politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In all of this 2019 remains betting favourite for “year of nex
Comments
-
Amazing that everyone but May already accepts MV3 is not going to succeed.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
I didnt think at this stage clubs could be drawn against clubs they were in the same group with?Sandpit said:
What did you reckon were the permutations?Verulamius said:
I was discussing the different combinations with my 12 year old son this morning on my walk to the station.Sandpit said:
It's not going to be your D or E options, there's only four English teams and a tie involves two of them.TheScreamingEagles said:Right there’s four English teams and four non English teams in the Champions League QFs.
Can someone work out and tell me the probability of
a) 0 all English ties
b) 1 all English tie
c) 2 all English ties
d) 3 all English ties
e) 4 all English ties
From Gracenote statistician on BBC website:
What are the chances of an all-English quarter-final?
Simon Gleave, head of sports analysis, Gracenote
There are 105 possible scenarios for the Champions League draw - at 11:00 GMT on Friday - which will also determine the semi-final line-ups.
Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.
Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.
Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47562984
@Endillion is right that there's 128 different ways of arranging eight teams, so there must be a rule somewhere that certain matches are not allowed to bring it down to 105 - but I can't see any rules anywhere about it - last year's commentary suggested a completely free draw.0 -
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move onDanny565 said:So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...0 -
Don't think so. And remarkably that isn't the stupidest part of his cunning plan.TheWhiteRabbit said:
we don't do that with guns do we?Theuniondivvie said:The moron's moron.
https://twitter.com/scottmann4NC/status/11061289064809512960 -
I think there are 105 scenarios:
Team drawn has 7 options
Team drawn has 5 options
Team drawn has 3 options
Team drawn has 1 option
1 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 1050 -
Forgive my London-driven ignorance on rural matters, but... why on earth should there be an "obvious exemption for fishing"?Theuniondivvie said:The moron's moron.
https://twitter.com/scottmann4NC/status/11061289064809512960 -
They have been very clear they want more to change, not just the risk of no brexit or no deal, to back it.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move onDanny565 said:So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
And the belief that the Lab MPs are waiting for that seems to fly in the face of the evidence. Even a few more could reasonably have been expected to change their minds if any were even thinking of it, but it has always just been talk.0 -
Doesn't seem to be stopping Bernie. I don't think he'll win - what has he done so far? - but his profile from the senate race gives him a good start in a crowded field. I'd watch him as a VP pick though.TheAncientMariner said:
Male, White - two insuperable handicaps for the current Democrat mindset. He's probably fit as well.Nigelb said:0 -
You can't push something this consequential through if the majority of people in whose name it's being done think that it is worse than the status quo.david_herdson said:
You don't need a majority of leavers; you need a majority of the population, ideally. In truth, you just need a majority of MPs.williamglenn said:
Norway would struggle to get a majority of Leavers behind it, which is ultimately why it’s untenable. It’s only a neat solution on paper.nico67 said:Labour need to ditch a second EU vote and get behind the Norway option .
If Norway is sold properly it could get a majority of the public behind it.
I’m a Remainer but would feel more comfortable with this as it leaves the political institutions of the EU.
It’s a version of Brexit that has quite a lot for Leavers but still leaves a few crumbs for Remainers .0 -
A footnote is that Oliver used to be the thinking man's Brexiteer, to the point that we agreed to write a book together called "Double Vision on Europe", in which we'd agree what the facts were and put our alternative pro- and anti-EU views on what conclusion should be drawn (we spiked it when he was promoted to the Shadow Cabinet and no longer could express independent views). He's now in predominantly Remainer company, presumably because he shares their horror at No Deal.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move onDanny565 said:So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
0 -
Not everyone. 80% of the conservative party voted for itkle4 said:
Amazing that everyone but May already accepts MV3 is not going to succeed.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
105 scenarios includes all other clubs and who they're drawn against. Ie EvH and F v G etcAnorak said:
Calling bullshit on that maths.Sandpit said:
It's not going to be your D or E options, there's only four English teams and a tie involves two of them.TheScreamingEagles said:Right there’s four English teams and four non English teams in the Champions League QFs.
Can someone work out and tell me the probability of
a) 0 all English ties
b) 1 all English tie
c) 2 all English ties
d) 3 all English ties
e) 4 all English ties
From Gracenote statistician on BBC website:
What are the chances of an all-English quarter-final?
Simon Gleave, head of sports analysis, Gracenote
There are 105 possible scenarios for the Champions League draw - at 11:00 GMT on Friday - which will also determine the semi-final line-ups.
Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.
Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.
Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47562984
For the "two all-english games" scenario you have:
AvB CvD
AvC BvD
AvD BvC
I.e. "A" can only play one of three other teams, and the other game is fixed as there are only two english teams left.
