Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The evening must read

Great read on life inside the May bunker ft some true blue language https://t.co/TaYvPVLzV6 via @FT pic.twitter.com/8Yvs2buf50
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
3
voters dont care, youre just banging on about Europe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4665198/Bill-Gates-warns-open-door-migration-overwhelm-Europe.html
so presumably they didnt do that for Cameron ?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/03/anger-at-rules-plan-for-migrant-charities-in-mediterranean
Austria trying to stop migrants at the Alps:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/04/austrian-troops-to-stop-migrants-crossing-border-with-italy
Still there will be more opportunities for Yvette and Nicola to finally house some refugees:
' Frans Timmermans, a European commission vice-president, said Italy’s call for solidarity was completely justified and urged other EU member states to meet their promises of housing refugees in Italy under an EU relocation scheme. “It would make a world of difference if member states would just do what they agreed before.”
He was clear that Brexit did not exempt the UK from taking part in a new refugee relocation scheme, as the commission announced a plan to bring asylum seekers from Libya, Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan to Europe. “This is an exercise we need to do at a European level and I count on solidarity from all member states including the United Kingdom.” '
this could explain your problems in night clubs
I know this keeps cropping up in the press, but is there more nuance than what we are getting told?
Surely nobody ever walked to the negotiating table and said "I will fight hard for my position, but at the end of the day, when the deadline comes, I will accept anything you put in front of me." Which is what committing to "no walking away in any circumstances" would mean.
On a similar note, I have never understood the row over "no deal is better than a bad deal". That is surely axiomatic - the very definition of a deal so bad that you simply couldn't accept it, would be a deal whose outcomes are worse than the default situation that arises if the deadline passes without a deal.
So what is the row really about? Are the politicians arguing about the metric by which "better" or "worse" outcomes will be assessed? Are they arguing about the public presentation and rhetoric - whether we show strength by posturing that a walk-out is possible, or appear friendlier and more constructive by glossing over the fact that no-deal is a genuine possibility that both sides should be prepared for? Is the argument actually about the practicalities of "no deal" - what circumstances would trigger it, what amount of preparation should be done in case it happens, to what extent should avoiding it be prioritised?
I know there is a briefing war going on, but surely it cannot be as simple as Phil "I would sell my firstborn to Brussels if they so required" Hammond versus Theresa "Only New Labour's ghastly 'human rights' laws prevent me devouring Europeans for breakfast" May. I get that there are disagreements on the shape of the post-Brexit arrangements, the length of any transition, and so on, yet a lot of the briefing war seems to focus on the negotiation process itself in ways that I do not comprehend.
Juncker says EU Parlt a joke = fair comment
then legged it
bastards
But even if this is correct, I've no idea which is which. I don't even know what things put out for public consumption are ultimately intended for the ears of fellow ministers, which are for backbenchers, which are hints of cooperation for opposition MPs with similar Brexit views, which are for Tory members (qua leadership voters), which are for the EU to take note of, which are intended (as reassurance or warning) for the business community and investors... it's like being spectator to a sport whose rules are kept secret, you're not even sure who is playing, and the commentator is double-jobbing as the composer of The Times cryptic crossword.
Dogmatists without a coherent plan - or even a clue - perhaps.
From a betting standpoint - I think lay the favourite/current media speculation is probably a good strategy. We know Boris wants it - which justifies his price.
We don't know Davis wants it - so I think he is a lay.
Hunt at 100/1 is a silly price and was well worth backing.
Everyone needs a second chance.
Even Cameron.
The problem was that bloody manifesto....
Becoming more vocal, is the comeback on? lol
As they say in football, form is temporary, talent is permanent. At the heart of it, Theresa May is a hard-working, intelligent woman with strong character. Jeremy Corbyn is a less-than-bright far leftist with questionable sympathies. In due time, the media will get bored of a "Theresa is doomed" narrative and start looking at Corbyn again.
That will happen far sooner if the ardent Remainers in the parliamentary party started respecting the fact they were elected as Conservatives and behaved with some discipline. Of course, from reading the FT article, it sounds like they would rather work with the Labour Party. If that is their preference, they should do the honourable thing, cross the floor and stand for by-elections.
The type of proposed deal that you would rationally choose to play no-deal to, is precisely one that is worse than the counterfactual - and depending on the nature of negotiations we are talking about, the relevant counterfactual may be a return to the status quo ante, or some legally mandated default position, or a fresh bout of negotiating, or even just a state of chaotic uncertainty. Whichever, a deal so bad that you would decline it is a deal that is worse than no deal.
Thanks goodness you have used all your qualifications to effect to make such a good argument. Education works.
Build more houses in rural England.
https://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/882343117659267073
In the next offer we need a bold, positive vision for both young people and workers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjPMsjphCUU
None of the Justice4Grenfell’s key organisers was a resident in the high rise building.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/04/justice4grenfell-agitators-campaign-group-tries-push-tower-enquiry/
Some very "interesting" individuals appear to have hijacked the campaign.