HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

Here's a statistic to make us smile:

"If Blair was a key figure in a breakaway party then 37 per cent would be less likely to support it and 8 per cent more likely."

(From YouGov survey of Labour supporters)

The same poll had a new 'progressive' party on 17%, with Labour on 19%, the LDs on 8%, the Tories on 44% and UKIP on 5%. One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blair-allies-plot-new-party-to-replace-dead-horse-labour-pcsj8zdp5

That would be marvelous - 550 seats for the Tories.

I doubt it would be that many, the Tories would still be down 5% on the main poll due to losses to the progressives, in a decade or so there is no reason once May departs and if the 'progressives' get a charismatic, electable leader they could not do a Macron and En Marche and win but they would need to overtake Labour first

Chuka?

RobD said:

tyson said:

Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologies, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.

Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....

Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....

The government aren't going to continue with agricultural subsidies? I find that hard to imagine.

If Brexit goes badly, I imagine all Government subsidies will come under pressure, because the Government will be skint.

Sean_F said:

Pulpstar said:

peter_from_putney said:

surbiton said:

walterw said:

HYUFD


'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'

If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?

In fact, if it were to happen then the LDs will have to be taken over. Shades of 1983 !

Precisely what I have been predicting will happen, with "The Progressive (aargh!) Democratic Party" set to become H.M. Official Opposition in the HoC.

The vote share of such a party would be desperately inefficient, see 1983. The opposition would still be Labour I think.

It depends how many defections there were.

But a result of Con 44%, Labour 18%. Progressives 17% would result in a huge Conservative majority.

Though the Tories were on 49% in the headline poll with the parties as now

Emily Thornberry rocks....Fallon just looks like another old man who would be much better suited sorting out his shed, much like Corbyn, McDonnell, Trump, Ellerson and the other irritating old, white men who should have sodded off years ago.....

Danny565 said:

Thought experiment: what would British politics look like today if the EU referendum had gone the other way, 52/48 to Remain?

Would Cameron still be PM? Would there already be loads of demand for a second referendum? Would UKIP still be thriving, possibly even topping the polls?

UKIP would probably be on 25% close to level pegging with the Tories and Labour rather than 5% as now

viewcode said:

initforthemoney said:

viewcode said:

initforthemoney said:

SouthamObserver said:

The £120 I win today will be small compensation for defeat in our final game at the Lane. But it will be something.

Is your entire betting strategy based on emotional hedging?

To be honest: emotional hedging is one of the more rational approaches. Casino_Royale's friend increased his REMAIN bet by £10,000 just to win an argument. SeanT and WilliamGlenn similarly bet in the heat of debate. Compared with such willy-waving, emotional hedging seems entirely rational, although it's not as profitable as value betting.

True, but it prevented me from making a packet as the Brexit results were coming out. I largely passed up one of the greatest apparent value bets because I was wary of being double gutted and only put a small stake on.

The curse of the successful gambler: "I should have bet more"

Not really for me...after more than a decade of betting for a living (I'm not any more) I generally didn't take that attitude. One of the axioms was never bet an amount you are emotionally uncomfortable with losing (which in this case wasn't much given it would have come on top of the nation rejecting my position on the issue which had largely determined my voting pattern over the previous two decades). I wasn't thinking I should have bet more as much as thinking I know why I didn't make a packet here. That feels OK rather than a curse when you know the reasoning was solid.

I feel the same about hedging (which I did so much on Betfair that the second version of the premium charge was always going to end my full time betting days). You can think I'm gutted I hedged out, but if that's the system you know the feeling you potentially dodged (I should have hedged out and taken the profit) and fully accept it.

RobD said:

tyson said:

Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologies, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.

Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....

Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....

The government aren't going to continue with agricultural subsidies? I find that hard to imagine.

The Time's piece also indicated that in an austerity dominant environment, it is dawning on farmers that their subsidies might be slightly less important than say the NHS...as said, sating the bleeding obvious...

The good thing for free marketeers is that we will be able to flood our supermarkets with cheap meat from god knows where....

GeoffM said:

Sean_F said:

Pulpstar said:

peter_from_putney said:

surbiton said:

walterw said:

HYUFD


'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'

If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?

In fact, if it were to happen then the LDs will have to be taken over. Shades of 1983 !

Precisely what I have been predicting will happen, with "The Progressive (aargh!) Democratic Party" set to become H.M. Official Opposition in the HoC.

The vote share of such a party would be desperately inefficient, see 1983. The opposition would still be Labour I think.

It depends how many defections there were.

But a result of Con 44%, Labour 18%. Progressives 17% would result in a huge Conservative majority.

The names of all three of those parties don't represent the values that they would hold though.

The names of the current parties don't in any way represent the values they hold either...

Peter_the_Punter said:

MTimT said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Baskerville said:

Scott_P said:

prh47bridge said:

There is certainly absolutely no reason to simply accept whatever deal they propose. Why would we?

Because "no deal" will be economically crippling for us

Yet, no deal would also be crippling for them. Maybe not proportionately as bad, but bad nonetheless.

