politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This might be the moment for Rory Stewart – the old Etonian of

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am quite surprised Rory the Tory hasn’t jacked in the MP lark. He has played the game for 10 years and despite being competent he gets overlooked time and time again. I am sure lots of other governments and NGOs would be more than happy to employ his services.

1. I actually think he enjoys it - regular communication through social media about him wandering around the borders and meeting people.

2. he rebelled on a house of lords vote (this one, I think: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jul/11/91-tory-rebels-lords-reform) and was told, in fairly uncertain terms, he was at the back of the queue for advancement.

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

tpfkar said:

Have to admire May going all out to sell her deal. It's almost George Foreman 'so good I put my name on it' territory.

But going over the heads of MPs to appeal to the public, while absolutely adamant that the public can have no say and have to bound by 2016 - not sure she has really thought those optics through here.

If it leads to a consensus that May did her best but Brexit is rubbish, I don’t see the downside for her. She can ultimately relent on a people’s vote, or wait for the Brexiteers to throw in the towel.

"If it leads to a consensus that May did her best but Brexit is rubbish"

It will never lead to that. At most, it will lead to the consensus that May's best was rubbish.

Brexit isn't rubbish; just it's implementation by Remainers. I think we can all reach a consensus on that....

Brexit is complete rubbish - on top of which it is being implemented by Conservatives.

You see - I can be just as assertive and dogmatic as you are!

I think Saudi Arabia may be trying to placate Trump over the Khashoggi killing by pumping out the oil, which has just caused the price to go below $60.

https://www.bloomberg.com/energy

Xenon said:

rottenborough said:

Sean_F said:

Stereotomy said:

rottenborough said:

matt said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/ReutersWorld/status/1065936953902854144

Perhaps the Conservative Party could stop navel gazing and start thinking about consequences.

Which John McD is the real one?

Last week he was in the Newstatesman posing as a mild mannered provincial bank manager, reassuring everyone that hardly anyone would pay more tax and that everything had to be done in a sensible, restrained manner, because they need to reach out to ordinary middle income voters.

This week, he seems to be rebuilding Britain as modern version of the Soviets.

I'm not sure you understand his political philosophy at all. The entire point is that the system concentrates wealth into a tiny elite which is certainly much, much smaller than the top 5%- and that's not even starting on the difference between income and wealth (which is far less equally distributed). Focusing on a small percentage rather than taxing the 20% to benefit the 80% isn't a compromise to electability, it's a central feature of his politics.

Whether any of this is realistic or achievable is, of course, an entirely different question.

I don't think wealth is that highly concentrated. Yes, the top 1% are very rich, but the median household has net wealth of £278,000.

If he just wants to redistribute the wealth of the 1 or 2 top %, why does he go on about overthrowing capitalism?

Which is it?

Some redistribution of wealth or destroying our entire economic system?

To be honest we've needed a reset in this country for years. For example house prices and rents are far too high for the young to ever have a decent life. The time for house prices to fall was in 2008 during the banking crisis, but consecutive governments have propped them up at taxpayers expense.

Maybe a no deal Brexit or Corbyn disaster will be the reset the country needs.

Iceland had a bigger reset in 2008 when they didn't bail out the banks and everyone told them they were crazy. They've recovered to be doing better than us now.

McDonell wouldn't be a reset though, he would be a constant source of economic damage whilst he remained in power.

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see wee Owen Jones claims that it is the tories fault UKIP leader has hired tommy Robinson. Everything is the tories fault...

Comments closed on that article.

Odd.

He's an absolute embarrassment to serious journalists.

BannedInParis said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see wee Owen Jones claims that it is the tories fault UKIP leader has hired tommy Robinson. Everything is the tories fault...

Comments closed on that article.

Odd.

He's an absolute embarrassment to serious journalists.

I supposed he hasn’t claimed that superhero’s are every “-ist under the sun”, everything that is wrong with the world and damaging our kids.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/nov/10/superman-batman-iron-man-bad-role-models-tanya-gold

PClipp said:

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

tpfkar said:

Have to admire May going all out to sell her deal. It's almost George Foreman 'so good I put my name on it' territory.

But going over the heads of MPs to appeal to the public, while absolutely adamant that the public can have no say and have to bound by 2016 - not sure she has really thought those optics through here.

