politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Theresa May’s Maidenhead could be the next parliamentary b

dr_spyn said:

bumping along at same level - almost.

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/921329858772336640

If you added 2% from the UKIP score to the Tories and took UKIP back to general election levels Labour and the Tories would be neck and neck on 42% each.

TheScreamingEagles said:

archer101au said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Has Angela not checked this with the doom mongers on PB ?

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/921299962658308098

You agree with this?

Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".

Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.

Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.

I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.

How'd that turn out.

The CDU/CSU got their lowest voteshare since WW2 and the AfD got 12%, that is how

anothernick said:

HHemmelig said:

I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.

Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.

Countries that have capital controls today typically run current account surpluses. This is not because capital controls somehow create an environment where you export more (duh). It is because you cannot hope to attract capital to bridge a current account deficit if you have capital controls.

Introducing capital controls to one of the most open economies in the world, and one which runs a substantial current account deficit would be... ugly.

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

anothernick said:

williamglenn said:

rottenborough said:

One of the Guardian columnists predicted, some time ago, that Labour would eventually adopt the policy of a 2nd referendum. Can't remember which one - possibly Kettle.

I'd expect Labour to wait until it's almost inevitable before moving, rather than getting into a position where it was something they were campaigning for.

Yes I would agree with that. It would only be sensible for Labour to support a second referendum if there was clear dissatisfaction with May's deal (quite likely I would think) and that a referendum would produce a more decisive result than the last one. Another 52-48 split (either way) would only aggravate divisions.

But what would the referendum be on? Britain undoubtedly had the power to leave, if it so chose, before the 2016 referendum. It only makes sense to hold another vote on something that the British people can decide for themselves. Something which is legally questionable or which relies on the goodwill of foreign governments shouldn't be on the ballot.

The deal or remaining. The Tory Eurosceptics might try to load the dice by adding Euro membership to the Remain option, but they'll still lose.

If Euro membership was added to remaining it would be 80% Leave whatever the deal was.

Every Brit to receive a cheque for $1m?

I reckon that would be enough to buy off the great British public.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Tissue_Price said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/10/jeremy-corbyns-2017-performance-was-better-you-think

"Meanwhile, Labour face an electoral map that heavy favourites makes them, on paper at least, the next time."

You can back Labour for most seats on Betfair at 1.96 right now. They should be much shorter than that.

A related thought experiment:

Would Labour do better at the next election with Angela Rayner as leader - elected with Corbyn's blessing after he steps down on grounds of age in e.g. early 2021?

I'd have thought most of the plausible alternatives would be likely to increase rather than decrease Labour's chances, TP. Please don't think I'm teasing, but I really think the only thing that is sustaining the Blues at their current level in the polls is Fear Of The Corbyn. Take that away and....well, u know what.

I've been saying for some while that the odds on Labour most seats is a bit of a gift, but I'd better go before I get accused of talking up my own book.

Atb, and in case you missed it at the time, you had my very best wishes at the last election, and I hope you make it into Parliament one day. Regardless of stripe, the place needs people like you.

Fear Of The Corbyn is undoubtedly there, but it's turned out to be balanced by a certain amount of Blind Faith In The Corbyn (aka a personality cult). Generally I tend to agree that they'd be better off with a new leader (not McDonnell!), but then I thought that 2015-17, and in retrospect I think I was wrong.

And cheers for the personal message - I had a great time up in Don Valley and we shall see what the future brings.

anothernick said:

HHemmelig said:

I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.

Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.

Again, this is just nuts. While Brexit may be a set back economically, we know there are lots of successful countries outside the EU or any equivalent. I can't think of an economy with leaders as left wing as McDonnell and Corbyn that has been successful.

You know Bregret......

https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/921333046309277696

HYUFD said:

dr_spyn said:

bumping along at same level - almost.

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/921329858772336640

If you added 2% from the UKIP score to the Tories and took UKIP back to general election levels Labour and the Tories would be neck and neck on 42% each.

If you add the fact that Labour always over-poll you can knock another 6 points points off the Labour total That gives a 6 point Tory lead. Or all this could be straw clutching and JCIPM.

CopperSulphate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

archer101au said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Has Angela not checked this with the doom mongers on PB ?

