised if done otherwise, but particularly if it was a commitment of one party, as a red line in a negotiation, and the senior partner knowing that decided it was a price worth paying to get their commitments through, well that seems like standard political horse trading.

Not a legal precedent, but a political one. For example, it'd be very hard to argue for changes in the franchise or adding turnout requirements for any future indy ref.

That's true, unfortunately, though I think it would be easier to make the argument re changing the voting system generally. It could be Labour and LDs for instance both support it, in which case if they together form a majority in the house by the logic of those who oppose PR they have the right to implement that change even if together they have less than 50% of the vote. Sure, they might take some stick for that, but not so much it would ut them off necessarily.

One ‘mistake’ Blair made was not to face down Prescott over implementing the Jenkins proposals!

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.

To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.

Where are these going to come from?

Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.

30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.

The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.

And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).

What referendum about PR was that?

Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.

That was a one-off. All previous changes in the voting system have been by decision of Parliament.
We didn’t, for example, have a referendum to lower the voting age, do away with two member and University seats, allow women to vote (twice), introduce the secret ballot and so on.

I think all of those were done under FPTP (although maybe the university seats used a form of PR)?

All the decisions were taken by Parliaments elected by FPTP. Not referenda

Sandpit said:

Tissue_Price said:

40/1 Melenchon to win the first round @ Betfair Sportsbook. You could arb it with the 23.0 to lay @ Betfair Exchange. #headdesk

Merci beaucoup, Monsieur

Now slashed to 10-1! The power of PB.

SeanT said:

But this is interesting, and ominous

twitter.com/valeria_wants/status/851427991389425664


Similar to the portents before Brexit and Trump.

It's a curious phenomenon: "France's mass unemployment problem came up again and again as a key source of worry & anger at the political class"

So, the answer to the problem of high unemployment in France is to vote for policies guaranteed to make the problem worse. They haven't even got the excuse of it being unclear what works - they only need to look across the Channel at the UK's labour market.

Casino_Royale said:

Regarding a betting strategy for the next GE, I will wait until the outcome of the parliamentary vote on the boundary review in 2018, and until the shape of the Brexit deal becomes clear in late 2018 and early 2019, before fully committing myself. The former matters for the maths, the latter for the political reaction.

If Corbyn is still there at T-12 months to GE2020 I'll take that as a sign Labour have run out of time to claw back their position too, even if they do chuck him in the final months.

However, I expect Tories most seats to be a steal and might start backing that even earlier.

I was looking at that too. It's currently 1.29 on Betfair, which seems like free money at this point. Even more so if the boundaries go through. Four figures available on it too.

Casino_Royale said:

Regarding a betting strategy for the next GE, I will wait until the outcome of the parliamentary vote on the boundary review in 2018, and until the shape of the Brexit deal becomes clear in late 2018 and early 2019, before fully committing myself. The former matters for the maths, the latter for the political reaction.

If Corbyn is still there at T-12 months to GE2020 I'll take that as a sign Labour have run out of time to claw back their position too, even if they do chuck him in the final months.

However, I expect Tories most seats to be a steal and might start backing that even earlier.

I was just looking at that one, Tories are 1.29 on Betfair, with four figures available. With what we know now that's huge value, better than a savings account. If the new boundaries go through then doubly so.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.119040697

Richard_Nabavi said:

JackW said:

Some months back Mrs JackW was transported in a Bentley Bentayga with an interior, she informed me, that matched several outfits. I fear she wasn't entirely being frivolous.

Count yourself lucky that she didn't conclude that it didn't match any of her outfits so she'd need an entire new wardrobe.

The thought had crossed my mind Nabbers but firmly went no further !!

madasafish said:

Well I have come late to the party.
As I read it, Don expects to achieve Government by having an electable leader.

Trouble is : the members who vote for the leader want a left wing leader who is politically pure.

So is Don proposing to change the memberships' opinions? Or hope they all leave?

I think people slightly (although only slightly) underestimate Labour members.

