politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why we should look closely at the precise wording of second re

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigelb said:

rottenborough said:

Donald's awake and annoyed:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/983662868540346371

What a load of utter bollocks.
The privilege is not absolute if there is sufficient probable cause for a warrant.

Don't forget this raid was signed off by the US Attorney appointed by Sessions (after an interview by Trump himself) who replaced the US Attorney fired by Trump - and a warrant would have to have been obtained from a federal or magistrate judge, in a jurisdiction not known for its liberal bias.

MAGA - My Attorney Got Arrested

"and a warrant would have to have been obtained from a federal or magistrate judge, in a jurisdiction" a Trump appointee, as it turns out.

Privilege is a question of what evidence is used *for*, for example, if it could be used in a trial.

As yet the FBI haven't *used* it for anything as far as I'm aware.

It doesn't just have to be used at trial. If improperly obtained information leads to other information that otherwise could be used at trial then that later evidence can be ruled out as "fruit of the poisoned tree".

Except that seems extraordinarily unlikely with there having been a warrant.

david_herdson said:

There is no risk of bringing the government down providing the new leader doesn't do anything stupid with respect to the DUP.

Or is Boris Johnson.

Barry Gardiner says Labour's Brexit policy is "bollocks".

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43710728

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If there was a second referendum then two questions arise. What would the government's recommended position be? Would Theresa allow ministers to campaign against that recommended position? (If Theresa recommended staying in, then watching the Tory neo-Leavers turn on a sixpence would be a hoot.)

She wouldn't recommend staying in - or if she did, she'd be No Confidenced.

But it's all hypothetical: there won't be a second referendum.

The interesting question politically is not what would happen if one is granted; it's what will the fallout be when one isn't.

Why are you so sure May would lose a confidence vote? The ERG are not a majority of the Tory parliamentary party, and most of them wouldn't risk bringing down the government.

May could deliver a similar speech to April 2016 and argue both sides.

1. Because she's a useless campaigner and will need replacing at some point before 2022. That becomes extremely difficult to do if she has already received a renewed mandate from MPs earlier in the same parliament. My expectation is that once there's a VoNC called, she loses it.

2. Because recommending staying in would be admitting that she was a useless negotiator, or

3. Because it'd look like she'd been negotiating in bad faith and with a secret agenda to stay in.

There is no risk of bringing the government down providing the new leader doesn't do anything stupid with respect to the DUP.

"She'll need replacing at some point" is a very poor argument for why any Tory MP would decide that the time to do that is during the ratification process of the deal. You are not considering the optics which would be a gift to the Labour party. Bringing down a PM because she thought the people deserved the final say? It would be political suicide for the Tories.

That wasn't the original premise. The scenario for this thread started off with May recommending Britain Remain in a second referendum. If she did that, she'd be replaced.

But there's no way she'll back a second referendum either, which would undermine her negotiations and provide any number of hostages to fortune, as well as create havoc in her party (and other parties too). All she need do on that one, though, is let the clock run down.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

tlg86 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

tyson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I haven’t felt this nervous about a match since Chelsea in April 2014.

Ugh on so many levels.

At least I’ve bet on City to qualify tonight.

It's been a weekus horribilis for us blues comrade......

It couldn't turn around could it?

Wait till Spurs thrash you on Saturday. After you are put out of the CL. That will be a week to remember.

It would indeed. Quite possible too.

The 1.2 on Liverpool to go through tonight looks like good value. Man City are choking.

I'd be curious to know the odds if any bookies has them on the Premier League 2018/19 season.

I don't think City will perform anywhere near as well as they did before Christmas this season. In fact I think they could be like Mourinho's final season at Chelsea when they went from runaway Champions to struggling to qualify for Europe.

Betway:

City - 8/11
Liverpool - 9/2
Man Utd - 6/1
Chelsea - 12/1
Tottenham - 12/1
Arsenal - 25-1

200-1 bar

No West Ham??

