politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The magnificent resilience of TMay ploughing on relentlessly a

Mr. 86, that's true, although lots of coverage time is down to whether there are cameras on location or not. It's one reason (though far from the only one) why a hurricane in the US tends to get more coverage than when it's blowing through Haiti.

DecrepitJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

hamiltonace said:

I am just not sure she is competent. At some point you need to accept she is not a good leader. The economic news is really bad today. Retail is dying and exports are struggling especially outside Europe. May be hard to avoid a recession

its the same across the world, this isnt just a UK issue

The global demand picture is worsening.

But we have a few specific negatives, in particular our reliance on consumer spending, and very low household savings rates. The fear for the UK is that falling house prices results in falling consumer confidence, and therefore rising household savings rates and lower retail sales.*

The risk is that we enter into a negative feedback loop, where falling confidence leads to ever higher savings rates.

The irony is that this problem is essentially nothing to do with Brexit.

* All those headlines are from today.

You seem to have household savings rates as both a good and bad thing. Surely the question is whether household spending (ie not saving) fuels the domestic economy more or less than it sucks in imports?

If we borrow money from Singaporeans to import an iPhone, it boosts GDP. That is the nature of a consumption driven economy.

Our household savings rates are too low, which is to a large extent the result of the New Labour years, when subsidies on savings (PEPs, TESSAS to ISAs) were reduced.

In the long run, we need a (through the cycle) household savings rate of perhaps 10-12%. We're currently at less than half that level. If our savings rate were to go from 4% to 14%, that effectively means losing more than 10% of Final Consumption Expenditure, which would be a large drop in GDP (and would only be somewhat cushioned by a declining current account deficit).

Mr. Cocque, interesting theory. Can't recall precisely but one year market for her departure shortened a little on Ladbrokes when I checked this morning.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Donny43 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

OK, Mr Ampfield, let me explain in simple enough terms .
1) N Ireland.Without the Brexit madness

Let me stop you there.

The extreme right and extreme left always like to close down argument they don't like. Vladimir would be proud of you

You are assuming what you are trying to prove, which is of course a logical fallacy.

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

I wonder if Philip May will request the portrait as a gift for his wife.

I like the portrait, but I don't think the background conveys a flattering message for the Prime Minister.

Oh I know, but given I imagine May knows that background is a real issue, and given the positive sentiment from OGH, I think perhaps it might still be suitable.

SquareRoot said:

grabcocque said:

Something very significant happened this weekend, and I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this, although Sam Gyimah has, on Twitter.

This weekend, at first imperceptibly, and then at a torrent, the narrative coming from inside number 10 shifted.

Nobody is trying to sell May's deal any more. They've given up. The phony war is over, and everyone is now preparing for not *if*, but *when* the Meaningful Vote fails.

You have to bear May's comments in that light. She has finally accepted, as has cabinet, and the bunker, that her deal is dead. Everyone is positioning themselves for the coming constitutional crisis.

If Cabinet and Number 10 bounce the government into a second referendum, it will be a final personal and political humiliation for May. So what she's doing is her positioning herself so she has a path to a diginifed, honourable resignation.

If/when cabinet decides a 2nd ref is the best way forward, May has already laid the groundwork for bowing out gracefully.

Its not the best way forward... it would be a disaster

It's not even a decision. It's a way for MPs (salary: £77k) to wash their hands of making a decision.

If May's deal is dead, then surely the only alternatives are crashing out on 29th March with no deal, which pretty well everyone agrees will be nasty*, or 'pulling' the Article 50 letter.

* Some people think it will be temporarily unpleasant, some that the unpleasantness wil llast for quite a while and some people think it will be totally disastrous. I've read nothing anywhere that suggests everything will be OK, although some suggest it will be a non-event like Y2k, although the possibility of disaster then was carefully planned for.

And I don't understand why anyone admires the pig-headed, obdurate and cruel Mrs May.

Morris_Dancer said:

Meanwhile, in Mr. Jessop-pleasing news:
https://twitter.com/racefansdotnet/status/1074612019737911297

Ah, you know me too well.

Although I'm intrigued about which 'Bransley-based company' might have purchased it ...

SquareRoot said:

grabcocque said:

Something very significant happened this weekend, and I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this, although Sam Gyimah has, on Twitter.

This weekend, at first imperceptibly, and then at a torrent, the narrative coming from inside number 10 shifted.

Nobody is trying to sell May's deal any more. They've given up. The phony war is over, and everyone is now preparing for not *if*, but *when* the Meaningful Vote fails.

