politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Queen’s Speech timing: the product of what Lynton would ca
Options
Comments
-
Normally about 11am iirc.Pulpstar said:
Jersey stakes at 2:30. What time does Liz do her lines for Tessy ?rottenborough said:
Especially as it looks like she will only have about three lines to read out. Wasting a whole morning of racing for five minutes.TheScreamingEagles said:I suspect the Queen will not be amused that the Queen's speech clashes with the middle of Ascot.
0 -
Mr. Punter, also, is (betting-specific) it 'layed' as a specialist term, as opposed to 'laid'? Just curious, as the schoolgirl said to the basketball team.0
-
The battle within the divided British euro-sceptic movement is raging. Those supporting the 'Full English Brexit' are clearly wibbling, with the EEA/EFTA/ECJ alphabet-soupers gaining the upper hand. Nigel must be looking on appalled. How long before he re-enters the fray, bangs heads together and establishes some much needed discipline and conviction?0
-
I'm sorry but I can't see any connection between this tragic fire and the statement that "something has gone seriously wrong with our society".SouthamObserver said:
I am not blaming the Tories for this fire or for the society we have developed into. I would blame them for not seeing that what we have now is a serious problem. The fire specifically is horrific, but given where it occurred many will see a wider symbolism in it . You don't. That's fine.SeanT said:
It was perfectly acceptable, apart from the fact the council installed some dangerous cladding, a kind of cladding which - it turns out - has been used across the country (under Labour and Tories) and across the western world.SouthamObserver said:
Well, it clearly wasn't acceptable, was it?SeanT said:
"Cramped nearby.SouthamObserver said:
It's live in.Alice_Aforethought said:
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smoSouthamObserver said:
I just struck a note with so many people.Slackbladder said:
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.calum said:
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
This is not the Gorbals in 1950, or Gin Lane in 1790.
Grow up. You sound like a sixteen year old.
If you do not see the symbolism, that is fine. I suspect many others will. There are reasons why Jeremy Corbyn's message resonated - especially in big cities and in London in particular.
This was a fault of fire regulation, and a global issue. Nothing specifically to do with EVIL TOREEEEES. The fact Corbyn seeks to exploit it that way tells us more about him than anything else.
Corbyn, of course, won millions of extra votes and secured huge majorities for Labour across London before the fire occurred, but at a time when people were already deciding that something has gone seriously wrong with our society.0 -
Trying to be objective on this: it seems to me possible that the buck stops with K&C council (I saw an interview with a councillor who claimed she'd tried to raise the issue on 18 occasions and had been told to shut up), and there's an argument that funding pressures on councils lead to corner-cutting, but I wouldn't yet launch into the blame game: it needs a proper, fast inquiry, and quite possibly prosecutions and/or political conclusions will follow. Sometimes terrible things happen but nobody is to blame, sometimes there really is a villain who needs to be identified.RobD said:
I agree with Southam's general comment, though: it's very much two nations (back in 1983 I was PPC for K&C), and the council has usually seemed to me on the side of the top half. I used to live in the area on Great Peter Street, and well remember a local councillor emailing residents proudly to say that he'd been able to get the number of places at the local homeless shelter down the road REDUCED, because people were worried by the presence of (in my experience entirely inoffensive) homeless people based in the shelter. I told him that he wasn't speaking for me and would like it reversed, and got a meaningless reply.0 -
-
Hubris is what we had on here from people like you before the election. I have no faith in the ability of a Corbyn-led government to provide any long-term solutions to the problems that the UK has. But I do think he has given a lot of people a voice who feel they have not had one for a very long time. I also suspect that this may lead to many more Labour gains in Scotland, more in London and a few more in the North and even, perhaps, parts of the Midlands. I also think the LibDems will benefit form tactical voting and that if the Tories are not careful they will find themselves out of power - especially with the Brexit shambles they have foisted upon us beginning to unwind not to the UK's advantage.Mortimer said:
I smell hubris.SouthamObserver said:
He leader.Alice_Aforethought said:
So he has no better ideas but is complaining anyway?SouthamObserver said:
It'sin.Alice_Aforethought said:
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smokey fuel because western liberals' preoccupation with global warming has made clean fuel like LPG too expensive. I feel that way when there are food shortages because food crops are being bought up by the highest bidder and turned into car fuel.SouthamObserver said:
I just can't get it out of my head that while the poor and the left behind were fighting for their lives in a death trap, across Kensington & Chelsea there were countless properties lying empty bought only as investments by multi-millionaires and hedge funds who will never visit them. We do not live in a moral or a sustainable society. No wonder Corbyn struck a note with so many people.Slackbladder said:
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.calum said:
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
What if the fire was caused by flammable building materials, used to meet green energy efficiency targets?
