politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There’s a good case for the man with NHS lapel badge

SandyRentool said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SandyRentool said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SandyRentool said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wikiguido/status/956605054278160385

There is a Commons majority for a Remainer Brexit stitch-up. It shouldn't come as a surprise.

Not really.

In theory there is, but there is no Conservative majority for it. Which means that if those against a stitch-up pull support for the Government then there is no Government and there is no majority for anything then.

They would have to make Hard Brexit a confidence vote. High risk strategy for a Remainer PM, Chancellor and Home Sec.

There's no such thing as a confidence vote on an issue, just a Vote of No Confidence.

Brexiteers would just need to No Confidence the PM as Party Leader and not No Confidence the government to cause an election.

To have a majority in the House requires both being able to command a majority of votes in the Commons and to be able to command a majority of the party to maintain party leadership.

So:

May proposes Soft Brexit.

Most Labour SNP and some Tories support it and it passes.

Hard Brexit Tories propose a vote of No Confidence in May.

Labour and SNP vote with the Brexit Tories to get rid of May.

Then what? PM Jezza or PM Moggster?

Lots of PB arguments that's what.

another_richard said:

another_richard said:

Pong said:

This has political implications;

"According to our research, nine in ten of Millennials – the so-called ‘Generation Rent’ – never expect to own a house or car in their lifetime"

https://www.am-online.com/news/market-insight/2018/01/25/department-for-transport-report-highlights-peak-car-threat-to-vehicle-sales

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/driving-goes-into-reverse-as-britain-hits-peak-car-f0kvbn90g

I'm curious as to where that 'research' was carried out.

I'd say that a majority of the 18-36 year olds I know already own either a house or a car or both.

As expected that 'research' is bollox.

' Owning a home by the age of 25 has become an unachievable dream for many over the last two decades.

Soaring property prices mean just one in five 25-year-olds own a property, compared to nearly half two decades ago, according to one recent study. '

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38564137

So 20% of 25 year olds own a house, it will be lower for those younger and higher for those up to 36 years old.

Now add on all those who expect to own a house, already own a car or who expect to own a car.

Its probably well over half not the 10% claimed.

Its probably well over three quarters.

SandyRentool said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SandyRentool said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SandyRentool said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wikiguido/status/956605054278160385

There is a Commons majority for a Remainer Brexit stitch-up. It shouldn't come as a surprise.

Not really.

In theory there is, but there is no Conservative majority for it. Which means that if those against a stitch-up pull support for the Government then there is no Government and there is no majority for anything then.

They would have to make Hard Brexit a confidence vote. High risk strategy for a Remainer PM, Chancellor and Home Sec.

There's no such thing as a confidence vote on an issue, just a Vote of No Confidence.

Brexiteers would just need to No Confidence the PM as Party Leader and not No Confidence the government to cause an election.

To have a majority in the House requires both being able to command a majority of votes in the Commons and to be able to command a majority of the party to maintain party leadership.

So:

May proposes Soft Brexit.

Most Labour SNP and some Tories support it and it passes.

Hard Brexit Tories propose a vote of No Confidence in May.

Labour and SNP vote with the Brexit Tories to get rid of May.

Then what? PM Jezza or PM Moggster?

The chances of most Labour and SNP supporting anything the government proposes is close to zero. They’d much rather inflict a defeat on the government than support a proposal which they’d be happy with in principle.

Sandpit said:

another_richard said:

Pong said:

This has political implications;

"According to our research, nine in ten of Millennials – the so-called ‘Generation Rent’ – never expect to own a house or car in their lifetime"

https://www.am-online.com/news/market-insight/2018/01/25/department-for-transport-report-highlights-peak-car-threat-to-vehicle-sales

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/driving-goes-into-reverse-as-britain-hits-peak-car-f0kvbn90g

I'm curious as to where that 'research' was carried out.

I'd say that a majority of the 18-36 year olds I know already own either a house or a car or both.