Some random data.

Title wins in an England World Cup year -
Liv 4; Wolves, Arsenal, MC (Inc 18), Chelsea 2; Ipswich, Everton, Portsmouth 1; MU and everyone else 0

Title wins in the following year -
MU 5, Ars, Che, Ev 2; Liv, Wolves, Spurs 1

Title wins in the preceding year -
MU 6, Ars, Che 2; Ev, AV, Leeds, Pomp, Spurs 1; Liverpool and others 0

Pin sticking suggests that in a non tournament year MU are heavily favoured over Liverpool.

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If there was a second referendum then two questions arise. What would the government's recommended position be? Would Theresa allow ministers to campaign against that recommended position? (If Theresa recommended staying in, then watching the Tory neo-Leavers turn on a sixpence would be a hoot.)

She wouldn't recommend staying in - or if she did, she'd be No Confidenced.

But it's all hypothetical: there won't be a second referendum.

The interesting question politically is not what would happen if one is granted; it's what will the fallout be when one isn't.

Why are you so sure May would lose a confidence vote? The ERG are not a majority of the Tory parliamentary party, and most of them wouldn't risk bringing down the government.

May could deliver a similar speech to April 2016 and argue both sides.

1. Because she's a useless campaigner and will need replacing at some point before 2022. That becomes extremely difficult to do if she has already received a renewed mandate from MPs earlier in the same parliament. My expectation is that once there's a VoNC called, she loses it.

2. Because recommending staying in would be admitting that she was a useless negotiator, or

3. Because it'd look like she'd been negotiating in bad faith and with a secret agenda to stay in.

There is no risk of bringing the government down providing the new leader doesn't do anything stupid with respect to the DUP.

"She'll need replacing at some point" is a very poor argument for why any Tory MP would decide that the time to do that is during the ratification process of the deal. You are not considering the optics which would be a gift to the Labour party. Bringing down a PM because she thought the people deserved the final say? It would be political suicide for the Tories.

That wasn't the original premise. The scenario for this thread started off with May recommending Britain Remain in a second referendum. If she did that, she'd be replaced.

But there's no way she'll back a second referendum either, which would undermine her negotiations and provide any number of hostages to fortune, as well as create havoc in her party (and other parties too). All she need do on that one, though, is let the clock run down.

My suggestion was that she could rise above it and give a speech arguing both sides. It wouldn't undermine her negotiations since she's always been consistent that Brexit would not have been her choice but was the will of the people. It would be entirely consistent to ask people whether it is still their will.

For those who follow RedRoar, which has the odd bit of Labour and Left news and rumour of interest:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/983685059378065408

ydoethur said:

bigjohnowls said:

williamglenn said:

CarlottaVance said:

we can be confident that a majority of Britons do indeed feel that the EU is behaving in a way that could be considered ‘bullying’ or ‘unfair’ when it comes to the Brexit negotiations. The finding is consistent no matter how you ask the question and across most sub-groups.

How can that be when we hold all the cards?
https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/970341843425775619

FAKE NEWS We dont hold all the cards or have the Ace Card

Oh no, we obviously hold all the cards.

Unfortunately the EU is playing Monopoly.

That's a good way of putting it. And the other 27 players have pooled all their properties.

https://twitter.com/shearm/status/983733767775883265

williamglenn said:

Barry Gardiner says Labour's Brexit policy is "bollocks".

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43710728

But it doesn't look as if he's going to be sacked. Labour leader's office saying Gardiner 'fully supports' Labour's policy, which he obviously doesn't. His position is identical to Owen Smith's so far as I can see.

One rule for Corbynistas and another for sane Labour MPs others?