I at hospitals.
Likewise better?
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
How many million votes did the Blue Meanies win, remind me, last week?
0 -
Actually, I think I detect a change of tone on that. Maybe they think that the political chaos here, and the faltering economy, is already setting the example.Casino_Royale said:Too many people in the EU want to make an example of the UK for that, I fear.
0 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
Looks like I am one of the 21% then.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Not enoughMortimer said:
I smell hubris.
How many million votes did the Blue Meanies win, remind me, last week?
0 -
That is fine by me. If you and others on the right cannot see the symbolism here, then I think that the Tories really are in trouble.AndyJS said:
I'm sorry but I can't see any connection between this tragic fire and the statement that "something has gone seriously wrong with our society".SouthamObserver said:
I am not blaming the Tories for this fire or for the society we have developed into. I would blame them for not seeing that what we have now is a serious problem. The fire specifically is horrific, but given where it occurred many will see a wider symbolism in it . You don't. That's fine.SeanT said:
It was perfectly acceptable, apart from the fact the council installed some dangerous cladding, a kind of cladding which - it turns out - has been used across the country (under Labour and Tories) and across the western world.SouthamObserver said:
Well, it clearly wasn't acceptable, was it?SeanT said:
"Cramped nearby.SouthamObserver said:
It's live in.Alice_Aforethought said:
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smoSouthamObserver said:
I just struck a note with so many people.Slackbladder said:
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.calum said:
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
This is not the Gorbals in 1950, or Gin Lane in 1790.
Grow up. You sound like a sixteen year old.
If you do not see the symbolism, that is fine. I suspect many others will. There are reasons why Jeremy Corbyn's message resonated - especially in big cities and in London in particular.
This was a fault of fire regulation, and a global issue. Nothing specifically to do with EVIL TOREEEEES. The fact Corbyn seeks to exploit it that way tells us more about him than anything else.
Corbyn, of course, won millions of extra votes and secured huge majorities for Labour across London before the fire occurred, but at a time when people were already deciding that something has gone seriously wrong with our society.
0 -
Sounds like common sense to me, I'm a remainer but believe Brexit has to happen as that's what the people voted for.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
May thought it was important to pay attention to the working classes who voted Leave so we could get take back control of immigration.SeanT said:
Ditto. If I'd been told before the vote that voting Leave meant Hard Brexit I would have been very torn.Andy_Cooke said:
I remember when I was going through my decision-making process pre-referendum that I dismissed the analyses based on exitting EEA/EFTA as total scaremongering as it was completely obvious that we'd stay in the EEA/EFTA.Casino_Royale said:
One can always Leave, it's a question of the level of economic disruption you are willing to take for the political gains.Beverley_C said:
Well, I guess I count ashttps://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg a "hard core remainer".Richard_Nabavi said:The hard-core Remainers are now making the mirror-image error of the mistake the Leave side made before the referendum; instead of coolly assessing the risks, they are assuming the risks are entirely one-sided.
What I am wondering is when do we realise that we are already too embedded into the EU to leave?
We don't share a currency. We do share a tariff/non-tariff union in goods, to a limited extent in services, a slight one in capital, and a very free one in people, for less than half of our international trade.
Look at the pre-ref EEA/EFTA analysis from PwC, OpenEurope or NIESR - the disruption is minimal.
It was the insistence of both sides, as well as the massive importance given to controlling immigration that finally decided me that I couldn't assume that any more and I (reluctantly) cast my vote for Remain.
Looking back, I'm glad I did, as the way my vote would have been taken - as endorsement of leaving EEA/EFTA as well as the EU - would have completely pissed me off.
I would probably still have voted OUT but... eeeek..... it would have been close.
It's that daft bint May with her Hard Brexit speech that fucked it all up. No one agreed to that. She just assumed it and pushed it. Fuck her. Ger rid of her. Get a Soft Brexiteer in Number 10 and put us in EEA/EFTA and then we can all go back to fucking normal.
Enough politics!!!!!!