How many of the kids actually own their car, as opposed to leasing one? The figure for sales of new cars for cash or personal loan is only about 20%, the rest being leases and PCP plans.

Similarly I imagine very few people in their 30s own their house, in a strict legal sense. A large chunk of my house belongs to a bank.

However, I was wondering if that figure would be about right for London. I doubt if many people my age own a house in London - even a flat isn't easy - and probably not a car either (although bluntly, given the dynamics of its transport system I wouldn't want a car if I lived in London).

SandyRentool said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SandyRentool said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SandyRentool said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wikiguido/status/956605054278160385

There is a Commons majority for a Remainer Brexit stitch-up. It shouldn't come as a surprise.

Not really.

In theory there is, but there is no Conservative majority for it. Which means that if those against a stitch-up pull support for the Government then there is no Government and there is no majority for anything then.

They would have to make Hard Brexit a confidence vote. High risk strategy for a Remainer PM, Chancellor and Home Sec.

There's no such thing as a confidence vote on an issue, just a Vote of No Confidence.

Brexiteers would just need to No Confidence the PM as Party Leader and not No Confidence the government to cause an election.

To have a majority in the House requires both being able to command a majority of votes in the Commons and to be able to command a majority of the party to maintain party leadership.

So:

May proposes Soft Brexit.

Most Labour SNP and some Tories support it and it passes.

Hard Brexit Tories propose a vote of No Confidence in May.

Labour and SNP vote with the Brexit Tories to get rid of May.

Then what? PM Jezza or PM Moggster?

JRMWNBPM

Casino_Royale said:

I don't share the view that Hammond is on manoeuvres. His political judgement is woeful, and he's had a remarkable ability to put his foot in his mouth over the last 18 months.

I doubt even he thinks he's a serious candidate for Prime Minister. He'd offer no improvement on May whatsoever.

I've got no serious betting position on him; basic covering of my other stakes only.

Hammond has consistently given the impression that he regards the Treasury as the fulfilment of his political career and that he wants no role beyond it.

If true, that would make him unusual among Chancellors, but it is worth pointing out with the possible exception of Clarke those who harboured higher political ambitions have been pretty much unmitigated fiascos in the role.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/gdnpolitics/status/956612403470323712

"At the time it appeared there was little appetite to get rid of the prime minister before the UK leaves the EU in March 2019, but frustration with her lacklustre performance, botched reshuffle and shifting Brexit strategy has caused talk of deposing her to resurface."

The problem with politicians is, more than any other group of people, they fall for the mindset of "I'm not happy with something, I have to do something to show I'm unhappy and I have to do it now". It's a juvenile mindser, but politics is self-selecting for those that choose it as a profession.

It doesn't matter how crap you think May is, there is universal agreement she should be replaced before the next election. The question then is, when is the right time to replace her? However crap or lacklustre she is bears pretty much zero impact on that timing. The overwhelming logic is to put in a new leader after Brexit is done and dusted, so they don't suffer from the inevitable dissatisfaction that some will feel over that or from the onslaught of the Never Brexit crowd.

Every Tory MP knows and accepts this logic. It's just a matter of whether their heads will prevail or whether enough buckle and give into their busybody instincts.

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

I don't share the view that Hammond is on manoeuvres. His political judgement is woeful, and he's had a remarkable ability to put his foot in his mouth over the last 18 months.

I doubt even he thinks he's a serious candidate for Prime Minister. He'd offer no improvement on May whatsoever.

I've got no serious betting position on him; basic covering of my other stakes only.

Hammond has consistently given the impression that he regards the Treasury as the fulfilment of his political career and that he wants no role beyond it.

If true, that would make him unusual among Chancellors, but it is worth pointing out with the possible exception of Clarke those who harboured higher political ambitions have been pretty much unmitigated fiascos in the role.

I don't share Nick Timothy's utter dislike for him, and think he's a competent minister.