Jane Aitchison picked as candidate for Pudsey:

https://labourlist.org/2018/04/jane-aitchison-picked-to-fight-ultra-marginal-pudsey-for-labour/

This Jane Aitchison:

https://www.theredroar.com/2018/03/swp-links-and-foul-mouthed-twitter-tirades-derail-frontrunners-bid-for-top-labour-target-seat-of-pudsey/

Doesn't look hopeful for their chances of taking Pudsey. She seems like a slightly abler and even more unpleasant and hypocritical version of Jared O'Mara and Stuart Andrew is no Nick Clegg.

William_H said:

MikeSmithson said:

William_H said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/983702937833787392

Wow, they're pissed he criticised the killing of unarmed protestors

Bollocks. The Israelis are pissed off with the festering stench of Jew hate racism coming from parts of the Labour Party

Codswallop. Read what they wrote - Corbyn's criticism of Israeli government policy is explicitly cited

Yes, but as a secondary consideration ('in addition to').If that was the reason they would have severed relations two and a half years ago.

TM is "not invited"

ydoethur said:

William_H said:

MikeSmithson said:

William_H said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/983702937833787392

Wow, they're pissed he criticised the killing of unarmed protestors

Bollocks. The Israelis are pissed off with the festering stench of Jew hate racism coming from parts of the Labour Party

Codswallop. Read what they wrote - Corbyn's criticism of Israeli government policy is explicitly cited

Yes, but as a secondary consideration ('in addition to').If that was the reason they would have severed relations two and a half years ago.

Corbyn has issued strong condemnations of the killing of unarmed protestors and calls to stop selling weapons in the past week.

https://twitter.com/adamgoldmanNYT/status/983742224390344705

ydoethur said:

Jane Aitchison picked as candidate for Pudsey:

https://labourlist.org/2018/04/jane-aitchison-picked-to-fight-ultra-marginal-pudsey-for-labour/

This Jane Aitchison:

https://www.theredroar.com/2018/03/swp-links-and-foul-mouthed-twitter-tirades-derail-frontrunners-bid-for-top-labour-target-seat-of-pudsey/

Doesn't look hopeful for their chances of taking Pudsey. She seems like a slightly abler and even more unpleasant and hypocritical version of Jared O'Mara and Stuart Andrew is no Nick Clegg.

I see Williamson was straight in with congrats.

Tells you all you need to know.

ydoethur said:

William_H said:

ydoethur said:

William_H said:

MikeSmithson said:

William_H said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/983702937833787392

Wow, they're pissed he criticised the killing of unarmed protestors

Bollocks. The Israelis are pissed off with the festering stench of Jew hate racism coming from parts of the Labour Party

Codswallop. Read what they wrote - Corbyn's criticism of Israeli government policy is explicitly cited

Yes, but as a secondary consideration ('in addition to').If that was the reason they would have severed relations two and a half years ago.

Corbyn has issued strong condemnations of the killing of unarmed protestors and calls to stop selling weapons in the past week.

He was similarly strong on Syria and Venezuela and the murder of unarmed civilians by criminal juntas there.

Oh, no he wasn't, was he? There he condemned violence by all sides. Because there it was his friends carrying out massacres.

I am no starry-eyed fan of Israel but Corbyn has blatant double standards. High time he was called out on it.

He's been similarly strong on the killing of civilians by the Saudi government.

But I forget that the deaths of arabs only matters when it serves to justify killing other arabs.

(((Dan Hodges))) - @DPJHodges: Some people ask what I would regard as action. If Labour is serious about zero tolerance: Livingstone out. Williamson out. Chakrabarti peerage removed, (or whip withdrawn)...

(((Dan Hodges))) - @DPJHodges: ...NEC elections re-run, (those shown to have blocked action don’t stand again), Corbyn suspended whilst full investigation of Mural, Facebook pages and all other issues.

William_H said:

ydoethur said:

William_H said:

Corbyn has issued strong condemnations of the killing of unarmed protestors and calls to stop selling weapons in the past week.

He was similarly strong on Syria and Venezuela and the murder of unarmed civilians by criminal juntas there.