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/921299962658308098

You agree with this?

Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".

Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.

Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.

I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.

How'd that turn out.

You're on here every day saying May lost the last election since she lost her majority.

But somehow you also think Merkel didn't lose hers despite the fact she might not even be able to put together a government at all.

Bit like the daily George Osborne love in really

CarlottaVance said:

You know Bregret......

Indeed... 'Right to leave' has never been lower since the referendum.

justin124 said:

rcs1000 said:

anothernick said:

HHemmelig said:

I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.

Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.

Countries that have capital controls today typically run current account surpluses. This is not because capital controls somehow create an environment where you export more (duh). It is because you cannot hope to attract capital to bridge a current account deficit if you have capital controls.

Introducing capital controls to one of the most open economies in the world, and one which runs a substantial current account deficit would be... ugly.

But we ran a current account deficit for most of the 1970s under the Heath, Wilson and Callaghan Governments and applied capital controls at the same time. When the pound did fall sharply in Autumn 1976 , there were commentators who felt it was a mistake for Healey & Callaghan to bring in the IMF and that it would have been better to allow the currency to find its own level - in much the same way that Lamont & Major allowed the pound to fall post - ERM exit in September 1992.

Are you seriously using the 1970s as an example of a successful economy having capital controls?

CopperSulphate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

archer101au said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Has Angela not checked this with the doom mongers on PB ?

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/921299962658308098

You agree with this?

Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".

Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.

Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.

I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.

How'd that turn out.

You're on here every day saying May lost the last election since she lost her majority.

But somehow you also think Merkel didn't lose hers despite the fact she might not even be able to put together a government at all.

Read what I wrote.

Then you won’t embarrass yourself any further.

justin124 said:

rcs1000 said:

anothernick said:

HHemmelig said:

I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.

Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.

Countries that have capital controls today typically run current account surpluses. This is not because capital controls somehow create an environment where you export more (duh). It is because you cannot hope to attract capital to bridge a current account deficit if you have capital controls.

Introducing capital controls to one of the most open economies in the world, and one which runs a substantial current account deficit would be... ugly.

But we ran a current account deficit for most of the 1970s under the Heath, Wilson and Callaghan Governments and applied capital controls at the same time. When the pound did fall sharply in Autumn 1976 , there were commentators who felt it was a mistake for Healey & Callaghan to bring in the IMF and that it would have been better to allow the currency to find its own level - in much the same way that Lamont & Major allowed the pound to fall post - ERM exit in September 1992.

That's not true.

We ran a trade deficit, but because of income from overseas investments, then the period to the end of 1978 actually saw cumulative improvement in Britain foreign asset/liability mix.

Now, of course, our foreign liabilities outnumber our assets, so we need to run a trade surplus just to stand still. (Disclaimer: we don't, and therefore our net asset position, which was incredibly positive as recently as 1997, worsens every month.)

Tory collapse continues.....

https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/921332563913986048

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

anothernick said:

williamglenn said:

rottenborough said:

One of the Guardian columnists predicted, some time ago, that Labour would eventually adopt the policy of a 2nd referendum. Can't remember which one - possibly Kettle.

I'd expect Labour to wait until it's almost inevitable before moving, rather than getting into a position where it was something they were campaigning for.

Yes I would agree with that. It would only be sensible for Labour to support a second referendum if there was clear dissatisfaction with May's deal (quite likely I would think) and that a referendum would produce a more decisive result than the last one. Another 52-48 split (either way) would only aggravate divisions.

But what would the referendum be on? Britain undoubtedly had the power to leave, if it so chose, before the 2016 referendum. It only makes sense to hold another vote on something that the British people can decide for themselves. Something which is legally questionable or which relies on the goodwill of foreign governments shouldn't be on the ballot.

The deal or remaining. The Tory Eurosceptics might try to load the dice by adding Euro membership to the Remain option, but they'll still lose.

If Euro membership was added to remaining it would be 80% Leave whatever the deal was.

Every Brit to receive a cheque for $1m?

I reckon that would be enough to buy off the great British public.

At the moment the EU is demanding a cheque from UK taxpayers never mind the EU paying a cheque to them, especially one anywhere near $1m a head.