But, anyone who reads Tim Shipman's "Fallout" will quickly come to realise he has serious deficiencies, and a tin ear for politics.

HYUFD said:

Pong said:

This has political implications;

"According to our research, nine in ten of Millennials – the so-called ‘Generation Rent’ – never expect to own a house or car in their lifetime"

https://www.am-online.com/news/market-insight/2018/01/25/department-for-transport-report-highlights-peak-car-threat-to-vehicle-sales

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/driving-goes-into-reverse-as-britain-hits-peak-car-f0kvbn90g

These would be the same Millennials who will benefit from the biggest 'inheritance boom' of any postwar generation?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42519073

When they're old. We mustn't pooh-pooh millennial concerns about their futures. Sure, my daughter will be wealthy when I die, but if I reach my actuarial life expectancy, she'll be 59.

What we need to think about is incentivising, or at least, not penalising, inter-generational gifting.

John_M said:

HYUFD said:

Pong said:

This has political implications;

"According to our research, nine in ten of Millennials – the so-called ‘Generation Rent’ – never expect to own a house or car in their lifetime"

https://www.am-online.com/news/market-insight/2018/01/25/department-for-transport-report-highlights-peak-car-threat-to-vehicle-sales

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/driving-goes-into-reverse-as-britain-hits-peak-car-f0kvbn90g

These would be the same Millennials who will benefit from the biggest 'inheritance boom' of any postwar generation?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42519073

When they're old. We mustn't pooh-pooh millennial concerns about their futures. Sure, my daughter will be wealthy when I die, but if I reach my actuarial life expectancy, she'll be 59.

What we need to think about is incentivising, or at least, not penalising, inter-generational gifting.

I agree with that, and would like to add a further sentence:

And also build a shed load of houses....

Richard_Tyndall said:

John_M said:

Very sorry to hear that Richard. Good luck.

It will sort.

I have a skin cancer which needs removing. I am annoyed because I saw 4 GPs, the first 3 of whom said 'we don't know what it is but don't worry' and it was only the 4th who said 'I don't know what it is lets ask a specialist.'*

When I saw the specialist at Queens and told her I had had it for 18 months and it had been getting larger she asked why I had not come to see her much sooner.

I didn't really have a polite answer to that and since it was not her fault I just grimaced as if it was my fault.

It will shortly be cut out and hopefully that will be the end of it but it does make me nervous as long as it is still there.

* In fairness they were also dealing with the urinary tract issues at the time so it probably seemed secondary and unimportant.

So sorry to hear that, Richard - good luck with its total removal soon.

John_M said:

HYUFD said:

Pong said:

This has political implications;

"According to our research, nine in ten of Millennials – the so-called ‘Generation Rent’ – never expect to own a house or car in their lifetime"

https://www.am-online.com/news/market-insight/2018/01/25/department-for-transport-report-highlights-peak-car-threat-to-vehicle-sales

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/driving-goes-into-reverse-as-britain-hits-peak-car-f0kvbn90g

These would be the same Millennials who will benefit from the biggest 'inheritance boom' of any postwar generation?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42519073

When they're old. We mustn't pooh-pooh millennial concerns about their futures. Sure, my daughter will be wealthy when I die, but if I reach my actuarial life expectancy, she'll be 59.

What we need to think about is incentivising, or at least, not penalising, inter-generational gifting.

Yes and indeed most first time buyers do get parental assistance now with a deposit.

Elliot said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/gdnpolitics/status/956612403470323712

"At the time it appeared there was little appetite to get rid of the prime minister before the UK leaves the EU in March 2019, but frustration with her lacklustre performance, botched reshuffle and shifting Brexit strategy has caused talk of deposing her to resurface."

The problem with politicians is, more than any other group of people, they fall for the mindset of "I'm not happy with something, I have to do something to show I'm unhappy and I have to do it now". It's a juvenile mindser, but politics is self-selecting for those that choose it as a profession.

