politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the Betfair exchange its now a 69% chance the the UK WON’T

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

Is it funny that on the very day a handful of MPs have finally switched from being against the deal to for it that research from the BBC indicates May would, even with those switches, face one of if not the biggest defeats ever for a government. The first good news they've had for a month, but barely a flicker of light amid the darkness.

The deal needs to be voted on, everything will flow from that and I still think TM has a good chance of achieving a deal as no deal is off the table, and the other options are as, if not more, difficult

Your optimism is an inspiration against my gloomy pessimism, but with best case scenarios of the defeat being if the gov can manage to lose by less than three figures, I've never seen such a dead proposal.

Not sure it is optimism but more instinct, as it is going to be deal or remain and even if TM deal goes down by 200, there is no other option other than no deal or remain

Did you mean no deal or remain at the end?

I expressed it poorly and have edited it. If the deal goes down the idea the choice would be no deal or remain is crazy

It's not if no deal isn't as bad as you're imagining. Lesson from last few years should be that nothing is impossible in politics.

TrèsDifficile said:

Jo Swinson is so much better than Layla Mahmood

Who?

Why resign now ? Because *if* the deal is still going down by Tuesday evening then the deal + that subsequently passes will be much much softer to buy Labour votes. If you want a future in the Cobservative Party you may well decide you have to quit ratger than vote for it. Taking a hit for a solution is one thing. Taking a hit to vote for something doomed is another. It will depend on the head count on Tuesday evening before the vote.

Foxy said:

AndyJS said:

No-one should be surprised that the Chinese growth rate is declining, since their working-age population has been dropping for nearly 3 years.

https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-working-age-population-peaked-2016-4?r=UK&IR=T
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201801/12/WS5a584e92a3102c394518edbc.html

Surely the same applies to our working age population?

https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/978302412363624448?s=19

Our working age population remains stable (but proportion shrinks as has happened for a long time).

China's is actually falling.

Anazina said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Jo Swinson is so much better than Layla Mahmood

Who?

A rather dodgy snipe at Layla Moran, who is part Palestinian (though Christian rather than Muslim as Mahmood would imply).

Yellow_Submarine said:

Why resign now ? Because *if* the deal is still going down by Tuesday evening then the deal + that subsequently passes will be much much softer to buy Labour votes. If you want a future in the Cobservative Party you may well decide you have to quit ratger than vote for it. Taking a hit for a solution is one thing. Taking a hit to vote for something doomed is another. It will depend on the head count on Tuesday evening before the vote.

The vote has been known to be doomed for a long time, the narrative since well before the MV was pulled was around whether it could lose by a small enough amount to salvage it. And even if someone is making the calculation you suggest it still boggles the mind that they didn't make that play a lot sooner. If not around the time Raab went then in the month that followed as people came out for or against, including plenty of ministers.

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

Is it funny that on the very day a handful of MPs have finally switched from being against the deal to for it that research from the BBC indicates May would, even with those switches, face one of if not the biggest defeats ever for a government. The first good news they've had for a month, but barely a flicker of light amid the darkness.

The deal needs to be voted on, everything will flow from that and I still think TM has a good chance of achieving a deal as no deal is off the table, and the other options are as, if not more, difficult

Your optimism is an inspiration against my gloomy pessimism, but with best case scenarios of the defeat being if the gov can manage to lose by less than three figures, I've never seen such a dead proposal.

Not sure it is optimism but more instinct, as it is going to be deal or remain and even if TM deal goes down by 200, there is no other option other than no deal or remain

Did you mean no deal or remain at the end?

I expressed it poorly and have edited it. If the deal goes down the idea the choice would be no deal or remain is crazy

It's not if no deal isn't as bad as you're imagining. Lesson from last few years should be that nothing is impossible in politics.

I am 100% against no deal in all circumstances

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Jo Swinson is so much better than Layla Mahmood

I have no doubt that is fair comment but not sure who Leyla Mahmood is !!!!

Join the club.