Maybe she miscalculated on this but keep in mind if we do go down the EEA/EFTA route and immigration remains out of control your going to have a lot of p*ssed off working class people and UKIP/Farage will remain a very significant player in UK politics...0 -
edit0
-
Suppose an airliner were to crash into a prosperous west London suburb, would that demonstrate that something had gone seriously wrong with our society?SouthamObserver said:
That is fine by me. If you and others on the right cannot see the symbolism here, then I think that the Tories really are in trouble.AndyJS said:
I'm sorry but I can't see any connection between this tragic fire and the statement that "something has gone seriously wrong with our society".SouthamObserver said:
I am not blaming the Tories for this fire or for the society we have developed into. I would blame them for not seeing that what we have now is a serious problem. The fire specifically is horrific, but given where it occurred many will see a wider symbolism in it . You don't. That's fine.SeanT said:
It was perfectly acceptable, apart from the fact the council installed some dangerous cladding, a kind of cladding which - it turns out - has been used across the country (under Labour and Tories) and across the western world.SouthamObserver said:
Well, it clearly wasn't acceptable, was it?SeanT said:
"Cramped nearby.SouthamObserver said:
It's live in.Alice_Aforethought said:
The thing is, I feel that way when I read that millions in the third world die because they cook indoors with smoSouthamObserver said:
I just struck a note with so many people.Slackbladder said:
It's right to ask questions, but we need investigations, not lynch mobs.calum said:
I expect we will get a full blown 'judge-led' inquiry into this affair.
There are areas of differentiation between parties but the quality of the NHS and building safety aren't among them.
This is not the Gorbals in 1950, or Gin Lane in 1790.
Grow up. You sound like a sixteen year old.
If you do not see the symbolism, that is fine. I suspect many others will. There are reasons why Jeremy Corbyn's message resonated - especially in big cities and in London in particular.
This was a fault of fire regulation, and a global issue. Nothing specifically to do with EVIL TOREEEEES. The fact Corbyn seeks to exploit it that way tells us more about him than anything else.
Corbyn, of course, won millions of extra votes and secured huge majorities for Labour across London before the fire occurred, but at a time when people were already deciding that something has gone seriously wrong with our society.0 -
Mr Observer - there is a difference between bad building regulations and bad politics.SouthamObserver said:
That is fine by me. If you and others on the right cannot see the symbolism here, then I think that the Tories really are in trouble.0 -
Yes, I'm in that box too. We made the bed, we have to lie in it.jonny83 said:
Sounds like common sense to me, I'm a remainer but believe Brexit has to happen as that's what the people voted for.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
I've never been sure, Morris. I'm not a pedant and just use what seems logical to me, but if it's wrong and bothers people I'm happy to adjust. I kind of like 'layed' though, because it differentiates usefully from 'laid', which as you intimate can have spicier connotations.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Punter, also, is (betting-specific) it 'layed' as a specialist term, as opposed to 'laid'? Just curious, as the schoolgirl said to the basketball team.
0 -
I agree entirely. But I would much rather we were negotiating those FTAs so we can make sure that we make a stand on areas that are important to us rather than the EU doing so with their own priorities.DecrepitJohnL said:
Enforcing our higher welfare standards is good but will last only until some secretary of state or other signs a free-trade agreement with America which allows their far lower standards. FTAs are not an unwelcome blessing.Richard_Tyndall said:
There is indeed an argument. Just as the UK would no longer be inside the EU's agricultural market, the same would apply to the EU no longer being in the UK agricultural market. We already know that in a number of areas, not least animal welfare, we have significantly stricter legislation than the EU and once we are outside, we would be in a position to make sure those standards are properly enforced. This is nothing to do with politics, simply ensuring our standards are applicable on imports.Scott_P said:
You are wrong on both of your pointsRichard_Nabavi said:You are right that it doesn't work equally. In the particular case of agriculture, disruption would hit the EU27 (especially France, Spain and Italy) more badly than us.
The article is about importing goods into the EU. There is no requirement for the UK to make it harder for the EU to export to us. There may be a political argument, but it would be economically harmful
The EU does not export more agricultural foodstuffs to the UK than it consumes internally. The "disruption" to the EU agriculture sector of not being able to buy from the UK, and maybe having some trouble selling to us will not materially affect them.