It doesn't matter how crap you think May is, there is universal agreement she should be replaced before the next election. The question then is, when is the right time to replace her? However crap or lacklustre she is bears pretty much zero impact on that timing. The overwhelming logic is to put in a new leader after Brexit is done and dusted, so they don't suffer from the inevitable dissatisfaction that some will feel over that or from the onslaught of the Never Brexit crowd.

Every Tory MP knows and accepts this logic. It's just a matter of whether their heads will prevail or whether enough buckle and give into their busybody instincts.

The problem with that logic is, bar the fact of no longer being members of the EU, nothing will be"done and dusted" by March 2019. The cliff edge will have moved right by twenty months and at that point the substantive negotiations will start. The withdrawal terms and transition arrangements are the easy part. Now we have to say what we actually want from our relationship with the EU. That's when any dissatisfaction with the EU would kick in. Also do you want to take another three months out of an already too tight negotiating timetable? It didn't go too well the last time the government tried that.

Richard_Tyndall said:

It will sort.

I have a skin cancer which needs removing. I am annoyed because I saw 4 GPs, the first 3 of whom said 'we don't know what it is but don't worry' and it was only the 4th who said 'I don't know what it is lets ask a specialist.'*

When I saw the specialist at Queens and told her I had had it for 18 months and it had been getting larger she asked why I had not come to see her much sooner.

I didn't really have a polite answer to that and since it was not her fault I just grimaced as if it was my fault.

It will shortly be cut out and hopefully that will be the end of it but it does make me nervous as long as it is still there.

* In fairness they were also dealing with the urinary tract issues at the time so it probably seemed secondary and unimportant.

@NickPalmer: So sorry to hear that, Richard - good luck with its total removal soon.
@Sandpit: Indeed. Good luck @Richard_Tyndall.

From me too. Good luck!

Best wishes to @Richard Tyndall for a speedy and satisfactory resolution of his health issues.

Sandpit said:

SandyRentool said:

Sandpit said:

SandyRentool said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SandyRentool said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SandyRentool said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wikiguido/status/956605054278160385

There is a Commons majority for a Remainer Brexit stitch-up. It shouldn't come as a surprise.

Not really.

In theory there is, but there is no Conservative majority for it. Which means that if those against a stitch-up pull support for the Government then there is no Government and there is no majority for anything then.

They would have to make Hard Brexit a confidence vote. High risk strategy for a Remainer PM, Chancellor and Home Sec.

There's no such thing as a confidence vote on an issue, just a Vote of No Confidence.

Brexiteers would just need to No Confidence the PM as Party Leader and not No Confidence the government to cause an election.

To have a majority in the House requires both being able to command a majority of votes in the Commons and to be able to command a majority of the party to maintain party leadership.

So:

May proposes Soft Brexit.

Most Labour SNP and some Tories support it and it passes.

Hard Brexit Tories propose a vote of No Confidence in May.

Labour and SNP vote with the Brexit Tories to get rid of May.

Then what? PM Jezza or PM Moggster?

The chances of most Labour and SNP supporting anything the government proposes is close to zero. They’d much rather inflict a defeat on the government than support a proposal which they’d be happy with in principle.

Labour voted with the government to trigger Article 50. Given a government motion for a soft Brexit and a Moggster amendment for a hard Brexit I would expect Labour to whip to support May's motion.

I imagine in that scenario they’d vote against the amendment but also against the substantive and amended Bill. Corbyn might be able to whip a vote and end up sacking half his Cabinet for going against him, but the SNP will certainly vote en bloc for whatever is likely to cause trouble for the government - irrespective of their view of the actual question asked.

What we do know is that parliament will get a vote. Should be fun.

RobD said:

Pong said:

This has political implications;

"According to our research, nine in ten of Millennials – the so-called ‘Generation Rent’ – never expect to own a house or car in their lifetime"

https://www.am-online.com/news/market-insight/2018/01/25/department-for-transport-report-highlights-peak-car-threat-to-vehicle-sales

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/driving-goes-into-reverse-as-britain-hits-peak-car-f0kvbn90g

Nine in ten not owning their own car? I find that hard to believe, especially given how big the "millennial" generation is.