Oh, no he wasn't, was he? There he condemned violence by all sides. Because there it was his friends carrying out massacres.

I am no starry-eyed fan of Israel but Corbyn has blatant double standards. High time he was called out on it.

He's been similarly strong on the killing of civilians by the Saudi government.

But I forget that the deaths of arabs only matters when it serves to justify killing other arabs.

When last I checked Venezuelans were South Americans not Arabs. Has that changed somehow? Must have been a pretty dramatic event.

I also tried to add, but I was outside the time limit, that some at least of these 'unarmed civilians' Corbyn has condemned the killing of have been admitted by Hamas to be armed militants. Which rather blasts his claim that they were peaceful protestors out of the water.

That wouldn't make any difference to Corbyn. Like a good school bully socialist he cares his friends should be allowed to shoot whomever they wish and nobody should shoot back at them. But if you open your eyes and look with cold logic on his career you will see he picks and chooses his causes and will support his friends and castigate his enemies - no mater what the circumstances. He does not care about collateral damage, only the moral high ground. Ironically, the former means he forfeits the latter.

He may be a nice person to talk to. But he is not a nice person politically and nor are rather too many of his supporters (your post with its unpleasant and wilfully dishonest insinuations shows exactly what sort of person you are, I am afraid, and as for Wisemann or daodao...)

There is a legitimate argument to be had about Israel, its occupation of the West Bank, its blockade of Gaza, its treatment of Arabs in Israel itself and its ruthlessness in attacking its neighbours militarily and by stealth. I've had discussions on those lines before, including in Israel itself which didn't make me terribly popular.

But Corbyn doesn't do that. He condemns it every time he can and then wonders why he is accused of antisemitism.

ydoethur said:

William_H said:

ydoethur said:

William_H said:

Corbyn has issued strong condemnations of the killing of unarmed protestors and calls to stop selling weapons in the past week.

He was similarly strong on Syria and Venezuela and the murder of unarmed civilians by criminal juntas there.

Oh, no he wasn't, was he? There he condemned violence by all sides. Because there it was his friends carrying out massacres.

I am no starry-eyed fan of Israel but Corbyn has blatant double standards. High time he was called out on it.

He's been similarly strong on the killing of civilians by the Saudi government.

But I forget that the deaths of arabs only matters when it serves to justify killing other arabs.

When last I checked Venezuelans were South Americans not Arabs. Has that changed somehow? Must have been a pretty dramatic event.

I also tried to add, but I was outside the time limit, that some at least of these 'unarmed civilians' Corbyn has condemned the killing of have been admitted by Hamas to be armed militants. Which rather blasts his claim that they were peaceful protestors out of the water.

That wouldn't make any difference to Corbyn. Like a good school bully socialist he cares his friends should be allowed to shoot whomever they wish and nobody should shoot back at them. But if you open your eyes and look with cold logic on his career you will see he picks and chooses his causes and will support his friends and castigate his enemies - no mater what the circumstances. He does not care about collateral damage, only the moral high ground. Ironically, the former means he forfeits the latter.

He may be a nice person to talk to. But he is not a nice person politically and nor are rather too many of his supporters (your post with its unpleasant and wilfully dishonest insinuations shows exactly what sort of person you are, I am afraid, and as for Wisemann or daodao...)

There is a legitimate argument to be had about Israel, its occupation of the West Bank, its blockade of Gaza, its treatment of Arabs in Israel itself and its ruthlessness in attacking its neighbours militarily and by stealth. I've had discussions on those lines before, including in Israel itself which didn't make me terribly popular.

But Corbyn doesn't do that. He condemns it every time he can and then wonders why he is accused of antisemitism.

+1

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/983744971395215360

Scott_P said:

(((Dan Hodges))) - @DPJHodges: Some people ask what I would regard as action. If Labour is serious about zero tolerance: Livingstone out. Williamson out. Chakrabarti peerage removed, (or whip withdrawn)...