The Brexiteer belief in UK exceptionalism is one of the main drivers for the vote, and will be a key part of their undoing0 -
Hunt? Interesting choice.Peter_the_Punter said:
Jeremy!CarlottaVance said:
Who do you suggest?RochdalePioneers said:
For the good of everyone she should not remain PM.freetochoose said:If I were a Labour supporter I wouldn't get too excited, the Conservatives realise they've messed up big time and will now do everything to avoid an election for 5 years. Good thing too, we're all sick of voting.
0 -
Interesting that those who voted Remain (27+21) are a larger group than those who voted Leave (44)TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
If that were to be the case, we would lynch as traitors the politicians who caused that to be the case without our consent.Beverley_C said:
Well, I guess I count as a "hard core remainer".Richard_Nabavi said:The hard-core Remainers are now making the mirror-image error of the mistake the Leave side made before the referendum; instead of coolly assessing the risks, they are assuming the risks are entirely one-sided.
What I am wondering is when do we realise that we are already too embedded into the EU to leave?0 -
And shows why the Libdom position didn't make any sense.jonny83 said:
Sounds like common sense to me, I'm a remainer but believe Brexit has to happen as that's what the people voted for.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
And the people doing this would think of themselves as conservatives I suppose?ThreeQuidder said:
If that were to be the case, we would lynch as traitors the politicians who caused that to be the case without our consent.Beverley_C said:
Well, I guess I count as a "hard core remainer".Richard_Nabavi said:The hard-core Remainers are now making the mirror-image error of the mistake the Leave side made before the referendum; instead of coolly assessing the risks, they are assuming the risks are entirely one-sided.
What I am wondering is when do we realise that we are already too embedded into the EU to leave?0 -
Well that would be Major (Maastricht) Blair (Nice) and Brown (Lisbon).ThreeQuidder said:
If that were to be the case, we would lynch as traitors the politicians who caused that to be the case without our consent.Beverley_C said:
Well, I guess I count as a "hard core remainer".Richard_Nabavi said:The hard-core Remainers are now making the mirror-image error of the mistake the Leave side made before the referendum; instead of coolly assessing the risks, they are assuming the risks are entirely one-sided.
What I am wondering is when do we realise that we are already too embedded into the EU to leave?0 -
We could ask I suppose....williamglenn said:
And the people doing this would think of themselves as conservatives I suppose?ThreeQuidder said:
If that were to be the case, we would lynch as traitors the politicians who caused that to be the case without our consent.Beverley_C said:
Well, I guess I count as a "hard core remainer".Richard_Nabavi said:The hard-core Remainers are now making the mirror-image error of the mistake the Leave side made before the referendum; instead of coolly assessing the risks, they are assuming the risks are entirely one-sided.
What I am wondering is when do we realise that we are already too embedded into the EU to leave?0 -
The Americans have been trying for years to get their substandard food into the UK and EU. I was not surprised to hear that The Champion of American Business President Trump was rubbing his hand with glee and wanting to sign an FTA with us.Richard_Tyndall said:
I agree entirely. But I would much rather we were negotiating those FTAs so we can make sure that we make a stand on areas that are important to us rather than the EU doing so with their own priorities.DecrepitJohnL said:
Enforcing our higher welfare standards is good but will last only until some secretary of state or other signs a free-trade agreement with America which allows their far lower standards. FTAs are not an unwelcome blessing.Richard_Tyndall said:
There is indeed an argument. Just as the UK would no longer be inside the EU's agricultural market, the same would apply to the EU no longer being in the UK agricultural market. We already know that in a number of areas, not least animal welfare, we have significantly stricter legislation than the EU and once we are outside, we would be in a position to make sure those standards are properly enforced. This is nothing to do with politics, simply ensuring our standards are applicable on imports.Scott_P said:
You are wrong on both of your pointsRichard_Nabavi said:You are right that it doesn't work equally. In the particular case of agriculture, disruption would hit the EU27 (especially France, Spain and Italy) more badly than us.
The article is about importing goods into the EU. There is no requirement for the UK to make it harder for the EU to export to us. There may be a political argument, but it would be economically harmful
The EU does not export more agricultural foodstuffs to the UK than it consumes internally. The "disruption" to the EU agriculture sector of not being able to buy from the UK, and maybe having some trouble selling to us will not materially affect them.
The Brexiteer belief in UK exceptionalism is one of the main drivers for the vote, and will be a key part of their undoing0
This discussion has been closed.