From what I've seen, a proportion either don't care about winning or are delusional "Canary" readers who believe that the polls (and by-elections) are rigged by Rupert Murdoch, the BBC, and Big Pharma.

There are more of these than sane Labour members would like, but they are not even close to a majority, let alone the Corbyn super-majority from 2016.

About 30% are die-hard anti-Corbyn. Remember, about 40% went for Owen Smith in 2016 - a nobody who was beaten by Corbyn in every debate, and who in all honesty had zero chance of winning a General Election either.

There's a big chunk of swing voters in the middle. They like Corbyn personally, see him as honest (wrongly in my view but there we are), feel he ought to be given more of a chance, hope he may grow on people etc. BUT... they do genuinely want to be in Government in 2020, they increasingly appreciate that it isn't ALL the fault of MPs and the media that Corbyn hasn't broken through, they felt let down over Corbyn's stance on the Brexit Bill, they like their councillor and MP and don't want them to lose, etc.

So it's a tough proposition for anti-Corbyn Labour people, but not totally hopeless.

Just what we need....

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/extremist-leads-muslim-lobby-group-7q2hg30zc

SeanT said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SeanT said:

But this is interesting, and ominous

twitter.com/valeria_wants/status/851427991389425664


Similar to the portents before Brexit and Trump.

It's a curious phenomenon: "France's mass unemployment problem came up again and again as a key source of worry & anger at the political class"

So, the answer to the problem of high unemployment in France is to vote for policies guaranteed to make the problem worse. They haven't even got the excuse of it being unclear what works - they only need to look across the Channel at the UK's labour market.

And the one single candidate who might possibly do something about it - Fillon - is the one who is slumping.

That said, there is an argument for voting either Melenchon or Le Pen, just to give such a shock to the system that, in the end, France HAS to reform, or collapse entirely. So maybe these voters aren't so dim after all.

A bit like how voting Labour in 1974 made Thatcher possible?

In this case I think it would be a mistake on the voters' part to go for a Melenchon or a Le Pen.

Richard_Nabavi said:

SeanT said:

But this is interesting, and ominous

twitter.com/valeria_wants/status/851427991389425664


Similar to the portents before Brexit and Trump.

It's a curious phenomenon: "France's mass unemployment problem came up again and again as a key source of worry & anger at the political class"

So, the answer to the problem of high unemployment in France is to vote for policies guaranteed to make the problem worse. They haven't even got the excuse of it being unclear what works - they only need to look across the Channel at the UK's labour market.

You only have to look at the public reaction to hollande's attempt at was really minor labour reforms. To a British person nothing he proposed seemed in any way controversial, but the French went nuts.

How dare a company have any say over who should continue working for them!

Off topic: Just had a look at population estimates for 2100, Lagos city planners don't have a particularly easy task on their hands...

Francois Fillon is drifting out. He's last matched at 6.6 and there isn't much support for him above that price either.

AlastairMeeks said:

Francois Fillon is drifting out. He's last matched at 6.6 and there isn't much support for him above that price either.

Nice to know I'm making those virtual bucks.

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Francois Fillon is drifting out. He's last matched at 6.6 and there isn't much support for him above that price either.

Nice to know I'm making those virtual bucks.

I can't understand his price. To justify it, you have to believe that either:

1) the polling is wrong and that it's wrong in Francois Fillon's favour (there seems minimal evidence of that); or

2) there will be a late swing and it will be a swing in his favour (at present his polling figures seem to be at best static); or

3) a combination of the above.

And that's just round one.

I can see a route to victory for him, but it's not a 6/1 shot.

I have had an idea

High St Banks are closing down faster than you can say "charidee shop". But a lot of people like being able to go into a branch and speak to someone rather than be left hanging on the telephone.

Why don't several banks get together and have one shop with a window for each, or more if need be? Or why doesn't someone buy a shop and lease windows to banks? A bit like an airport/bureau de change set up?

Richard_Nabavi said:

SeanT said:

But this is interesting, and ominous

twitter.com/valeria_wants/status/851427991389425664


Similar to the portents before Brexit and Trump.