(((Dan Hodges))) - @DPJHodges: ...NEC elections re-run, (those shown to have blocked action don’t stand again), Corbyn suspended whilst full investigation of Mural, Facebook pages and all other issues.

There is more chance of me winning the Grand National on Shergar than this little list.

The story that Jeremy Corbyn had his application to be a trainee social worker in 1969 turned down by Camden Council has shade of John Major's being turned down in his application to be a bus conductor

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/the-londoner-rose-mcgowan-backs-joe-corr-s-antigreed-show-a3810296.html

DavidL said:

The biggest problem for the bar is that as sole practitioners keeping the records required in the event of audit is going to be a total nightmare. We can no longer presume that a solicitor who sends us instructions has the authority of the client to do so so the client will need to give express, written authorisation each time and authorise us to pass the information to other relevant parties. There is almost no end of cases where this is going to be extremely problematic.

As you point out the stupidity and ignorance of those who write this stuff means major issues and costs for SMEs. The big boys are pleased because barriers to entry are increased. The rest, including our economy, suffers with pointless idiotic paperwork (he says impartially).

Coming to this late, but surely the examples you cite are covered under legitimate interests, contract or protecting the data subject's vital interests and therefore do not need the data subject's consent?

rottenborough said:

Scott_P said:

(((Dan Hodges))) - @DPJHodges: Some people ask what I would regard as action. If Labour is serious about zero tolerance: Livingstone out. Williamson out. Chakrabarti peerage removed, (or whip withdrawn)...

(((Dan Hodges))) - @DPJHodges: ...NEC elections re-run, (those shown to have blocked action don’t stand again), Corbyn suspended whilst full investigation of Mural, Facebook pages and all other issues.

There is more chance of me winning the Grand National on Shergar than this little list.

very reductionist and impossiblist.Dan is ,therefore,a very poor predictor of human behaviour and a very bad tipster to follow.

rottenborough said:

For those who follow RedRoar, which has the odd bit of Labour and Left news and rumour of interest:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/983685059378065408

Kinder gentler politics....

volcanopete said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_P said:

(((Dan Hodges))) - @DPJHodges: Some people ask what I would regard as action. If Labour is serious about zero tolerance: Livingstone out. Williamson out. Chakrabarti peerage removed, (or whip withdrawn)...

(((Dan Hodges))) - @DPJHodges: ...NEC elections re-run, (those shown to have blocked action don’t stand again), Corbyn suspended whilst full investigation of Mural, Facebook pages and all other issues.

There is more chance of me winning the Grand National on Shergar than this little list.

very reductionist and impossiblist.Dan is ,therefore,a very poor predictor of human behaviour and a very bad tipster to follow.

Garbage. He's not making a tip he is saying what action would be.

He knows that the party of Ken Livingstone and Nick Griffin isn't going to take this action so it's up to those on the so called moderate left to decide if they want to continue to be with an openly antisemitic racist party that Nick Griffin is OK with or not.

Philip_Thompson said:

volcanopete said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_P said:

(((Dan Hodges))) - @DPJHodges: Some people ask what I would regard as action. If Labour is serious about zero tolerance: Livingstone out. Williamson out. Chakrabarti peerage removed, (or whip withdrawn)...

(((Dan Hodges))) - @DPJHodges: ...NEC elections re-run, (those shown to have blocked action don’t stand again), Corbyn suspended whilst full investigation of Mural, Facebook pages and all other issues.

There is more chance of me winning the Grand National on Shergar than this little list.

very reductionist and impossiblist.Dan is ,therefore,a very poor predictor of human behaviour and a very bad tipster to follow.

Garbage. He's not making a tip he is saying what action would be.

He knows that the party of Ken Livingstone and Nick Griffin isn't going to take this action so it's up to those on the so called moderate left to decide if they want to continue to be with an openly antisemitic racist party that Nick Griffin is OK with or not.