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

Steve Baker still living in la la land I see:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/10/ex-brexit-minister-to-put-pressure-on-may-with-new-deal-proposal

Another former minister told the Guardian that serving ministers could stand down to vote against the deal.

If I could be forgiven crudeness for the moment, what in the ever living fuck are these clowns playing at? Why, after all this time, would someone quit now to vote against the deal?

Because they've waited until the last moment to see if there were any forthcoming concessions by Europe in May's fabled late negotiations to see if it could make this bitter pill easier to swallow.

No. 10s line for a month before the MV was pulled was there would be no changes. Yes she then tried to say she would get some more, but given her policy for a month was that was not possible, there's no justifiable reason someone who needed the concessions to stay in post (as opposed to wanting concessions but able to vote for the deal as is) had not quit in advance of the last minute pulling of the MV.

Last minute resignations are standard for any major rebellion.

Except we've had numerous periods of resignations over this. I'm sorry, a minister standing up now and saying the deal is unacceptable while collecting a ministerial salary for months on end gets no respect from me.

Or me

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

Steve Baker still living in la la land I see:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/10/ex-brexit-minister-to-put-pressure-on-may-with-new-deal-proposal

Another former minister told the Guardian that serving ministers could stand down to vote against the deal.

If I could be forgiven crudeness for the moment, what in the ever living fuck are these clowns playing at? Why, after all this time, would someone quit now to vote against the deal?

Because they've waited until the last moment to see if there were any forthcoming concessions by Europe in May's fabled late negotiations to see if it could make this bitter pill easier to swallow.

No. 10s line for a month before the MV was pulled was there would be no changes. Yes she then tried to say she would get some more, but given her policy for a month was that was not possible, there's no justifiable reason someone who needed the concessions to stay in post (as opposed to wanting concessions but able to vote for the deal as is) had not quit in advance of the last minute pulling of the MV.

Last minute resignations are standard for any major rebellion.

Except we've had numerous periods of resignations over this. I'm sorry, a minister standing up now and saying the deal is unacceptable while collecting a ministerial salary for months on end gets no respect from me.

A minister using his role to try and shape what is happening until the last possible second does get respect from me. Just as Robin Cook did, was Robin Cook dishonorable?

I don't know enough about the circumstances to judge that situation, I wasn't paying attention at the time. But if the deal was unacceptable that would have been clear to someone a long time before now. They cannot claim to have had a sudden epiphany and realised it was unacceptable.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1083493392640811009

I came up with "Corbynite Manoeuvre" on PB many moons ago!

ExiledInScotland said:

Foxy said:

AndyJS said:

No-one should be surprised that the Chinese growth rate is declining, since their working-age population has been dropping for nearly 3 years.

https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-working-age-population-peaked-2016-4?r=UK&IR=T
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201801/12/WS5a584e92a3102c394518edbc.html

Surely the same applies to our working age population?

https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/978302412363624448?s=19

What happened in the early 70's to cause the population spike? Alternative leisure activities due to power cuts?

The graph is of age, not year of birth, so the spike in the 70 age band is those born in 1946-7, the demob baby boom.

More laughter at Labour Brexit policy. This is why they’re falling in the polls.

TrèsDifficile said:

I think Fiona Bruce is good at this

Very impressive debut

Mortimer said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?

Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.

Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.

I think we can rule him out on that basis.

Foxy said:

ExiledInScotland said:

Foxy said:

AndyJS said:

No-one should be surprised that the Chinese growth rate is declining, since their working-age population has been dropping for nearly 3 years.

https://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-working-age-population-peaked-2016-4?r=UK&IR=T
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201801/12/WS5a584e92a3102c394518edbc.html

Surely the same applies to our working age population?

https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/978302412363624448?s=19

What happened in the early 70's to cause the population spike? Alternative leisure activities due to power cuts?

The graph is of age, not year of birth, so the spike in the 70 age band is those born in 1946-7, the demob baby boom.

Of course. I'd misread it as being all as at 2041 not just the outline.