It's a curious phenomenon: "France's mass unemployment problem came up again and again as a key source of worry & anger at the political class"

So, the answer to the problem of high unemployment in France is to vote for policies guaranteed to make the problem worse. They haven't even got the excuse of it being unclear what works - they only need to look across the Channel at the UK's labour market.

There are plenty of people who'd prefer French labour markets to our own, even when it does result in higher unemployment.

SeanT said:

I can't see Macron being much more effective than Hollande. Possibly he'll be less effective, as he's even more the banker-ENA type who benefits from the French status quo.

I think that's a bit unfair on him, he seems to be pragmatic and sensible enough, and as Hollande's economy minister he tried to do something. Still, it's hard to see him being in a position to do anything even vaguely radical. He might not be able to do much at all; a huge amount would depend on (a) whether he could muster any majority in the Assembly, and (b) if he could, which parties he had to rely on to get it.

OldKingCole said:

You started off, IIRC, with the old Tory canard that the 2010 referendum had been about PR, and that that had set the bench mark for all changes in voting system to require a referendum. I pointed out that there had been many changes in the past which were passed by Act of Parliament without reference to a referendum.
My point is, and remains that only on one occasion in our history have we put a change in the way Parliament is elected to a referendum, and there is no constitutional requirment for one. That we did so once isn’t binding.

I know it wasn't about PR last time, but it was a referendum to change the voting system, which is what we were talking about! And yes, it is not binding. My point is it will be more difficult to argue that a referendum is not required this time, especially if the reason for not holding one is that they think they will lose it.

And to be pedantic none of your examples were actual changes to the voting system (i.e. FPTP, AV, STV...)

isam said:

I have had an idea

High St Banks are closing down faster than you can say "charidee shop". But a lot of people like being able to go into a branch and speak to someone rather than be left hanging on the telephone.

Why don't several banks get together and have one shop with a window for each, or more if need be? Or why doesn't someone but a shop and lease windows to banks? A bit like an airport/bureau de change set up?

Not a bad idea, but the answer to why it's not happened is probably due to branding and marketing. The services they'd want to offer are those done by trained sales staff in larger branches (loans, credit cards, small business services etc.), a human teller is just a cost to the bank.

Some banks are I believe experimenting with smaller branches in city centres. (Can't find link on mobile).

SeanT said:

Factoid: if Macron wins the presidency that will mean four of the last six French presidents will have been products of the ENA.

The ENA graduates 80 to 90 people a year.

The equivalent in the UK would be four of the last six prime ministers being schooled in the same House at Eton College

That's not really a direct equivalent in that entry to the ENA is via a highly competitive public examination whereas, whilst Eton has an entrance exam, it's to choose from amongst the tiny minority with the means to attend if they pass the exam.

The purpose of the ENA is also explicitly to churn out very senior public officials, whereas Eton may in fact educate some senior politicians but would also say it's aiming to produce brilliant scientists, surgeons, lawyers, generals etc.

So you would expect the ENA, as an elite institution which takes in only the very best and intends to turn them (almost exclusively) into senior public officials, to educate a disproportionate number of senior public officials.

You'd expect Eton - as an academically excellent school with an intake with many advantages in life - to turn out some, but not as many.

williamglenn said:

Life working for a big French corporation really can be like being in a functional version of the Soviet Union. The word sclerotic is overused but it applies perfectly to too much of France.

Whilst I expect that's particularly true of France, it's often been pointed out that large corporations the world over are like tiny (or sometimes not so tiny) command economies.

Some try to do things like setting up internal markets (so you bid for the services of competing teams within the company or whatever) but these have a mixed record of success, and basically the liberal free market remains what happens between corporations rather than within them.

https://twitter.com/russianembassy/status/851374020721348608

Monksfield said:

I don't see LibDems as that likely to get involved in any coalitions in the near term. With either Labour or Tories. The only exception I would see as worthwhile would be on the basis of an agreement to progress electoral reform. No bullshit referenda, a straight agreement involving support in exchange for Lords Reform and the introduction of PR.