If it leads to a consensus that May did her best but Brexit is rubbish, I don’t see the downside for her. She can ultimately relent on a people’s vote, or wait for the Brexiteers to throw in the towel.

"If it leads to a consensus that May did her best but Brexit is rubbish"

It will never lead to that. At most, it will lead to the consensus that May's best was rubbish.

Brexit isn't rubbish; just it's implementation by Remainers. I think we can all reach a consensus on that....

Brexit is complete rubbish - on top of which it is being implemented by Conservatives.

You see - I can be just as assertive and dogmatic as you are!

Yeah - but you're just wrong.

And a LibDem, so with added pointlessness.....

https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1065966115719966720?s=21

BannedInParis said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see wee Owen Jones claims that it is the tories fault UKIP leader has hired tommy Robinson. Everything is the tories fault...

Comments closed on that article.

Odd.

He's an absolute embarrassment to serious journalists.

He's not a journalist. He a comment writer. And an utter wanker.

logical_song said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

dixiedean said:

There is no question of No Brexit. We will leave on March 29th.
PM May. Clear as could be for once.

So it's Deal or No Deal on 29th March?

Increasingly likely actually Deal or Remain.

Both preferred to No Deal in Ashcroft's poll today and if May went expect new caretaker PM Lidington to force EUref2 through Parliament on a cross party basis.

I expect if May cannot get her Deal through and has to go she will recommend Deputy PM Lidington as PM to the Queen until a new Tory leader elected, he can then push through EUref2 which Remain likely wins and she gets her revenge on the ERG

Problem with that is could a PM Lidington win a vote of confidence in Parliament? The DUP wouldn't be onside. Headbangers on the ERG side may not too if EURef2 is even suspected.

Ok, so Lidington loses 10 DUP maybe, but 12 LibDems would support him in arranging a new referendum.

Possibly. But under that scenario, he might gain Labour support, but would lose the whole ERG. Lidington would be the Tory Ramsay MacDonald. Remarkable speculation. Not entirely impossible, although unlikely. Anything is possible these days.

AndyJS said:

Everything is always the Tories' fault in Owen Jones' world.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/23/ukip-tommy-robinson-tories-racism-establishment

Is there an echoooooooooo in here?

TOPPING said:

Xenon said:

MarqueeMark said:

currystar said:

Xenon said:

currystar said:

Xenon said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

SandyRentool said:

May appears to have intimated that if her deal is rejected by Parliament then we leave with no deal.

It took the presenter about 8 goes to get an answer from her.

If that is what she is saying, she has been grossly negligent in failing to prepare for no deal. If she wants Corbyn to be her successor, she is going the right way about it.

Agreed. Even Corbyn wouldn't be that stupid, a sentence I never thought I'd be saying.

How can you prepare for no deal in two years witthout massive expense?

Why would it cost so much to prepare for something?
It's got to be better than crashing out with no preparations whatsoever.

And then when there is a deal people would go mental for all the money wasted on no deal preparations.

They really wouldn't.

It's called insurance. A concept not exactly alien to voters....

Especially as it would probably allow us to get a much better deal, saving us money every year from then onward.

Sorry to be the boring one but what no deal preparations would you have instituted in Crossmaglen?

Hordes of fanatical Brexit supporters volunteering to patrol the border? It would be the natural thing for uber patriots.

dixiedean said:

TOPPING said:

Xenon said:

MarqueeMark said:

currystar said:

Xenon said:

currystar said:

Xenon said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

SandyRentool said:

May appears to have intimated that if her deal is rejected by Parliament then we leave with no deal.

It took the presenter about 8 goes to get an answer from her.

If that is what she is saying, she has been grossly negligent in failing to prepare for no deal. If she wants Corbyn to be her successor, she is going the right way about it.

Agreed. Even Corbyn wouldn't be that stupid, a sentence I never thought I'd be saying.

How can you prepare for no deal in two years witthout massive expense?

Why would it cost so much to prepare for something?
It's got to be better than crashing out with no preparations whatsoever.

And then when there is a deal people would go mental for all the money wasted on no deal preparations.

They really wouldn't.

It's called insurance. A concept not exactly alien to voters....

Especially as it would probably allow us to get a much better deal, saving us money every year from then onward.

Sorry to be the boring one but what no deal preparations would you have instituted in Crossmaglen?

Hordes of fanatical Brexit supporters volunteering to patrol the border? It would be the natural thing for uber patriots.