CarlottaVance said:

Tory collapse continues.....

There are people on Labour Facebook groups ranting and raving at these polls. They've stopped denouncing them as Tory lies and now denounce the Tory voter - 'who are these expletives still voting Tory????' etc. I point out that the Tory vote rose at the GE and that as many people love the Tories and hate Labour as vice versa and they just think people are idiots / selfish / evil.

Its a a basic problem in society. The 30 years of consumerism selfish I'm important bollocks to you has created a mass populace who think that their opinion is the only opinion.

Clive Lewis in trouble it seems over some crude remarks
https://mobile.twitter.com/stephenpollard/status/921336438599421953

rottenborough said:

Fraser Nelson doesn't hold back. Fix UC in the Budget or it becomes a poll-tax level disaster:

"Universal Credit is not Mrs May’s poll tax, but it could become so if the Conservatives don’t grasp what is at stake."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/20/universal-credit-turns-governments-poll-tax-debacle-will-have/

There have been any number of things which were due to become the New Poll Tax. None has. Not even the Iraq War. UC won't either, not least because it's a good idea, no matter how badly implemented it is.

Perhaps there should be a tax on immigrants. We could call it the Pole Tax.

(Thank you, thank you, I'm here all night.)

The next by-election could be in Wansbeck - though I imagine he'd choose to sit as an independent if Labour threw him out. Disgraceful saga.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41688280
https://twitter.com/hopisen/status/921335938827149313
https://twitter.com/hopisen/status/921336562348187648

@MattSingh_: If someone ideologically aligned with David Cameron is a cameroon, is someone ideologically aligned with Emmanuel Macron a macaroon?

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

dr_spyn said:

bumping along at same level - almost.

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/921329858772336640

If you added 2% from the UKIP score to the Tories and took UKIP back to general election levels Labour and the Tories would be neck and neck on 42% each.

If you add the fact that Labour always over-poll you can knock another 6 points points off the Labour total That gives a 6 point Tory lead. Or all this could be straw clutching and JCIPM.

I am just pointing out that about 2% of June 2017 Tory voters are now saying they are going to vote UKIP after Florence.

Well that would be a wasted vote and JCIPM!

Which is why the next Tory leader will have to be a Leaver to replace Remainer May

Tissue_Price said:

The next by-election could be in Wansbeck - though I imagine he'd choose to sit as an independent if Labour threw him out. Disgraceful saga.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41688280
https://twitter.com/hopisen/status/921335938827149313
https://twitter.com/hopisen/status/921336562348187648

What's the 'ultimate source' of the £165,000. 9 ex-miners don't have that sort of cash hanging around to give to a Labour MP...

calum said:

Faisal Islam
✔
@faisalislam

President Macron: we are not half way there on Brexit financial settlement

The identity of the bad cop can shift faster than the UK can keep up.

calum said:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/921344646277578752

True, May has offered £20 billion the EU wants more than £50 billion

RochdalePioneers said:

CarlottaVance said:

Tory collapse continues.....

There are people on Labour Facebook groups ranting and raving at these polls. They've stopped denouncing them as Tory lies and now denounce the Tory voter - 'who are these expletives still voting Tory????' etc. I point out that the Tory vote rose at the GE and that as many people love the Tories and hate Labour as vice versa and they just think people are idiots / selfish / evil.

Its a a basic problem in society. The 30 years of consumerism selfish I'm important bollocks to you has created a mass populace who think that their opinion is the only opinion.

I’d take the view it’s not consumerism but a direct result of phone to vote television - Celebrity x or whatever. People feel that their opinion is critical. A referendum is a manifestation of that. I could expand further but I wonder if the UK is ungovernable. Ireland pretty much is.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

The next by-election could be in Wansbeck - though I imagine he'd choose to sit as an independent if Labour threw him out. Disgraceful saga.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41688280
https://twitter.com/hopisen/status/921335938827149313
https://twitter.com/hopisen/status/921336562348187648

So glad I didn't do a thread on Ian Lavery as next Labour leader.

You might want to add Norwich South too if this Clive Lewis story gathers traction.

BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.

The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!