I stand to be corrected, but think Farron has explicitly ruled out a deal with a Corbyn led Labour Party.

So even if the Tories were to lose a number of seats to the Lib Dems, it doesn't really get Corbyn much closer to power (it's just possible Farron's troops may abstain on a Queen's Speech and go confidence and supply, but it's not really viable long term and I struggle to see Corbyn as the sort of master deal-maker to pull off that sort of arrangement).

In reality, I suspect Labour sticking with Corbyn will kill the Lib Dem challenge in a lot of places. The Tory leaflets write themselves in leafy shire seats - a sinister pic of Corbyn and the words "DON'T RISK IT" repeated in 100 different ways. Very hard to combat, however much Farron says "we won't do a deal".

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

You started off, IIRC, with the old Tory canard that the 2010 referendum had been about PR, and that that had set the bench mark for all changes in voting system to require a referendum. I pointed out that there had been many changes in the past which were passed by Act of Parliament without reference to a referendum.
My point is, and remains that only on one occasion in our history have we put a change in the way Parliament is elected to a referendum, and there is no constitutional requirment for one. That we did so once isn’t binding.

I know it wasn't about PR last time, but it was a referendum to change the voting system, which is what we were talking about! And yes, it is not binding. My point is it will be more difficult to argue that a referendum is not required this time, especially if the reason for not holding one is that they think they will lose it.

And to be pedantic none of your examples were actual changes to the voting system (i.e. FPTP, AV, STV...)

Its all academic in the (hypothetical and relatively unlikely) circumstances being envisaged - the politicians with the majority won't want a referendum, the large mass of disinterested public won't want anothet referendum, and as OldKing rightly says, there isn't any requirement for one. The only people arguing otherwise will be the Tories - who in the scenario will be in the same position and with the same credibility as Gordon Brown in 2010 - and a few diehard opponents of reform. All of whom will be ignored.

Afternoon all

I learnt a long time ago never to assume anything in politics except that if everyone says something can't happen it will at some point.

I firmly believe one day a Conservative Prime Minister will take us back into the European Union and into the Euro - when, I don't know, but I think it will happen.

What then of a non-Conservative Government after 2020? Assuming the maths work (and that's a huge if), what will happen after a decade of Conservative rule?

IndyRef2, STV without a referendum, a renegotiation of the A50 Treaty ?

What would the Conservatives offer to stay in power?

How times change.. less than a decade a go, a woman commentating on a mans game would have seemed very strange.. I still haven't really got used to female comm on MOTD, but Australia's Mel Jones cricket commentary seems very natural on the IPL. The best female sports comm for mine

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

More Fake News...

Spanish police have arrested a Russian programmer for alleged involvement in "hacking" the US election

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39553250

Nobody serious is claiming that Russia hacked the US election...no voter machines were tampered with, no voter registration lists purged etc....Its like Phone Hacking, what the media bang on about wasn't phone hacking...there was proper phone and computer hacking, but only the Indy covered it and it wasn't to see which Z-Listers were shagging each other.

The hacking was primarily the DNC emails. Heaven forbid the public see what the campaign gets up to behind closed doors!

If they hadn't been doing anything wrong, there wouldn't have been anything to 'hack'.

calum said:

Some good news for Corbyn - he's ahead of Boris in Scotland !!

twitter.com/ChristainWright/status/851437022161944576

He was so excited he tweeted it four times!

williamglenn said:

Angela Merkel more popular than the UK PM in Scotland.

I'm shocked!

logical_song said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

More Fake News...

Spanish police have arrested a Russian programmer for alleged involvement in "hacking" the US election

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39553250

Nobody serious is claiming that Russia hacked the US election...no voter machines were tampered with, no voter registration lists purged etc....Its like Phone Hacking, what the media bang on about wasn't phone hacking...there was proper phone and computer hacking, but only the Indy covered it and it wasn't to see which Z-Listers were shagging each other.