Dan Hodges wants Corbyn to suspend himself and remove a peerage. Sure.

AlastairMeeks said:

Call me reckless, but anyone who placed a longshot bet on Mark Zuckerberg winning the presidency in 2020 is probably not going to see too much in the way of return from it.

He is done forever not just 2020.

JosiasJessop said:

Off topic:

I think we've just discovered the dumbest criminal of 2018:

Suspect who swatted a man who was later killed by the police, threatens to swat someone else from jail.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/your-ass-is-about-to-get-swatted-swatting-suspect-tweets-from-jail/

The drug dealing couple who supposedly earned £10k a year from their day job but posted all their trips abroad and expensive purchases on social media weren't exactly the sharpest tools in the box...But then they also flew BA economy to the far flung locations so we shouldn't really be surprised.

Scott_P said:

(((Dan Hodges))) - @DPJHodges: Some people ask what I would regard as action. If Labour is serious about zero tolerance: Livingstone out. Williamson out. Chakrabarti peerage removed, (or whip withdrawn)...

A peerage may only be "removed" by Act of Parliament" normally on account of acts of treason. The Titles Deprivation Act of 1917 being a case in point whereby King George V German relatives were stripped of their British royal status and peerages.

In addition the Irish peer, the 12th Viscount Taafe, was deprived of his title as he remained loyal to the Austrian Emperor as his forebears had been loyal to the Holy Roman Empire previously.

bigjohnowls said:

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has accept Russia & Syria's request to come and visit the Chemical Weapons Attack Site, in Syria, so that they can conduct investigations. Good news for those who want this investigated.

Do you trust Russia and Syria?

FrancisUrquhart said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Call me reckless, but anyone who placed a longshot bet on Mark Zuckerberg winning the presidency in 2020 is probably not going to see too much in the way of return from it.

He is done forever not just 2020.

Surely all he has to do is spend a few million dollars on targeted ads (written is Russian sounding English) on Facebook and he will be able to steal the election from the Anointed One?

Some Facebook employees are reportedly quitting or asking to switch departments over ethical concerns

http://uk.businessinsider.com/facebook-employees-quitting-whatsapp-instagram-cambridge-analytica-report-2018-4?r=US&IR=T

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

I spent the weekend visiting my 20 year old daughter in Groningen in Holland where she is having an Erasmus year. It was delightful. What surprised me was that she volunteered that having studied EU law in some detail from a continental perspective, having been taught how it is made and what its objectives are she would now vote Leave. She voted remain at the time of the referendum and really had very little time for her dad's views (nothing wrong in that of course). Her view was that if people knew more about it they would like it less.

Of course this is a classic PB anecdote and I don't doubt that many others could tell stories of fervent leavers who have now changed their mind. What I think is fairly clear is that there has been very little change in the overall position as found in both the referendum and the election where 43% voted for a party completely committed to delivering Brexit (even if they were seriously unclear as to how) and 41% to a party at least notionally committed to respecting the vote, even if many of the members were unhappy about it. 7% voted for a party wanting a second referendum. Its just not going to happen.

Remainers really need

But then, MRDA doesn't it?

Your daughter is a wise woman.

Though in practice, under @DavidL's scenario, we will be tied into EU Law in many aspects because of Pseudo CU and SM, while no longer having a say via Commission or EP in drafting those laws.

In goods, yes, but the Government is going for more detachment on services.

In goods and agriculture most likely. Services could be excluded from EU law if the FTA didnot include them.

In practice a FTA with regulatory alignment in goods and agriculture would be quite good at keeping out substandard US foodstuffs, so a major plus. It would rather stand in the way of other Trade deals, but as those are mostly a fiction then little to worry about.

Services being outside an FTA would of course exclude them from EU regulations, though the price of that is exclusion of our major exports from a major market.

We have a higher penetration of the US services market without an FTA than we do if the EU one