Foxy said:

Mortimer said:

TrèsDifficile said:

I think Fiona Bruce is good at this

Very impressive debut

She is a breath of fresh air for a programme that had become very stale.

She looks OK

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?

Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.

Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.

I think we can rule him out on that basis.

Is he? Linky please.

""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned.
"The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments.
"We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."

from:

http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2010/03/11/what-the-liberal-democrat-position-on-homeopathy-is/

Big_G_NorthWales said:

philiph said:

Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.

I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'

For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?

Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?

What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?

Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.

Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.

All good questions. There is one answer. Accept TM deal and move on

Regardless of any merits the deal has (it has none) it should be rejected on principle just to deny May a victory. She deserves humiliation after her program of relentless self-interest and dishonesty.

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?

Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.

Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.

I think we can rule him out on that basis.

With the exception of the “extortionate prices” I don’t have an issue with that

The placebo effect is well established in medicine

philiph said:

Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.

I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'

For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?

Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?

What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?

Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.

Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.

It doesn't have to go through parliaments and the Council of Ministers has quite strong peer pressure in emergency situations, so if there's an actual proposal other than "wait 3 months then resume panicked faffing" an extension should go through. There's no Walloon veto. It's not a sure thing, but it is highly likely.

And if that fails there's always revoke...

Foxy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?

Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.

Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.

I think we can rule him out on that basis.

Is he? Linky please.

""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned.
"The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments.
"We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."

from:

http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2010/03/11/what-the-liberal-democrat-position-on-homeopathy-is/

To be fair then I think @Anazina is being harsh

I’d be happy for NICE to review homeopathic treatments and come up with a fair price for them

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

philiph said:

Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.

I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'

For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?

Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?

What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?

Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.

Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.

All good questions. There is one answer. Accept TM deal and move on

Regardless of any merits the deal has (it has none) it should be rejected on principle just to deny May a victory. She deserves humiliation after her program of relentless self-interest and dishonesty.

So even if it had huge merit it should be rejected because of May personally? What a bloody stupid reaction that would be. The deal has enough reasons to be opposed as it is (as you yourself note in believing it has no merit at all), there's no need to pretend that even if it was a fantastic deal we should hope it is shot down because May is crap and dishonest. One might as well say that even if Corbyn/BoJo was going to usher in an era of unparalleled freedom and prosperity (they aren't), they should be opposed because they have a beard/are fat.

Anazina said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?

Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.

Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.

I think we can rule him out on that basis.

Is he? Linky please.

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/33006

I note that Corbyn and McDonnell also both supported that EDM, amongst 206 others...

Foxy said:

Anazina said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?

Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.

Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.

I think we can rule him out on that basis.

Is he? Linky please.

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/33006

I note that Corbyn and McDonnell also both supported that EDM, amongst 206 others...

Hasn't Corbyn signed thousands of them in his time? As a backbencher for so long what else did he do with his time when at the palace?

Foxy said:

Anazina said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?

Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.

Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.

I think we can rule him out on that basis.

Is he? Linky please.

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/33006

I note that Corbyn and McDonnell also both supported that EDM, amongst 206 others...

To be fair, didn't Corbyn basically sign every EDM other than ones being positive about Israel?

However, if I remember correctly, Comrade Corbyn has remained at least positive sounding on this in recent years, rather than tell people it is a massive scam and a waste of money.

The number of MPs suckered in by this is really rather scary.

Anazina said:

Foxy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?

Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.

Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.

I think we can rule him out on that basis.

Is he? Linky please.

""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned.
"The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments.
"We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."

from:

http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2010/03/11/what-the-liberal-democrat-position-on-homeopathy-is/

That Liberal policy is that patients have maximum freedom over treatment as long as it is safe should be cause for concern. A multitude of treatments are safe, and utterly useless.

NICE judges on efficacy, not just cost.

Indeed placebos can be very cost effective

Danny565 said:

philiph said:

Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.

I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'

For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?

Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?

What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?

Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.

Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.

Except that we would have the power to revoke Article 50, then re-invoke it a few days later if we wanted (effectively a two-year extension) and the EU couldn't do a thing to stop us, according to the ECJ's ruling.