You have to bear May's comments in that light. She has finally accepted, as has cabinet, and the bunker, that her deal is dead. Everyone is positioning themselves for the coming constitutional crisis.

If Cabinet and Number 10 bounce the government into a second referendum, it will be a final personal and political humiliation for May. So what she's doing is her positioning herself so she has a path to a diginifed, honourable resignation.

If/when cabinet decides a 2nd ref is the best way forward, May has already laid the groundwork for bowing out gracefully.

Its not the best way forward... it would be a disaster

That might not be the contradiction you think it is.

grabcocque said:

Donny43 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Donny43 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

OK, Mr Ampfield, let me explain in simple enough terms .
1) N Ireland.Without the Brexit madness

Let me stop you there.

The extreme right and extreme left always like to close down argument they don't like. Vladimir would be proud of you

You are assuming what you are trying to prove, which is of course a logical fallacy.

It's one of Aristotle's classical syllogisms, in this case "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question", aka "assuming the conclusion".

One of the sophist's most powerful tools for befuddling the weak-minded.

Of which "I think, therefore I am" is the most obvious example.

It literally starts with "I". The conclusion is presumed in the very first letter.

Xenon said:

Pulpstar said:

Xenon said:

I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.

They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).

Can such a motion be tabled through a backbench bill ?

I seriously doubt it, but I imagine if May resigns someone like Hague will be wheeled out temporarily to push it through with the help of Labour MPs.

I'm not sure she'll resign if we're heading to leaving without a deal. I honestly doubt the remainers (Push/shove time) amongst the 200 MPs expressing confidence in her in the recent Tory election properly thought through their action.

Pulpstar said:

I think May can form a Gov't if she pivots to exiting without a deal. Jeremy Hunt is very obviously a candidate for Chancellor in that scenario.
I wouldn't be surprised if hypothetical (And it is hypothetical due to the 12 month rule) non payroll confidence votes against/for May completely flip in the coming months.

No sane government can afford to do that.

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

You've repeatedly claimed that the problem was that May was a remainer, and that a leaver would have done much better. Are you altering that position?

And the points are not straw men: they're critically relevant to the question of whether a leaver (or indeed anyone) could have got a 'better' deal.

You are also talking with hindsight, which is a wonderful thing. There was also f'all chance of the people you mention being put in charge of negotiations - and you knew that before the referendum. You were more likely to get (say) IDS or Boris doing the negotiating - do you think they'd have done better?

Brexit has been proved to be horribly difficult and messy. Some of us were saying that it would be so before the referendum. I understand why you want to think it needn't have been so, but you seem to have precious little evidence for it aside from some perverse faith in the skills of Brexiteers; a faith that goes against all available evidence.

Your claim of talking with hindsight might have some validity if we had not raised these specific issues at the time. But since we (both Leavers and Remainers) did, repeatedly on here, your point has no validity whatsoever.

It is you who are wilfully ignoring the evidence because it is inconvenient for your claims that this was all doomed from the start.

Nope, still hindsight. Especially as many of those people have been negative ninnies about everything to do with any potential deal throughout the process. Little boys who cried wolf: often because they, whether leaver or remainer, clearly didn't want a deal.

I'm also not ignoring evidence: unless you're confusing your opinions with 'evidence'. I may be putting different weight on 'evidence', but that's fair enough.

I am not claiming it was doomed from the start: just that it was nowhere near the slam-dunk many Brexiteers stupidly said it would be. I'm also rather dubious of any claim that there were not other pitfalls that May, or any notional negotiator, might have fallen into if other choices had been made.

This is especially true as you seem to think leavers could have done a better job. I find this an absolutely ludicrous assertion given their lack of skills and, in many cases, febrile hatred of the EU and lack of knowledge about it and our relationship shown by most Conservative leaver politicians.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, it's easy to make a spelling mistake. Don't be meen.

I never make smelling mistakes.

glw said:

Xenon said:

I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.

They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).

My guess is that it will be an A50 extension, followed by a referendum to choose between revoking A50 (remain) or May's Deal. I expect that by mid-summer next year it will be all over for Leave.

Do we know if we can revoke if Article 50 is extended beyond March 29th.

eek said:

glw said:

Xenon said:

I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.

They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).

My guess is that it will be an A50 extension, followed by a referendum to choose between revoking A50 (remain) or May's Deal. I expect that by mid-summer next year it will be all over for Leave.

Do we know if we can revoke if Article 50 is extended beyond March 29th.

Yes

I'm sure everyone's seen this...

https://youtu.be/7Mtet4-dJy8

grabcocque said:

glw said:

Xenon said:

I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.