The hacking was primarily the DNC emails. Heaven forbid the public see what the campaign gets up to behind closed doors!

Unplanned transparency for only the Democrats, but not the Republicans.

I believe the RNC was also targeted, but they only got into the DNC servers because of an extremely unfortunate autocorrect in a text concerning a phishing email. In any case, I suspect both sides have made changes to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen again!

MarkHopkins said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

More Fake News...

Spanish police have arrested a Russian programmer for alleged involvement in "hacking" the US election

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39553250

Nobody serious is claiming that Russia hacked the US election...no voter machines were tampered with, no voter registration lists purged etc....Its like Phone Hacking, what the media bang on about wasn't phone hacking...there was proper phone and computer hacking, but only the Indy covered it and it wasn't to see which Z-Listers were shagging each other.

The hacking was primarily the DNC emails. Heaven forbid the public see what the campaign gets up to behind closed doors!

If they hadn't been doing anything wrong, there wouldn't have been anything to 'hack'.

Is that why the Republicans weren't hacked?

logical_song said:

MarkHopkins said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

More Fake News...

Spanish police have arrested a Russian programmer for alleged involvement in "hacking" the US election

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39553250

Nobody serious is claiming that Russia hacked the US election...no voter machines were tampered with, no voter registration lists purged etc....Its like Phone Hacking, what the media bang on about wasn't phone hacking...there was proper phone and computer hacking, but only the Indy covered it and it wasn't to see which Z-Listers were shagging each other.

The hacking was primarily the DNC emails. Heaven forbid the public see what the campaign gets up to behind closed doors!

If they hadn't been doing anything wrong, there wouldn't have been anything to 'hack'.

Is that why the Republicans weren't hacked?

There were some GOP emails, e.g. - http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/291317-gop-emails-leaked-on-site-connected-to-russian-hackers

logical_song said:

MarkHopkins said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

More Fake News...

Spanish police have arrested a Russian programmer for alleged involvement in "hacking" the US election

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39553250

Nobody serious is claiming that Russia hacked the US election...no voter machines were tampered with, no voter registration lists purged etc....Its like Phone Hacking, what the media bang on about wasn't phone hacking...there was proper phone and computer hacking, but only the Indy covered it and it wasn't to see which Z-Listers were shagging each other.

The hacking was primarily the DNC emails. Heaven forbid the public see what the campaign gets up to behind closed doors!

If they hadn't been doing anything wrong, there wouldn't have been anything to 'hack'.

Is that why the Republicans weren't hacked?

No, the Republicans weren't hacked because Trump promised Russia that he wouldn't bomb Syria if....

Oh wait, never mind.

Fake fur turns out to be real.

Maybe fake news will turn out to be real.

MarkHopkins said:

No, the Republicans weren't hacked because Trump promised Russia that he wouldn't bomb Syria if....

Oh wait, never mind.

The GOP were not hacked because The Dear Leader Nuttall told Putin not to.

Mr. Sandpit, that's one better than me.

I don't think Red Bull will win in Bahrain, but I do think if they can develop well that their excellent driver pairing could stand a chance against the number one/second driver situation at Mercedes and Ferrari.

It's a shame there wasn't more rain in China. I doubt the Hulkenberg top 6 bet would've come off, but the not to be classified bets might have.

TOPPING said:

isam said:

How times change.. less than a decade a go, a woman commentating on a mans game would have seemed very strange.. I still haven't really got used to female comm on MOTD, but Australia's Mel Jones cricket commentary seems very natural on the IPL. The best female sports comm for mine

I think what you've unwittingly done there is not to appreciate that neither cricket, nor football, nor boxing, are any longer in the "man's game" category.

But you are making progress so well done you.

Not really, when men are playing it, as they are in the IPL game I am watching, it's a mans game, that is what I was saying

You've tried to be clever and made a ricket, unlucky you!

JackW said:

MarkHopkins said:

No, the Republicans weren't hacked because Trump promised Russia that he wouldn't bomb Syria if....