Yes they could, because the ECJ are the ones who decide if the revocation is proper.

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

Steve Baker still living in la la land I see:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/10/ex-brexit-minister-to-put-pressure-on-may-with-new-deal-proposal

Another former minister told the Guardian that serving ministers could stand down to vote against the deal.

If I could be forgiven crudeness for the moment, what in the ever living fuck are these clowns playing at? Why, after all this time, would someone quit now to vote against the deal?

Because they've waited until the last moment to see if there were any forthcoming concessions by Europe in May's fabled late negotiations to see if it could make this bitter pill easier to swallow.

No. 10s line for a month before the MV was pulled was there would be no changes. Yes she then tried to say she would get some more, but given her policy for a month was that was not possible, there's no justifiable reason someone who needed the concessions to stay in post (as opposed to wanting concessions but able to vote for the deal as is) had not quit in advance of the last minute pulling of the MV.

Last minute resignations are standard for any major rebellion.

Except we've had numerous periods of resignations over this. I'm sorry, a minister standing up now and saying the deal is unacceptable while collecting a ministerial salary for months on end gets no respect from me.

A minister using his role to try and shape what is happening until the last possible second does get respect from me. Just as Robin Cook did, was Robin Cook dishonorable?

I don't know enough about the circumstances to judge that situation, I wasn't paying attention at the time. But if the deal was unacceptable that would have been clear to someone a long time before now. They cannot claim to have had a sudden epiphany and realised it was unacceptable.

TBF a number of Leavers said they were not happy with the deal but would try and influence any improvements from the inside of government

Charles said:

Anazina said:

Charles said:

Foxy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?

Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.

Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.

I think we can rule him out on that basis.

Is he? Linky please.

""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned.
"The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments.
"We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."

from:

http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2010/03/11/what-the-liberal-democrat-position-on-homeopathy-is/

To be fair then I think @Anazina is being harsh

I’d be happy for NICE to review homeopathic treatments and come up with a fair price for them

Not at all. I am more than happy for people to fill up their little bottles from their kitchen taps.

For placebos to work people need to believe they might work.

I think the going rate for chalk pills is 5p for a packet of 20 and I have no issue with homeopathy being reimbursed at an equivalent price as that reflects its therapeutic value pretty accurately

Good luck with that.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1083490353448128516

Pay is one thing, but I wouldn't think changing the pension scheme retrospectively (however generous it may be, I have no idea) would stand up in court. It's not done for criminals either.

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

Steve Baker still living in la la land I see:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/10/ex-brexit-minister-to-put-pressure-on-may-with-new-deal-proposal

Another former minister told the Guardian that serving ministers could stand down to vote against the deal.

If I could be forgiven crudeness for the moment, what in the ever living fuck are these clowns playing at? Why, after all this time, would someone quit now to vote against the deal?

Because they've waited until the last moment to see if there were any forthcoming concessions by Europe in May's fabled late negotiations to see if it could make this bitter pill easier to swallow.

No. 10s line for a month before the MV was pulled was there would be no changes. Yes she then tried to say she would get some more, but given her policy for a month was that was not possible, there's no justifiable reason someone who needed the concessions to stay in post (as opposed to wanting concessions but able to vote for the deal as is) had not quit in advance of the last minute pulling of the MV.

Last minute resignations are standard for any major rebellion.

Except we've had numerous periods of resignations over this. I'm sorry, a minister standing up now and saying the deal is unacceptable while collecting a ministerial salary for months on end gets no respect from me.

A minister using his role to try and shape what is happening until the last possible second does get respect from me. Just as Robin Cook did, was Robin Cook dishonorable?

I don't know enough about the circumstances to judge that situation, I wasn't paying attention at the time. But if the deal was unacceptable that would have been clear to someone a long time before now. They cannot claim to have had a sudden epiphany and realised it was unacceptable.

There is no epiphany, there is just no obligation to resign until the vote. So they can continue to do their job until the vote and resign on the day of the vote.