We want:
* A quick deal on citizens
* A comprehensive FTA
* No truck with the ECJ

They want:
* A deal on citizens
* As much cash as possible

Definitely not a one-sided negotiation, even if you might judge one side stronger than the other.

Yes, we may well judge one side's position to be stronger than the other, Baskerville, and to illustrate I intend to organise a game of Brexit Poker at the next PB bash.

The rules will be exactly the same as for normal poker except that players who nominate themselves as EU may keep their cards close to their chest, whilst those playing as the UK will place them face up on the table before bidding begins.

Personally I intend to play on the EU side but judging from some of the comments I read on here there will be no shortage of people willing to play as the UK.

I do hope they bring plenty of money.

I don't understand the basis for your rules of Brexit Poker. Sure, the UK's red lines will be face up on the table, but so are the EU's already.

I sincerely doubt ALL the cards will be face up on the table for either side, nor that either side will give away precisely how important each of its negotiating positions really is. I also fully expect both sides to create any number of canards both to complicate the negotiations, and to create chips with which to barter.

Tim, the problem with our position is its inflexibility. We have to leave the EU come what may. They are under no similar constraint and can be as flexible or otherwise as they see fit. Moreover, we have no way of knowing what their 'walk away' position is or just how flexible they might be. We just have to test it out, as any poker player would.

They know exactly where we stand.

Our differing assessments arise from the fact that I believe that the UK is capable of walking without a deal rather than a punitive one. That being the case, we are not over a barrel. There are so many issues at stake, with different exchange rates on each of them, and such scope for arbitrage and creation of value, that I don't see a lack of issues on which to be flexible for either party.

SeanT said:

Yes, in the narrow terms of staying popular and getting re-elected she is certainly very successful - the most successful politician of her time. But I suspect history will be much less kind.

Without her migrant madness, for instance, I'm pretty sure Brexit wouldn't have happened.

I think history will judge Frau Merkel very poorly. She inherited a golden legacy: Schroeder and Haartz had transformed the German labour market (which people forget used to be as hide-bound as the French one), and sorted out the worst of the problems in the East. Germany was (and is) the world's largest capital goods maker at the time when Chinese demand for the machines than make things were going through the rood. Policies enacted under the previous administration left Germany without debt or deficits at the time when the world went to pot.

Germany's actions made the Eurozone crisis much worse for the periphery. Mrs Merkel's stubborn insistence on running triple surpluses made it much harder for Spain, Portugal, Greece or Ireland to rebalance. Sure, with the exception of Greece, they are all on the mend now. But the process has taken four or five years longer than it might have, had Germany not insisted on "begger thy neighbour" policies.

And then there was the migrant invitations: done without any regard for any of her neighbours who would have to live with the decisions she took. (And which, of course, led to the deaths of tens of thousands in the Mediterranean.)

GeoffM said:

Sean_F said:

Pulpstar said:

peter_from_putney said:

surbiton said:

walterw said:

HYUFD


'One Clegg ally has also told a leading Blairite Labour moderates 'could attempt a reverse takeover of the Lib Dems' if they cannot rid Labour of Corbynism after a general election defeat and on this poll combined a new moderate centre left party + the LDs could even overtake Labour'

If the polls are anywhere near accurate,will there be much left of the Lib Dems to takeover?

In fact, if it were to happen then the LDs will have to be taken over. Shades of 1983 !

Precisely what I have been predicting will happen, with "The Progressive (aargh!) Democratic Party" set to become H.M. Official Opposition in the HoC.

The vote share of such a party would be desperately inefficient, see 1983. The opposition would still be Labour I think.

It depends how many defections there were.

But a result of Con 44%, Labour 18%. Progressives 17% would result in a huge Conservative majority.

The names of all three of those parties don't represent the values that they would hold though.

I would regard myself as progressive but I doubt that a party named that way would represent my values.

I would label myself as a conservative in many ways....but don't find that much common ground with the reckless position of this Conservative party that has thrust our country into the unknown....

GIN1138 said:

Barnesian said:

Anecdotes from Richmond Park (Just back from leafleting and canvassing for Sarah Olney).

Disclaimer: I have £100 @ 5/4 with William Hill that Zac will win as I've thought his chances were 75%+ because, if the turnout is similar to 2015, then there will be an extra 16,000 voters compared with the by-election and many will be stay-at-home Tories in the by-election who were upset with Zac for calling the by-election or who will only vote for a Tory (Zac stood as an independent). He could get say 10,000-11,000 of the extra 16,000 which would give him a majority of 2,000 -4,000.

However Zac is claiming "The Lib Dems will try again to portray me as a 'hard Brexiteers'. So let me counter that now. I want to make sure we get a green Brexit." So Zac could lose 2,000+ to UKIP who might not trust him. The fact that UKIP are putting up a candidate against him this time illustrates this distrust. (They didn't put up a candidate in the by-election). So a majority of 1-2,000.