Oh wait, never mind.

The GOP were not hacked because The Dear Leader Nuttall told Putin not to.

I’m getting sorrier for Nuttall than Corbyn at the opinion of him here.

Richard_Tyndall said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all

I learnt a long time ago never to assume anything in politics except that if everyone says something can't happen it will at some point.

I firmly believe one day a Conservative Prime Minister will take us back into the European Union and into the Euro - when, I don't know, but I think it will happen.

What then of a non-Conservative Government after 2020? Assuming the maths work (and that's a huge if), what will happen after a decade of Conservative rule?

IndyRef2, STV without a referendum, a renegotiation of the A50 Treaty ?

What would the Conservatives offer to stay in power?

I would suggest that not renegotiating A50 would be one positive for the Conservatives and a big one at that.

I would suggest negotiating A50 wouldn't be an option for any UK government.
A50 is a part of the Lisbon Treaty, it is an EU treaty matter. We could negotiate specific areas or termsin both perties desired that action or we could negotiate terms for re joining the EU, but not A50.

Sorry, pedant mode overtook me.

chestnut said:

An acrimonious Brexit, in which Britain declines to honour its existing financial obligations could put pressure on the European Union's 'double A' rating, S&P Global said on Monday.
...

That's a very strange set of statements from S & P, which seems to have got everything back to front. For a start, absolutely no-one is saying Britain won't honour its obligations; of course it will honour its obligations, any dispute will be over what those obligations are. Secondly, how can S & P argue that the UK not honouring its obligations wouldn't constitute a default? That seems to be a contradiction in terms. Thirdly, what matters to the EU's credit rating is surely whether the remaining members (in practice, Germany) will pay up, not what an ex-member did or did not do..

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

How times change.. less than a decade a go, a woman commentating on a mans game would have seemed very strange.. I still haven't really got used to female comm on MOTD, but Australia's Mel Jones cricket commentary seems very natural on the IPL. The best female sports comm for mine

I think what you've unwittingly done there is not to appreciate that neither cricket, nor football, nor boxing, are any longer in the "man's game" category.

But you are making progress so well done you.

Not really, when men are playing it, as they are in the IPL game I am watching, it's a mans game, that is what I was saying

You've tried to be clever and made a ricket, unlucky you!

It's cricket, Sam, cricket. Whichever the organisation behind it. "IPL" isn't a sport, now, is it?

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

Global Britain EU forging ahead.

twitter.com/danielrosarioeu/status/851399802067746816

Carefully omitting the fact we can't actually start negotiating such things until we leave...

Would we be negotiating with Mexico in any case? Wouldn't want to tread on the Donald's toes...

I suspect it isn't the highest on our list of priorities.

RobD said:

logical_song said:

MarkHopkins said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

More Fake News...

Spanish police have arrested a Russian programmer for alleged involvement in "hacking" the US election

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39553250

Nobody serious is claiming that Russia hacked the US election...no voter machines were tampered with, no voter registration lists purged etc....Its like Phone Hacking, what the media bang on about wasn't phone hacking...there was proper phone and computer hacking, but only the Indy covered it and it wasn't to see which Z-Listers were shagging each other.

The hacking was primarily the DNC emails. Heaven forbid the public see what the campaign gets up to behind closed doors!

If they hadn't been doing anything wrong, there wouldn't have been anything to 'hack'.

Is that why the Republicans weren't hacked?

There were some GOP emails, e.g. - http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/291317-gop-emails-leaked-on-site-connected-to-russian-hackers

The GOP had good security measures in place, changed passwords regularly, used 2FA for sensitive stuff and would meet in person to take key strategic decisions.

The Democrat IT team are never going to work again for anyone outside the Democrat party - they should retrain as mobile phone salesmen. Rule #1 in IT is to know what you don't know, they were so far out of their depth it was unreal. They deserved to be hacked.

I would be interested to know how large the vehicle financing element of overall consumer credit is. You can't drive past exceedingly modest houses these days without seeing a brand spanking new Evoque parked outside.