If a minister, potentially in a different department, believes he or she is doing important work then why not concentrate on that until the vote? Why resign prematurely if you don't have to?

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

Steve Baker still living in la la land I see:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/10/ex-brexit-minister-to-put-pressure-on-may-with-new-deal-proposal

Another former minister told the Guardian that serving ministers could stand down to vote against the deal.

If I could be forgiven crudeness for the moment, what in the ever living fuck are these clowns playing at? Why, after all this time, would someone quit now to vote against the deal?

Because they've waited until the last moment to see if there were any forthcoming concessions by Europe in May's fabled late negotiations to see if it could make this bitter pill easier to swallow.

No. 10s line for a month before the MV was pulled was there would be no changes. Yes she then tried to say she would get some more, but given her policy for a month was that was not possible, there's no justifiable reason someone who needed the concessions to stay in post (as opposed to wanting concessions but able to vote for the deal as is) had not quit in advance of the last minute pulling of the MV.

Last minute resignations are standard for any major rebellion.

Except we've had numerous periods of resignations over this. I'm sorry, a minister standing up now and saying the deal is unacceptable while collecting a ministerial salary for months on end gets no respect from me.

A minister using his role to try and shape what is happening until the last possible second does get respect from me. Just as Robin Cook did, was Robin Cook dishonorable?

I don't know enough about the circumstances to judge that situation, I wasn't paying attention at the time. But if the deal was unacceptable that would have been clear to someone a long time before now. They cannot claim to have had a sudden epiphany and realised it was unacceptable.

There is no epiphany, there is just no obligation to resign until the vote. So they can continue to do their job until the vote and resign on the day of the vote.

Not without looking very silly. Other people have had the courage to stand up and be counted.

Foxy said:

Charles said:

Anazina said:

Charles said:

Foxy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?

Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.

Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.

I think we can rule him out on that basis.

Is he? Linky please.

""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee

from:

http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2010/03/11/what-the-liberal-democrat-position-on-homeopathy-is/

To be fair then I think @Anazina is being harsh

I’d be happy for NICE to review homeopathic treatments and come up with a fair price for them

Not at all. I am more than happy for people to fill up their little bottles from their kitchen taps.

For placebos to work people need to believe they might work.

I think the going rate for chalk pills is 5p for a packet of 20 and I have no issue with homeopathy being reimbursed at an equivalent price as that reflects its therapeutic value pretty accurately

Interestingly, and surprisingly, placebos still work when people know that they are placebos.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bmblb8

What an odd beast the human animal is. Who'd be a doctor, eh?

NickPalmer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1083490353448128516

Pay is one thing, but I wouldn't think changing the pension scheme retrospectively (however generous it may be, I have no idea) would stand up in court. It's not done for criminals either.

A dangerous game for politicians to play, after all when they fall from grace they will be in the dock.

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

Steve Baker still living in la la land I see:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/10/ex-brexit-minister-to-put-pressure-on-may-with-new-deal-proposal

nst the deal?

Because t

No. 10s line for a month before the MV was pulled was there would be no changes. Yes she then triedg of the MV.

Last minute resignations are standard for any major rebellion.

Except we've had numerous periods of resignations over this. I'm sorry, a minister standing up now and saying the deal is unacceptable while collecting a ministerial salary for months on end gets no respect from me.

A minister using his role to try and shape what is happening until the last possible second does get respect from me. Just as Robin Cook did, was Robin Cook dishonorable?

I don't know enough about the circumstances to judge that situation, I wasn't paying attention at the time. But if the deal was unacceptable that would have been clear to someone a long time before now. They cannot claim to have had a sudden epiphany and realised it was unacceptable.

There is no epiphany, there is just no obligation to resign until the vote. So they can continue to do their job until the vote and resign on the day of the vote.

Not without looking very silly. Other people have had the courage to stand up and be counted.

In dribs and drabs when its suited them, not all at once. There hasn't been a single date when people were obliged to resign by.