Under the bold, inspirational leadership of Captain Moggainwaring

Xenon said:

Well when the EU said there's no chance of a trade deal without freedom of movement which was one of May's red lines we should have said, ok let's prepare for WTO exit and sort stuff out to keep planes in the air etc. so we don't crash out with absolute chaos.

"No deal" doesn't mean we don't talk to the EU at all about anything.

I'm not sure what is so difficult with this concept and why people are pretending that it wasn't possible.

It's almost exclusively peddled by remainers who really didn't want us to leave at all.

With the one exception of what happens about the Irish border, you are right: we could do a deal with the EU for an orderly transition to WTO terms. In fact (again apart from the Irish border issue) we can still do that. Nothing in the political declaration precludes that, although as a matter of courtesy it might be a good idea to tell the EU not to waste further time on trying to get the free trade deal that the Leavers were going on about before the referendum

To make this happen, we would of course still have to sign the withdrawal agreement, which is easy enough. Lord only knows what you do about the Irish border issue in that scenario, though.

Xenon said:

TOPPING said:

Xenon said:

MarqueeMark said:

currystar said:

Xenon said:

currystar said:

Xenon said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

SandyRentool said:

May appears to have intimated that if her deal is rejected by Parliament then we leave with no deal.

It took the presenter about 8 goes to get an answer from her.

If that is what she is saying, she has been grossly negligent in failing to prepare for no deal. If she wants Corbyn to be her successor, she is going the right way about it.

Agreed. Even Corbyn wouldn't be that stupid, a sentence I never thought I'd be saying.

How can you prepare for no deal in two years witthout massive expense?

Why would it cost so much to prepare for something?
It's got to be better than crashing out with no preparations whatsoever.

And then when there is a deal people would go mental for all the money wasted on no deal preparations.

They really wouldn't.

It's called insurance. A concept not exactly alien to voters....

Especially as it would probably allow us to get a much better deal, saving us money every year from then onward.

Sorry to be the boring one but what no deal preparations would you have instituted in Crossmaglen?

Well when the EU said there's no chance of a trade deal without freedom of movement which was one of May's red lines we should have said, ok let's prepare for WTO exit and sort stuff out to keep planes in the air etc. so we don't crash out with absolute chaos.

"No deal" doesn't mean we don't talk to the EU at all about anything.

I'm not sure what is so difficult with this concept and why people are pretending that it wasn't possible.

It's almost exclusively peddled by remainers who really didn't want us to leave at all.

Yes yes but what actually would you have done? What measures would you have put in place?

Dura_Ace said:

OldKingCole said:

Are we seeing the birth pangs of a pro-Europe centralist party?

No, but you're seeing the death of one.

That happened in 2015. Just that Clegg forgot to post the death certificate.....

Twitter on the Robinson appointment:

https://twitter.com/edlnews/status/1065893403156774922

https://twitter.com/MikeStuchbery_/status/1065717001023303681

currystar said:

Yep. It's almost as if they realised that making the case to prepare for No Deal Brexit might have shown with some pre-planning, it needn't be the Project Fear Scary Thing that it has been painted as....

True. It would be much, much worse...

Here's a defence of the Vicky Pryce original jury:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2334363

I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.

stodge said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1065966115719966720?s=21

Is it good form to reference your own tweets?

Yes when it is only way to show the picture.

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

Yes yes but what actually would you have done? What measures would you have put in place?

I've been asking for weeks about what these no-deal preparation measures are supposed to consist of, beyond what the government is doing. No answer as yet.

It is almost as if there is no answer at all!

As it is Black Friday, public service announcement. For those that don’t know camelcamelcamel is a great website for tracking historical prices on amazon so you can check if it really is a good deal or not.

AndyJS said:

Pulpstar said:

Here's a defence of the Vicky Pryce original jury:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2334363

I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.

I think we need more openness as far as juries are concerned, like they have in the United States. It's far too secret at the moment. Once the trial is over, jurors ought to be able to talk about how and why they reached their decisions, if they choose to do so.

ISTR the Jeremy Thorpe case is the reason why English juries are put under an omertà.

Xenon said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Xenon said:

Well when the EU said there's no chance of a trade deal without freedom of movement which was one of May's red lines we should have said, ok let's prepare for WTO exit and sort stuff out to keep planes in the air etc. so we don't crash out with absolute chaos.