They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).

My guess is that it will be an A50 extension, followed by a referendum to choose between revoking A50 (remain) or May's Deal. I expect that by mid-summer next year it will be all over for Leave.

I agree that such a question could potentially clear the triple lock of Parliament/Electoral Commission/European Council.

But how the government enacts this without the Tories fracturing permanently eludes me.

Let's worry about the spinoff benefits afterwards

grabcocque said:

As will a Labour government propped up by the SNP.

*innocent face*

https://twitter.com/BrexitCentral/status/1074612747390910464

Signs of desperation from the Brexit loons. They have already given Ms Sturgeon masses of reasons to go for another independence referendum. She won't go for it though, unless she thinks she has a decent chance of winning. She is probably praying for a hard Brexit.

Xenon said:

glw said:

Xenon said:

I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.

They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).

My guess is that it will be an A50 extension, followed by a referendum to choose between revoking A50 (remain) or May's Deal. I expect that by mid-summer next year it will be all over for Leave.

That would be a bit of a farce though without the no deal option. I can't see it happening.

Our politicians may not be that bright, but they wili have learrned not to put damaging ill-defined propositions to a vote

Xenon said:

glw said:

Xenon said:

I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.

They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).

My guess is that it will be an A50 extension, followed by a referendum to choose between revoking A50 (remain) or May's Deal. I expect that by mid-summer next year it will be all over for Leave.

That would be a bit of a farce though without the no deal option. I can't see it happening.

But no deal is literally no deal; better for a party to articulate a coherent leaving strategy over the next few years, surely, on that basis?

grabcocque said:

notme said:

Xenon said:

I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.

They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).

Without the intention to serve article 50 again, you would be lighting a touchpaper.

Another vague but ominious threat of violence from you?

Tut tut.

They will be taking to the barricades in their hundreds in their bath-chairs I tell you... we had better watch out! Additionally, the Daily Express will be overwhelmed with illegible scribblings - it will be hell.

Xenon said:

I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.

They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).

What is wrong with a choice between Leave on the basis of the WA or Remain on current terms?

Meanwhile I see that it is all kicking off again in France and Belgium in relation to the Marrakech Declaration our own @Alanbrooke wrote about recently.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/anti-refugee-violence-in-the-heart-of-brussels-vz9bgz6t5

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/president-macron-s-migrant-pledge-risks-splitting-his-party-j3kggm36w

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

You've repeatedly claimed that the problem was that May was a remainer, and that a leaver would have done much better. Are you altering that position?

And the points are not straw men: they're critically relevant to the question of whether a leaver (or indeed anyone) could have got a 'better' deal.

You are also talking with hindsight, which is a wonderful thing. There was also f'all chance of the people you mention being put in charge of negotiations - and you knew that before the referendum. You were more likely to get (say) IDS or Boris doing the negotiating - do you think they'd have done better?

Brexit has been proved to be horribly difficult and messy. Some of us were saying that it would be so before the referendum. I understand why you want to think it needn't have been so, but you seem to have precious little evidence for it aside from some perverse faith in the skills of Brexiteers; a faith that goes against all available evidence.

Your claim of talking with hindsight might have some validity if we had not raised these specific issues at the time. But since we (both Leavers and Remainers) did, repeatedly on here, your point has no validity whatsoever.

It is you who are wilfully ignoring the evidence because it is inconvenient for your claims that this was all doomed from the start.

Nope, still hindsight. Especially as many of those people have been negative ninnies about everything to do with any potential deal throughout the process. Little boys who cried wolf: often because they, whether leaver or remainer, clearly didn't want a deal.

I'm also not ignoring evidence: unless you're confusing your opinions with 'evidence'. I may be putting different weight on 'evidence', but that's fair enough.

I am not claiming it was doomed from the start: just that it was nowhere near the slam-dunk many Brexiteers stupidly said it would be. I'm also rather dubious of any claim that there were not other pitfalls that May, or any notional negotiator, might have fallen into if other choices had been made.

This is especially true as you seem to think leavers could have done a better job. I find this an absolutely ludicrous assertion given their lack of skills and, in many cases, febrile hatred of the EU and lack of knowledge about it and our relationship shown by most Conservative leaver politicians.

I have not noticed either Gove or Cox exhibiting febrile hatred. I am afraid you are allowing your own clear bias - perhaps your own febrile hatred of Brexit - to cloud your judgement.