Back to my anecdotes. I'm looking for LibDem negatives to support my backing of Zac. But I've found none.
A woman " I voted for Zac in the by-election but I really like Sarah."
A man "Zac has blown it. I voted for him but not this time."
Mothers at gate of St Pauls Prep school (Zac chats up the mums at school gates) barracking him.
In my canvassing, no switch back to Zac is detectable.
Smiles at doorsteps as I deliver leaflets with Sarah's photo on it.
Odds on Sarah shortening on Oddschecker.
Ladbrokes restricting bets on her to £60 (I've been trying to lay off my bet on Zac).

So, for what it's worth, I think the LibDem chance in Richmond Park is now about evens with the momentum running towards Sarah.

Good to hear. The Tories need Zac back like they need a hole in the head...

Evening Gin

surbiton said:

tyson said:

RobD said:

tyson said:

Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologies, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.

Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....

Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....

The government aren't going to continue with agricultural subsidies? I find that hard to imagine.

The Time's piece also indicated that in an austerity dominant environment, it is dawning on farmers that their subsidies might be slightly less important than say the NHS...as said, sating the bleeding obvious...

The good thing for free marketeers is that we will be able to flood our supermarkets with cheap meat from god knows where....

Yup. It will teach the farmers to have voted for Brexit. No more subsidies mate !

Apart from my afternoon rant here today, I've given up talking with Brexit fuckwits...they're just ideological morons (same Corbynites). I get more intellectual stimulation discussing metaphysics with Trotsky my dog....

surbiton said:

tyson said:

RobD said:

tyson said:

Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologies, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.

Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....

Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....

The government aren't going to continue with agricultural subsidies? I find that hard to imagine.

The Time's piece also indicated that in an austerity dominant environment, it is dawning on farmers that their subsidies might be slightly less important than say the NHS...as said, sating the bleeding obvious...

The good thing for free marketeers is that we will be able to flood our supermarkets with cheap meat from god knows where....

Yup. It will teach the farmers to have voted for Brexit. No more subsidies mate !

Ending the handouts for environmentally destructive farming practices was one of the reasons I voted Leave. Plus a desire to screw over all of those farmers who erect huge Vote Conservative placards in their fields.

tyson said:

Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologues, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.

Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....

Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....

When it comes to "morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice" I am afraid you are probably the perfect example.

MTimT said:

tyson said:

RobD said:

tyson said:

Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologies, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.

Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....

Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....

The government aren't going to continue with agricultural subsidies? I find that hard to imagine.

The Time's piece also indicated that in an austerity dominant environment, it is dawning on farmers that their subsidies might be slightly less important than say the NHS...as said, sating the bleeding obvious...

The good thing for free marketeers is that we will be able to flood our supermarkets with cheap meat from god knows where....

Argentina, New Zealand and Australia. Looking forward to it.

Oh! And I nearly forgot the bleached chickens from the US.

If people given a free chose decide to by a good, any good, including bleached chickens, that then demonstrates that is there preferred option, and to stop then buying it is wrong IMO.

You may not like Bleached chickens, I may not like bleached chickens but we do not have the right to stop others buying bleached chickens.

tyson said:

Following Peter the Punter's rather gallant efforts to try and state the bleeding obvious to Brexit ideologues, I was struck by a Time's piece this week.

Farmers now are realising that Brexit is utterly disastrous...not only will they lose vital subsidies and access to migrant Labour but they will be left completely exposed to the harshness of a market where standards outside the EU are piss poor...I could almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that many of them supported Brexit, or like slaughtering wildlife, or both.....

Anyway the moral of the story is that we are dealing with morons who have no capacity for cognitive or intellectual debate such is their blind ideological prejudice....Brexit in a nutshell....

Wotcha, Tyson, That Times piece could be more accurately written as, "London based journalists have just woken up to the fact that there is a rural economy which produces about 60% of our food and it will be affected by us leaving the EU". The farmers have been talking about this for months and months. Oh, and by the way most farmers that I know or talk to on line were Remainers. The are now looking at how to make leaving work, for themselves, their business, the landscape and the Country as a whole.

We could go the New Zealand route, but I doubt if we will. For two reasons: firstly it has produced some silly effects in NZ (local produce priced beyond the reach of locals, animal welfare standards have been slashed below what would be acceptable in the UK to name but two). Secondly, imagine what the upland areas would look like ten years after the farmers were driven off the land. I therefore expect that some financial assistance will continue to be given to farmers but probably on a more eco-friendly basis than that mandated by the EU.

On the subject of slaughtering wildlife, how are you getting on with you Magpie problem? Have you bought an air-rifle yet or taken any steps to stop the buggers killing off your young song-birds?

Theuniondivvie said:

A kindred spirit for the PB Tessophiles.

https://twitter.com/RossMcCaff/status/863386703003832320

It's A N Wilson, he's always suffered from being one stick short of the proverbial bundle.

My favourite Wilsonism was when he launched a campaign to get a bust of Matthew Arnold put into Poet's Corner in Westminster Abbey. He'd launched several nasty personal attacks on the Abbey and its staff and raised quite a lot of money before the Dean asked him if he'd not noticed that there had been a bust of Arnold in the Abbey since 1891.