Economically it makes sense to use club cars not own

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

another_richard said:

Pong said:

This has political implications;

"According to our research, nine in ten of Millennials – the so-called ‘Generation Rent’ – never expect to own a house or car in their lifetime"

https://www.am-online.com/news/market-insight/2018/01/25/department-for-transport-report-highlights-peak-car-threat-to-vehicle-sales

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/driving-goes-into-reverse-as-britain-hits-peak-car-f0kvbn90g

I'm curious as to where that 'research' was carried out.

I'd say that a majority of the 18-36 year olds I know already own either a house or a car or both.

As expected that 'research' is bollox.

' Owning a home by the age of 25 has become an unachievable dream for many over the last two decades.

Soaring property prices mean just one in five 25-year-olds own a property, compared to nearly half two decades ago, according to one recent study. '

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38564137

So 20% of 25 year olds own a house, it will be lower for those younger and higher for those up to 36 years old.

Now add on all those who expect to own a house, already own a car or who expect to own a car.

Its probably well over half not the 10% claimed.

I don't see why 25 should be the target, many grads will be less than 4 years out of university by then. I didn't buy my first house until I was 27.

I'd say getting one by the age of 30 is a reasonable target, so almost everyone has 8 years to build a deposit, get a solid career going, and be able to repay it all by retirement age, even on a 35 year term.

Even then you would need to be on an above average salary to buy a property by, say, 35 otherwise if you are on an average salary or below you are likely to need at least some parental support with a deposit, as proved by the fact that 52% of first time buyers now have had parental assistance to buy.

Indeed China has the highest number of millennial home owners in the world at 70% (compared to 31% in the UK) but there the tradition is the husband's family either purchases their son's first home or pays for the deposit thus setting them up for marriage. In return many elderly Chinese also move in with their children in their twilight years, reducing their social care problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39512599

That's a deal that can be done. But, each party has to keep it's end of the bargain.

Funnily enough, the demand of the Prodigal Son, to receive his share of the flocks and herds, was not unreasonable, in his society. It was his entitlement, as a younger son, reaching maturity. His sin was to waste it all. The Elder Brother got the bigger share, but was expected to care for his parents in old age.

Thanks for the best wishes folks

I am very philosophical about the whole thing. I am getting into the later stages of middle age and figure these sorts of things come with the territory.

I still want to live to be at least a thousand though

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

another_richard said:

Pong said:

This has political implications;

"According to our research, nine in ten of Millennials – the so-called ‘Generation Rent’ – never expect to own a house or car in their lifetime"

https://www.am-online.com/news/market-insight/2018/01/25/department-for-transport-report-highlights-peak-car-threat-to-vehicle-sales

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/driving-goes-into-reverse-as-britain-hits-peak-car-f0kvbn90g

I'm curious as to where that 'research' was carried out.

I'd say that a majority of the 18-36 year olds I know already own either a house or a car or both.

As expected that 'research' is bollox.

' Owning a home by the age of 25 has become an unachievable dream for many over the last two decades.

Soaring property prices mean just one in five 25-year-olds own a property, compared to nearly half two decades ago, according to one recent study. '

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38564137

So 20% of 25 year olds own a house, it will be lower for those younger and higher for those up to 36 years old.

Now add on all those who expect to own a house, already own a car or who expect to own a car.

Its probably well over half not the 10% claimed.

I don't year term.

Even then you would need to be on an above average salary to buy a property by, say, 35 otherwise if you are on an average salary or below you are likely to need at least some parental support with a deposit, as proved by the fact that 52% of first time buyers now have had parental assistance to buy.