I do not think they are obliged to resign. I just think the manner and timing of a resignation can significant affect whether the choice of when and how to resign is justifiable and respectable. The reason to do so also affects this, since if the reason is something that was locked in a long time ago it makes sticking around harder to explain. If it was in reaction to a recent lockdown of policy that's more reasonable, perhaps the issue is one of fine balance etc etc. Different levels of courage will be on display. On this issue, at this time? The reason for the switch would need to be very good to not look like a fool.

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

philiph said:

Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.

I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'

For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?

Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?

What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?

Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.

Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.

Except that we would have the power to revoke Article 50, then re-invoke it a few days later if we wanted (effectively a two-year extension) and the EU couldn't do a thing to stop us, according to the ECJ's ruling.

Yes they could, because the ECJ are the ones who decide if the revocation is proper.

But they already did decide that any revocation of A50 would be proper as long as it was in accordance with the UK's own "constitutional requirements".

.

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1083490353448128516

Pay is one thing, but I wouldn't think changing the pension scheme retrospectively (however generous it may be, I have no idea) would stand up in court. It's not done for criminals either.

A dangerous game for politicians to play, after all when they fall from grace they will be in the dock.

I understand their temptation, but given part of the furore about Bercow was whether he really gave sufficient thought to the wider and longer term implications of his actions, regardless of whether the decision in itself was well intentioned, I'm not sure seeking to punish him in this way displays the right message on that front.

Foxy said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

Anazina said:

Charles said:

Foxy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

Anazina said:

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Mortimer said:

First time I’ve seen Swinson on QT.

Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.

Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?

Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.

Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.

I think we can rule him out on that basis.

Is he? Linky please.

""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee

from:

http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2010/03/11/what-the-liberal-democrat-position-on-homeopathy-is/

To be fair then I think @Anazina is being harsh

I’d be happy for NICE to review homeopathic treatments and come up with a fair price for them

Not at all. I am more than happy for people to fill up their little bottles from their kitchen taps.

For placebos to work people need to believe they might work.

I think the going rate for chalk pills is 5p for a packet of 20 and I have no issue with homeopathy being reimbursed at an equivalent price as that reflects its therapeutic value pretty accurately

Interestingly, and surprisingly, placebos still work when people know that they are placebos.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bmblb8

What an odd beast the human animal is. Who'd be a doctor, eh?

That was a very interesting study, on people disabled by back pain in Blackpool. Clearly not all malingerers either. It didn't work for everyone, but for some it transformed lives.

I recently listened to Derren Brown and he was talking about the Miracles stage show. He said despite everybody knowing they were at a magic show and that part of the show with fake faith healing, works by getting people adrenaline flowing so some temporarily have pain masked and obviously those who go on stage are self selecting, he has been contacted by a few people whose previous ailment has gone (despite them knowing its a trick, his people repeating this to them, etc).

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

philiph said:

Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.

I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'

For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?

Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?

What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?

Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.

Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.

Except that we would have the power to revoke Article 50, then re-invoke it a few days later if we wanted (effectively a two-year extension) and the EU couldn't do a thing to stop us, according to the ECJ's ruling.

Yes they could, because the ECJ are the ones who decide if the revocation is proper.

But they already did decide that any revocation of A50 would be proper as long as it was in accordance with the UK's own "constitutional requirements".

No they didn't. There was a clear ruling that so-called abusive uses of revocation are not allowed, and the ECJ are the arbiters.

‘In the second place, the antidote to the misuse of the right of withdrawal can be found in the general principle that abusive practices are prohibited, established by the Court, according to which EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends and the application of EU legislation cannot be extended to cover abusive practices by economic operators. (93) That general principle could be applied in the context of Article 50 TEU, if a Member State engaged in an abusive practice of using successive notifications and revocations in order to improve the terms of its withdrawal from the European Union.’

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/the-small-print-of-todays-article-50-opinion-reveals-yet-another-ecj-power-grab/

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

philiph said:

Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.

I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'

For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?

Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?

What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?

Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.

Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.

Except that we would have the power to revoke Article 50, then re-invoke it a few days later if we wanted (effectively a two-year extension) and the EU couldn't do a thing to stop us, according to the ECJ's ruling.