"No deal" doesn't mean we don't talk to the EU at all about anything.

I'm not sure what is so difficult with this concept and why people are pretending that it wasn't possible.

It's almost exclusively peddled by remainers who really didn't want us to leave at all.

With the one exception of what happens about the Irish border, you are right: we could do a deal with the EU for an orderly transition to WTO terms. In fact (again apart from the Irish border issue) we can still do that. Nothing in the political declaration precludes that, although as a matter of courtesy it might be a good idea to tell the EU not to waste further time on trying to get the free trade deal that the Leavers were going on about before the referendum

To make this happen, we would of course still have to sign the withdrawal agreement, which is easy enough. Lord only knows what you do about the Irish border issue in that scenario, though.

Yes two years were wasted by May on a trade deal that they didn't want to give us. After a few weeks this was obvious whatever anyone said before, so she should have planned for it.

Now there's not enough time to sort this out before March, which means we have to pay the EU another £39bn and agree to loads of stuff no one wants which will be a complete waste if we just end up at WTO anyway.

The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.

God we've been through this before (clue: it's out of their hands; it would be a WTO issue) but more interestingly, the old take back control of borders, money, laws thing. I didn't realise there was an appendix consisting of "apart from the following" on these.

Pulpstar said:

Here's a defence of the Vicky Pryce original jury:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2334363

I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.

I did jury service five years ago, and found it very interesting.

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Xenon said:

The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.

I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you are a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.

It's not the EU Richard. The EU, RoI, NI, GB don't want a hard border. But it would be out of their hands in a no-deal, WTO scenario. That is what none of those actors can risk.

So why not a deal which includes an RoI component and voila, out of the clutches of the WTO? Well that is precisely the point of the WA and the backstop.

There really is no other option and it is disingenuous of you to lay the blame at the EU's door.

I was being helpful to Xenon - even if the Irish border isn't an issue in reality, it's still an obstacle in the negotiations if the EU think it's an issue. I was challenging the ridiculous idea that we can unilaterally go for some mythical 'no deal' which somehow includes doing a deal with the EU (apparently without bothering to get their consent) on lots and lots of issues - 500+ pages worth, as we know.

Stark_Dawning said:

Here's my prediction for Brexit.

Theresa's deal is rejected by parliament.

Theresa resigns.

A new PM with suitable Brexit credentials (Boris, DD) is installed.

After much toing and froing between Brussels, the new PM comes back with another deal that is logically indistinguishable from Theresa's.

The Brexit Ultras hail it as a triumph and it's passed into law.

Ha. I can believe it. It's also Labour's strategy.

Sean_F said:

Pulpstar said:

Here's a defence of the Vicky Pryce original jury:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2334363

I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.

I did jury service five years ago, and found it very interesting.

I have been selected for Jury service 3 times (not just in the pool but cited and given a a date to attend) and each time been dismissed without serving.

Sean_F said:

Pulpstar said:

Here's a defence of the Vicky Pryce original jury:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2334363

I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.

I did jury service five years ago, and found it very interesting.

As a solicitor, how did you find the performance of the judicial system taken as a whole? I find the Secret Barrister an interesting and at times very depressing view of a world I know next to nothing about.

rpjs said:

AndyJS said:

Pulpstar said:

Here's a defence of the Vicky Pryce original jury:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2334363

I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.

I think we need more openness as far as juries are concerned, like they have in the United States. It's far too secret at the moment. Once the trial is over, jurors ought to be able to talk about how and why they reached their decisions, if they choose to do so.

ISTR the Jeremy Thorpe case is the reason why English juries are put under an omertà.

We want to avoid going down the American route.

I find the whole concept of DAs attacking the accused the moment they charged.

I find that hard to reconcile with good jurisprudence.

Alistair said:

Sean_F said:

Pulpstar said:

Here's a defence of the Vicky Pryce original jury:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2334363

I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.

I did jury service five years ago, and found it very interesting.

I have been selected for Jury service 3 times (not just in the pool but cited and given a a date to attend) and each time been dismissed without serving.

Was it that rolled up copy of the Daily Telegraph that did it?

Is there anywhere to bet on the spread of the vote?

stodge said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1065966115719966720?s=21

Is it good form to reference your own tweets?

It's the easiest way to post an image on here I think

rpjs said:

AndyJS said:

Pulpstar said:

Here's a defence of the Vicky Pryce original jury:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2334363

I think that actually far from being thick they were more likely the sort of highly intelligent, zero common sense people you precisely don't want on a jury.