Indeed China has the highest number of millennial home owners in the world at 70% (compared to 31% in the UK) but there the tradition is the husband's family either purchases their son's first home or pays for the deposit thus setting them up for marriage. In return many elderly Chinese also move in with their children in their twilight years, reducing their social care problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39512599

That's a deal that can be done. But, each party has to keep it's end of the bargain.

Funnily enough, the demand of the Prodigal Son, to receive his share of the flocks and herds, was not unreasonable, in his society. It was his entitlement, as a younger son, reaching maturity. His sin was to waste it all. The Elder Brother got the bigger share, but was expected to care for his parents in old age.

Yes, it is a deal that benefits both sides

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

another_richard said:

Pong said:

This has political implications;

"According to our research, nine in ten of Millennials – the so-called ‘Generation Rent’ – never expect to own a house or car in their lifetime"

https://www.am-online.com/news/market-insight/2018/01/25/department-for-transport-report-highlights-peak-car-threat-to-vehicle-sales

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/driving-goes-into-reverse-as-britain-hits-peak-car-f0kvbn90g

I'm curious as to where that 'research' was carried out.

I'd say that a majority of the 18-36 year olds I know already own either a house or a car or both.

As expected that 'research' is bollox.

' Owning a home by the age of 25 has become an unachievable dream for many over the last two decades.

Soaring property prices mean just one in five 25-year-olds own a property, compared to nearly half two decades ago, according to one recent study. '

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38564137

So 20% of 25 year olds own a house, it will be lower for those younger and higher for those up to 36 years old.

Now add on all those who expect to own a house, already own a car or who expect to own a car.

Its probably well over half not the 10% claimed.

I don't see why 25 should be the target, many grads will be less than 4 years out of university by then. I didn't buy my first house until I was 27.

I'd say getting one by the age of 30 is a reasonable target, so almost everyone has 8 years to build a deposit, get a solid career going, and be able to repay it all by retirement age, even on a 35 year term.

Even then you would need to be on an above average salary to buy a property by, say, 35 otherwise if you are on an average salary or below you are likely to need at least some parental support with a deposit, as proved by the fact that 52% of first time buyers now have had parental assistance to buy.

Indeed China has the highest number of millennial home owners in the world at 70% (compared to 31% in the UK) but there the tradition is the husband's family either purchases their son's first home or pays for the deposit thus setting them up for marriage. In return many elderly Chinese also move in with their children in their twilight years, reducing their social care problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39512599

My wife and her family find it downright weird how we in the UK pack off our elderly parents into so-called care homes in their final years.

Such treatment would be considered selfish and inhumane in Bulgaria.

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

another_richard said:

Pong said:

This has political implications;

"According to our research, nine in ten of Millennials – the so-called ‘Generation Rent’ – never expect to own a house or car in their lifetime"

https://www.am-online.com/news/market-insight/2018/01/25/department-for-transport-report-highlights-peak-car-threat-to-vehicle-sales

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/driving-goes-into-reverse-as-britain-hits-peak-car-f0kvbn90g

I'm curious as to where that 'research' was carried out.

I'd say that a majority of the 18-36 year olds I know already own either a house or a car or both.

As expected that 'research' is bollox.

' Owning a home by the age of 25 has become an unachievable dream for many over the last two decades.

Soaring property prices mean just one in five 25-year-olds own a property, compared to nearly half two decades ago, according to one recent study. '

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38564137

So 20% of 25 year olds own a house, it will be lower for those younger and higher for those up to 36 years old.

Now add on all those who expect to own a house, already own a car or who expect to own a car.

Its probably well over half not the 10% claimed.

I don't see why 25 should be the target, many grads will be less than 4 years out of university by then. I didn't buy my first house until I was 27.

I'd say getting one by the age of 30 is a reasonable target, so almost everyone has 8 years to build a deposit, get a solid career going, and be able to repay it all by retirement age, even on a 35 year term.

Even then you would need to be on an above average salary to buy a property by, say, 35 otherwise if you are on an average salary or below you are likely to need at least some parental support with a deposit, as proved by the fact that 52% of first time buyers now have had parental assistance to buy.