Yes they could, because the ECJ are the ones who decide if the revocation is proper.

But they already did decide that any revocation of A50 would be proper as long as it was in accordance with the UK's own "constitutional requirements".

No they didn't. There was a clear ruling that so-called abusive uses of revocation are not allowed, and the ECJ are the arbiters.

‘In the second place, the antidote to the misuse of the right of withdrawal can be found in the general principle that abusive practices are prohibited, established by the Court, according to which EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends and the application of EU legislation cannot be extended to cover abusive practices by economic operators. (93) That general principle could be applied in the context of Article 50 TEU, if a Member State engaged in an abusive practice of using successive notifications and revocations in order to improve the terms of its withdrawal from the European Union.’

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/the-small-print-of-todays-article-50-opinion-reveals-yet-another-ecj-power-grab/

I think that was the advocates recommendation but the ECJ excluded that provision from their final ruling

Charles said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

philiph said:

Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.

I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'

For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?

Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?

What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?

Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.

Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.

Except that we would have the power to revoke Article 50, then re-invoke it a few days later if we wanted (effectively a two-year extension) and the EU couldn't do a thing to stop us, according to the ECJ's ruling.

Yes they could, because the ECJ are the ones who decide if the revocation is proper.

But they already did decide that any revocation of A50 would be proper as long as it was in accordance with the UK's own "constitutional requirements".

No they didn't. There was a clear ruling that so-called abusive uses of revocation are not allowed, and the ECJ are the arbiters.

‘In the second place, the antidote to the misuse of the right of withdrawal can be found in the general principle that abusive practices are prohibited, established by the Court, according to which EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends and the application of EU legislation cannot be extended to cover abusive practices by economic operators. (93) That general principle could be applied in the context of Article 50 TEU, if a Member State engaged in an abusive practice of using successive notifications and revocations in order to improve the terms of its withdrawal from the European Union.’

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/the-small-print-of-todays-article-50-opinion-reveals-yet-another-ecj-power-grab/

I think that was the advocates recommendation but the ECJ excluded that provision from their final ruling

Ah, thanks Charles. My apologies Danny565, I was clearly relying on old news!

I do wonder if revoking it only to invoke it again would be viewed as unequivocal and unconditional.

Jonathan said:

Are we building up to NICE investigating Brexit and surrounding claims.

I have mixed feelings about NICE. On the one hand it is a very worthwhile attempt at applying scientific cost benefit analysis to funding medicines, but it is also used by CCGs to delay the introduction of highly effective medications. They do this by refusing to fund until NICE ajudicates. I have a cousin who is having to self fund a cancer drug as a result.

Yellow_Submarine said:

TrèsDifficile said:

Jo Swinson is so much better than Layla Mahmood

Faux islamifying Layla Moran's name, who is of palestinian christian decent, is hardly subtle. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Agreed. Shameful and totally ignorant

Trump considering this old Frank Underwood move:
https://www.twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1083505551902941185

First you spend the disaster money on America Works the wall, then you challenge Congress to replace the money in case there's an actual disaster.

I'm not sure if the courts would end up stopping it but it gets him out of the shutdown without losing too much face.

Yellow_Submarine said:

Voting Leave as a placebo ( for the 2 million odd irregular voters who came out for the first time in 20 years ) is a fascinating concept. On the one hand it's what people like me completely and utterly missed. That changing *something* even if folk didn't quite know what the change was to coukd be very very powerful if you are in pain. It's interesting the ONS ' happiness ' measure for England spiked in 2016 and retail sales went up after the Leave vote.

On the other hand Brexit isn't a sugar pill. It's plunged the country into 5 to 7 years of existential debate and near constitutional crisis.

Yes, Brexit is a transitory hallucinogen, which promises Taking Back Control, yet actually takes control away from those smoking it.

Just watching a great ding dong between Andrew Neil and Owen Jones on this week....

i suspect it may be some time until Owen Jones is invited back onto This Week by Brillo.

And wee Owen is now ranting on Twitter,

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1083522347620020225