HYUFD said:

Clive Lewis in trouble it seems over some crude remarks
https://mobile.twitter.com/stephenpollard/status/921336438599421953

It's all right. Harriet Harman has just tweeted that she's 'dismayed' and that it's 'inexplicable' (these things are almost never inexplicable; they just explic something you'd rather they didn't). She hasn't actually demanded that anything be done.

Casino_Royale said:

justin124 said:

rcs1000 said:

justin124 said:

rcs1000 said:

anothernick said:

HHemmelig said:

I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.

Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.

Countries that have capital controls today typically run current account surpluses. This is not because capital controls somehow create an environment where you export more (duh). It is because you cannot hope to attract capital to bridge a current account deficit if you have capital controls.

Introducing capital controls to one of the most open economies in the world, and one which runs a substantial current account deficit would be... ugly.

1992.

That's not true.

We ran a trade deficit, but because of income from overseas investments, then the period to the end of 1978 actually saw cumulative improvement in Britain foreign asset/liability mix.

Now, of course, our foreign liabilities outnumber our assets, so we need to run a trade surplus just to stand still. (Disclaimer: we don't, and therefore our net asset position, which was incredibly positive as recently as 1997, worsens every month.)

But on that basis the financial markets ought to be far more concerned about our current account than was the case back in the 1970s. In reality, of course, it is a macroeconomic parameter which the markets have long chosen to ignore - a mistake in my view as I incline to the opinions expressed by William Keegan -inter alia - that we have been far too obsessed with our Budget Deficit whilst failing to address our Balance of Payments Deficit.

I think people (including some politicians) fail to understand the Balance of Payments deficit, even more than the Budget Deficit.

It feels distant, ethereal and academic.

It is explained well here.

https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/balance-of-payments-trade-imbalances

I can't see any of the positive reasons for us (other than we have an open economy) running a BoP deficit. I doubt our deficit is for productive capital items much for instance.

GIN1138 said:

BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.

The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!

If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say

Seems like Barnier has ran rings round May to be honest.

justin124 said:

NickPalmer said:

HHemmelig said:

I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.

No, they won't be introduced. Not practical, not sensible and nobody has proposed it.

(So far as I know, you're the only person to even raise the idea as a concern.)

Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor was proposing to re-introduce such controls had Labour won the 1987 election.

The most left-wing Labour manifestos ever were probably 1983 and 1987. They would have taken us out of the EEC without a further vote. They went beyond allegedly 'left' manifestos of 1945, 1966 or 2017.

I seem to recall it then had a rethink. Even with John Smith, it was re-thinking...

One 'small' matter, the Treaty of Rome bans exchange controls.

CarlottaVance said:

Water over the dam & all that....but interesting:

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/921339297126604800

And once again, they're missing the point. Cameron taking the Tories out of the EPP was a reaction, not an action. The Tories were rightly uncomfortable in a federalist grouping and the EPP wasn't willing to accommodate the broader church needed to include the Conservative Euroscepticism.

In any case, it's bollocks coming from any politicians used to a PR system. The ECR and EPP were and are natural centre-right allies on votes in many things and if that cost the odd committee chairmanship then tough.

Pulpstar said:

Seems like Barnier has ran rings round May to be honest.

Clement Attlee would say of Mrs May 'Not up to the job.'

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.

The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!

If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say

I think the curious structure of that sentence might indicate a certain spluttering. But the point is right: there is no way May could survive signing up to that sort of deal.

Pulpstar said:

Seems like Barnier has ran rings round May to be honest.

Given what happened in the general election is not a surprise.

Other than for health reasons I can't see May quitting like Cameron or Blair. Although I think she's extremely bad at it, she doesn't seem to have much outside UK politics. The Theresa May Foundation anyone? Thought not. I'd have thought she'd like to rebuild her reputation from the backbenches by weighing in on popular issues she cares about, rather than having to sing the mad tune of her party's Brexiteers.

GIN1138 said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.

The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!

If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say

I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.

If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.

Has the EU actually explained what the £60bn is for exactly?

Also could we just promise what they want and then drop it if we don't get a decent deal? Or do they actually want the money up front?

CopperSulphate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CopperSulphate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

archer101au said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Has Angela not checked this with the doom mongers on PB ?