Indeed China has the highest number of millennial home owners in the world at 70% (compared to 31% i.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39512599

My wife and her family find it downright weird how we in the UK pack off our elderly parents into so-called care homes in their final years.

Such treatment would be considered selfish and inhumane in Bulgaria.

Yes, if they have cared for us we should care for them but it is a feature of most nations in an individualistic West which contrasts with the stronger family units in Eastern Europe and Asia and a few Western nations like Italy (though clearly there may still come a stage where elderly parents need carers or full time residential care if their health deteriorates significantly)

AlastairMeeks said:

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Philip Hammond is seeking an early resolution of Theresa May's position.

I'm confused by the dichotomy that Hammond is a friendless nobody on one hand and that May is unable to sack him on the other.

World's smallest violin, etc:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42825244

https://twitter.com/alliehbnews/status/956653439999717376

Right. I've changed my mind from this morning.

The developments of today suggest make me wonder if the PM has lost the patience significant parts of the party, and that it couldn't get much worse with pretty much any of the posited replacements.

I agree with David H, and think she loses a VoNC.

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

We were always sovereign. Of course if you are worried, scared, insecure, or perhaps just a moron, it might not have seemed like that. But we were.

And the laws that are passed are those of a club that we had decided to join and helped to craft.

desperate tone of most of the Brexiter posts.

We were only sovereign to the extent that we had delegated our sovereignty to Brussels and were unable to exercise our sovereignty for as long as we had delegated it - but reserved the right to retrieve it at any time.

I voted to retrieve our sovereignty so that we could exercise it ourselves and not have others exercise it on our behalf. I fail to see what petrifies you about us exercising our own sovereignty rather than delegating it to Brussels.

I was only not allowed to wear jeans and a t-shirt to my club because I had delegated the rules for that club to the committee. But I could resign at any time.

So I decided to resign from the club so I can wear jeans and a t-shirt any god damn time I want. But not, sadly, in my club, which is a shame as it is very agreeable.

But if your club said that you could never wear jeans and a t-shirt regardless of whether you were on the premises or not?

Luckily I negotiated a release whereby that rule didn't apply to me.

Except that the committee (a) refused to change their rules and just told you to trust them and (b) formed a sub-committee (on which you were not represented) which then cast a majority block vote on matters of grave concern to you

I don't care if they don't change their rules because I have my opt out.

And it turns out that I am by right of membership guaranteed a seat on that sub committee.

So we attend the Eurozone pre-meets before each heads of government meeting? The ones where they agree how to vote?

The eurozone doesn't bother me in the slightest. Let them do what they want.

I would meanwhile have liked to have been on the MiFID III steering committee.

The issue is on QMV matters the Eurozone bloc gets their way and we don’t have a veto

There's nothing stopping us joining the Eurozone.

We're like someone with an executive club premier card sitting in the business lounge and complaining that the people in the concorde room are getting preferential treatment.

Except that it would be economically stupid

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/956656526202195968

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/956657090772242432

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

My wife and her family find it downright weird how we in the UK pack off our elderly parents into so-called care homes in their final years.

Such treatment would be considered selfish and inhumane in Bulgaria.

Yes, if they have cared for us we should care for them but it is a feature of most nations in an individualistic West which contrasts with the stronger family units in Eastern Europe and Asia and a few Western nations like Italy (though clearly there may still come a stage where elderly parents need carers or full time residential care if their health deteriorates significantly)

Agreed - I inherited the traditions of my mum's Russian family and continued to have my parents living with me and looked after largely by me all their lives - in my mother's case till I was 49. It never really occurred to me that I could do anything else, and I don't have any regrets about it: the downsides were outweighed by many years of mutual affection.

Articles where parents moan that their kids don't leave home when they're 18 seem equally odd. Sure, if they want to, but if having them around is that tiresome, why have them?