And there were plenty of sensible posters on both sides of the debate who pointed out the same May mistakes I mentioned. You just want to paint all those people who disagree with you as holding views which are invalid.

kinabalu said:

grabcocque said:

The only way we can leave the EU on any other terms than the WA is either a chaotic no-deal (which the electorate voted for) or the EU has to agree an extension of A50 to renegotiate (they won't).

Right. That article 50 extension comes only with EUref2, which is as toxic as No Deal. So all you need to do is retain sufficient faith in our politicians to not believe that they will sanction either of those horrors and voila the WA somehow goes through. This is the ledge on which I am standing as the waters rise. And I'm staying put for now. It is a very low bar, that parliament not do something stupid and borderline sadistic, and I think that after much huffing and puffing it can scrape over it.

I don't think you can say it is as toxic as no deal. EUref2 might be politically toxic to some (probably about 30% max), but it doesn't bring economic chaos, so not equivalent at all really.

rottenborough said:

anothernick said:

glw said:

Xenon said:

I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.

They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).

My guess is that it will be an A50 extension, followed by a referendum to choose between revoking A50 (remain) or May's Deal. I expect that by mid-summer next year it will be all over for Leave.

That is also my expectation. A50 will be revoked and the question of whether this will be temporary or permanent will be left open. But the reality is that it will be permanent.

Arguably (to say the least) Remain should not be on the ballot. The choices should be two leave options.

I suggested Norway vs No Deal the other day (with some tinkering around CU issues).

Doubt this will happen though.

I worry a great deal about the political turmoil that putting Remain on the ballot will cause.

I think your suggestion is spot on. It honours the referendum result, and allows everyone a voice. From the EU's point of view, they'd rather we were Norway, rather than out altogether, as we'd be handing over at least some money, and it makes us a rule taker. From our side it allows us to resolve what the future relationship looks like, and allows purists to argue for No Deal.

SandyRentool said:

If parliament rejects May's deal by 420 - 220 (or thereabouts), why on earth should the very same deal then be put to a public referendum?

Likewise if Leave with No Deal is soundly rejected by parliament.

In electoral terms, it would be a case of "Reopen nominations", as none of the Brexit candidates so far presented are acceptable.

The only Brexit that has a chance of getting through parliament is a deal that Labour can sign on to. With most of Labour, half of the Tories and the DUP you have a parliamentary majority. That is the only way I can see a deal being agreed.

Slight problem is that Labour won't agree to anything while they think they have a chance of creating as much chaos as possible resulting in a GE that even Corbyn has a chance of winning. It is their only hope for electoral success. Both major parties are putting party before country

Cyclefree said:

Xenon said:

I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.

They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).

What is wrong with a choice between Leave on the basis of the WA or Remain on current terms?

Meanwhile I see that it is all kicking off again in France and Belgium in relation to the Marrakech Declaration our own @Alanbrooke wrote about recently.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/anti-refugee-violence-in-the-heart-of-brussels-vz9bgz6t5

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/president-macron-s-migrant-pledge-risks-splitting-his-party-j3kggm36w

Because the decision to leave has already been made.

Been reported new populos poll.

Labour 40%
Conservatives 37%
L dem 7%
UKIP 6%

notme said:

grabcocque said:

notme said:

Xenon said:

I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.

They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).

Without the intention to serve article 50 again, you would be lighting a touchpaper.

Another vague but ominious threat of violence from you?

Tut tut.

A warning from history. You are creating a massively justified grievance that will damage our society and politics for years to come.

Already done.

SandyRentool said:

If parliament rejects May's deal by 420 - 220 (or thereabouts), why on earth should the very same deal then be put to a public referendum?

In order to overrule Parliament, who will have failed to come up with a workable option.

Andy_Cooke said:

On topic, a dogged refusal to change course can, thanks to a bias in the human mind, be seen as a praiseworthy characteristic in and of itself.
In reality, a refusal to change tack when the winds of reality blow the ship of intent towards rocks or away from the channel, is often something that isn't totally a positive thing.

Of course, changing repeatedly and instantly to pressure is also a bad thing, but that error is more commonly noted and held against someone. The former error is usually not.

Unfortunately, reality often has the casting vote.

May's approach to Brexit has uncanny parallels with Margaret Thatcher's kamikaze act with the Poll Tax, she just put her head down, charged ahead, rejected all advice including from her own cabinet, and Boom, when reality hit both Thatcher and the tax imploded. May shows every sign of going the same way.

Cyclefree said:

Xenon said:

I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.

They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).

What is wrong with a choice between Leave on the basis of the WA or Remain on current terms?

Remain on current terms has already been rejected. And it isn't a stable end state.

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1074625562713313280