I think we need more openness as far as juries are concerned, like they have in the United States. It's far too secret at the moment. Once the trial is over, jurors ought to be able to talk about how and why they reached their decisions, if they choose to do so.

ISTR the Jeremy Thorpe case is the reason why English juries are put under an omertà.

Before then, wasn't it?

kle4 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Here's my prediction for Brexit.

Theresa's deal is rejected by parliament.

Theresa resigns.

A new PM with suitable Brexit credentials (Boris, DD) is installed.

After much toing and froing between Brussels, the new PM comes back with another deal that is logically indistinguishable from Theresa's.

The Brexit Ultras hail it as a triumph and it's passed into law.

Ha. I can believe it. It's also Labour's strategy.

It would be funnier if the deal they came back with was Cameron's deal.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Xenon said:

The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.

I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you are a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.

They're going to need that EU Army - to protect that border from the Ra.....

Sean_F said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

I mean..... where to start....

https://twitter.com/SuzanneEvans1/status/1065922676433272832

I'm getting a bit lost now. I thought that the most hardline Brexiters were now in favour of remaining in the EU.

That's right. The EU appeasers want to ratify May's vassalage deal, and the British patriots want to revoke Article 50 and tell them to stuff their backstop.

Xenon said:

TOPPING said:

Xenon said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Xenon said:

The Irish border...just don't build one. Neither Britain, Northern Ireland or Ireland want it.

I agree, but it's not me you need to persuade. If you want a smooth transition - which, unless you are a complete loon, you do - you've got to persuade the EU.

It's not the EU Richard. The EU, RoI, NI, GB don't want a hard border. But it would be out of their hands in a no-deal, WTO scenario. That is what none of those actors can risk.

So why not a deal which includes an RoI component and voila, out of the clutches of the WTO? Well that is precisely the point of the WA and the backstop.

There really is no other option and it is disingenuous of you to lay the blame at the EU's door.

I was being helpful to Xenon - even if the Irish border isn't an issue in reality, it's still an obstacle in the negotiations if the EU think it's an issue. I was challenging the ridiculous idea that we can unilaterally go for some mythical 'no deal' which somehow includes doing a deal with the EU (apparently without bothering to get their consent) on lots and lots of issues - 500+ pages worth, as we know.

It wouldn't be unilateral, that's the whole point. We should have stopped asking for the trade deal which was the main problem in the negotiations (because they wouldn't give it to us without a load of unacceptable stuff) in order to get a cleaner break. It's not rocket science.

The reason the EU is playing hardball over the Irish border is because we want a trade deal so they have lots of leverage. They could make a deal with us about that without all the other crap if we're just looking for a clean exit with no "cherry picking".

So we're leaving the EU because we want to be able to agree trade deals around the world but we don't want a trade deal with the EU?

You really are totally stupid but here goes.

We want a trade deal with the EU, but they won't give it to us without unreasonable conditions attached, so regrettably we would have to forgo this for the moment in order to get a clean break.

Is this simple enough for you to understand yet?

OK sounds good. No trade deal with the EU. So under what terms would we trade with them?

Sean_F said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

I mean..... where to start....

https://twitter.com/SuzanneEvans1/status/1065922676433272832

I'm getting a bit lost now. I thought that the most hardline Brexiters were now in favour of remaining in the EU.

That's their logical position but not all have gotten there.

kle4 said:

Sean_F said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

I mean..... where to start....

https://twitter.com/SuzanneEvans1/status/1065922676433272832

I'm getting a bit lost now. I thought that the most hardline Brexiters were now in favour of remaining in the EU.

That's their logical position but not all have gotten there.

While I always accepted that Boris Johnson was an "amoral sociopathic snake" (as Grabcoque calls him) I did believe that the others were serious about wishing to leave the EU. It seems I was wrong.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

I mean..... where to start....

https://twitter.com/SuzanneEvans1/status/1065922676433272832

Clearly they've given in to the temptations of Black Friday.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

I mean..... where to start....

twitter.com/SuzanneEvans1/status/1065922676433272832

They are probably all at the Black Friday sales stocking up for when there are widespread shortages of everything...

Jury directed that they can reach a majority verdict. Because one juror was dismissed through illness that can only be 10-1.