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/921299962658308098

You agree with this?

Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".

Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.

Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.

I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.

How'd that turn out.

You're on here every day saying May lost the last election since she lost her majority.

But somehow you also think Merkel didn't lose hers despite the fact she might not even be able to put together a government at all.

Read what I wrote.

Then you won’t embarrass yourself any further.

Can anyone work out what the hell he's talking about?

TSE does seem to have a serious problem with basic logic sometimes.

Dura_Ace said:

HYUFD said:

Jess Phillips and Harriet Harman have now both condemned the crude remarks made by Clive Lewis and caught on camera.

https://mobile.twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/921346714044391424

He was the future once.

Yes, anyone with standing trades on Lewis as next Labour leader I suggest you sell asap.

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Theresa May doesn't look tired. She looks defeated.

How many other politicians who are 60 (in particular, ladies) have hair the colour nature intends? Heck - Thatcher wore a wig - on topic, OGH completely underestimates Mrs May's sense of duty to the electors of Maidenhead who she will continue to serve, what ever her office. She's cut from very different cloth from Cameron or Blair, for better or worse. I see yesterday's ITV poll of marginal Tory constituency chairs went largely unremarked. Funny that.

It had a margin of error of 12%, that’s why it went unremarked.

I wonder if Mike has Baxtered the Scottish sub-sample in this poll yet....

Richard_Tyndall said:

CopperSulphate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CopperSulphate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

archer101au said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Has Angela not checked this with the doom mongers on PB ?

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/921299962658308098

You agree with this?

Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".

Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.

Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.

I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.

How'd that turn out.

You're on here every day saying May lost the last election since she lost her majority.

But somehow you also think Merkel didn't lose hers despite the fact she might not even be able to put together a government at all.

Read what I wrote.

Then you won’t embarrass yourself any further.

Can anyone work out what the hell he's talking about?

TSE does seem to have a serious problem with basic logic sometimes.

He's gone from being one of the more sensible and interesting posters to a having the maturity of a toddler after the referendum and Osborne's departure.

People really have lost their minds over Brexit.

CopperSulphate said:

GIN1138 said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.

The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!

If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say

I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.

If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.

Has the EU actually explained what the £60bn is for exactly?
loi
Also could we just promise what they want and then drop it if we don't get a decent deal? Or do they actually want the money up front?

The FT has a full breakdown of the EUR100bn gross, and EUR60bn net that the EU is demanding. It's available here: https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a

Some of it is clearly bullshit: why would we stump up EUR12bn to cover the risk that Ireland defaults on its bailout? (Even if you accepted the principle, we'd pay when they defaulted, not in advance. And it's all ridiculously academic as Ireland is not going to default given its debt-to-GDP is now below the UK and falling fast.)

Others have more substance; as in, even if you disagree there is a legal liability, you can understand their case. The EU is saying that the UK government agreed to the 2016 to 2020 budget, but now won't pay for the last two years of the period. (Although this will likely be finessed through us paying something during a two year transition period.)

rcs1000 said:

CopperSulphate said:

GIN1138 said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.

The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!

If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say

I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.

If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.

Has the EU actually explained what the £60bn is for exactly?
loi
Also could we just promise what they want and then drop it if we don't get a decent deal? Or do they actually want the money up front?

The FT has a full breakdown of the EUR100bn gross, and EUR60bn net that the EU is demanding. It's available here: https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a

Some of it is clearly bullshit: why would we stump up EUR12bn to cover the risk that Ireland defaults on its bailout? (Even if you accepted the principle, we'd pay when they defaulted, not in advance. And it's all ridiculously academic as Ireland is not going to default given its debt-to-GDP is now below the UK and falling fast.)

Others have more substance; as in, even if you disagree there is a legal liability, you can understand their case. The EU is saying that the UK government agreed to the 2016 to 2020 budget, but now won't pay for the last two years of the period. (Although this will likely be finessed through us paying something during a two year transition period.)

It does make you wonder what happened to the legal advice HMG reportedly had, that got many Leavers excited, showing that the UK had no Brexit liability.

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.

The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!

If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say

I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.

If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.

As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.

What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.

What exactly are you basing your view on?

None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.