And that's it! Even if you double up by switching the orders you're going to end up with an even number, i.e. not 9.0 -
GFA amnesties don't apply to pre 1973 activities.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But Bloody Sunday pre-dated many of these, no?Pulpstar said:
Every outstanding IRA (And other republican and loyalist paramilitary) killing needs to be properly investigated, prosecuted and all amnesties removed if prosecutions take place here.CarlottaVance said:If NIPPS does decide on charges:
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/1106133597411594245?s=20
If the 1 PARA psychos who went full My Lai in Bogside had been dealt with at the time instead the standard cover up we wouldn't be in this situation.0 -
Para 18.02, top of page 24 here:Sandpit said:
What did you reckon were the permutations?Verulamius said:
I was discussing the different combinations with my 12 year old son this morning on my walk to the station.Sandpit said:
It's not going to be your D or E options, there's only four English teams and a tie involves two of them.TheScreamingEagles said:Right there’s four English teams and four non English teams in the Champions League QFs.
Can someone work out and tell me the probability of
a) 0 all English ties
b) 1 all English tie
c) 2 all English ties
d) 3 all English ties
e) 4 all English ties
From Gracenote statistician on BBC website:
What are the chances of an all-English quarter-final?
Simon Gleave, head of sports analysis, Gracenote
There are 105 possible scenarios for the Champions League draw - at 11:00 GMT on Friday - which will also determine the semi-final line-ups.
Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.
Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.
Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47562984
@Endillion is right that there's 128 different ways of arranging eight teams, so there must be a rule somewhere that certain matches are not allowed to bring it down to 105 - but I can't see any rules anywhere about it - last year's commentary suggested a completely free draw.
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/55/82/79/2558279_DOWNLOAD.pdf
makes no reference to any restrictions. I think Simon Gleave's wrong.0 -
So obvious when you put it that way.tlg86 said:I think there are 105 scenarios:
Team drawn has 7 options
Team drawn has 5 options
Team drawn has 3 options
Team drawn has 1 option
1 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 1050 -
Absolute (GPS tracked) weapon.Theuniondivvie said:The moron's moron.
https://twitter.com/scottmann4NC/status/11061289064809512960 -
Those two statements are not connected. MV3 is not succeeding despite a large chunk of Tory MPs backing it. Labour will not rescue it. Some Tory MPs seem less keen than they were for MV2. Yes, the DUP switching would make things closer, but the reasoning for them doing so is awfully silly given their reasons for saying no.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Not everyone. 80% of the conservative party voted for itkle4 said:
Amazing that everyone but May already accepts MV3 is not going to succeed.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
So would enough of the ERG (I think)Sean_F said:
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move onDanny565 said:So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...0 -
Arlene Foster this morning was quite conciliatory and confirms they are in further discussions with Cox and TMkle4 said:
They have been very clear they want more to change, not just the risk of no brexit or no deal, to back it.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move onDanny565 said:So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
And the belief that the Lab MPs are waiting for that seems to fly in the face of the evidence. Even a few more could reasonably have been expected to change their minds if any were even thinking of it, but it has always just been talk.0 -
The DUP won't just flip because we're running out of time though.0
-
Ahhhh, yes, that's it. Because the teams are drawn out in pairs, BBC guy's maths is right.tlg86 said:I think there are 105 scenarios:
Team drawn has 7 options
Team drawn has 5 options
Team drawn has 3 options
Team drawn has 1 option
1 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 105
(goes off to read statistics book that's eyeing me up from across the room)0 -
OK smarty pants now let us know the number of permutations of groups of eight MPs tabling amendments to the various debates going on in the house today.Anorak said:
Calling bullshit on that maths.Sandpit said:
It's not going to be your D or E options, there's only four English teams and a tie involves two of them.TheScreamingEagles said:Right there’s four English teams and four non English teams in the Champions League QFs.
Can someone work out and tell me the probability of
a) 0 all English ties
b) 1 all English tie
c) 2 all English ties
d) 3 all English ties
e) 4 all English ties
From Gracenote statistician on BBC website:
What are the chances of an all-English quarter-final?
Simon Gleave, head of sports analysis, Gracenote
There are 105 possible scenarios for the Champions League draw - at 11:00 GMT on Friday - which will also determine the semi-final line-ups.
Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.
Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.
Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47562984
For the "two all-english games" scenario you have:
AvB CvD
AvC BvD
AvD BvC
I.e. "A" can only play one of three other teams, and the other game is fixed as there are only two english teams left.
And that's it! Even if you double up by switching the orders you're going to end up with an even number, i.e. not 9.
0 -
Nah.TheWhiteRabbit said:
it's the other games in the draw isn't it?Anorak said:
Calling bullshit on that maths.Sandpit said:
It's not going to be your D or E options, there's only four English teams and a tie involves two of them.TheScreamingEagles said:Right there’s four English teams and four non English teams in the Champions League QFs.
Can someone work out and tell me the probability of
a) 0 all English ties
b) 1 all English tie
c) 2 all English ties
d) 3 all English ties
e) 4 all English ties
From Gracenote statistician on BBC website:
What are the chances of an all-English quarter-final?
Simon Gleave, head of sports analysis, Gracenote
There are 105 possible scenarios for the Champions League draw - at 11:00 GMT on Friday - which will also determine the semi-final line-ups.
Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.
Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.
Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47562984
For the "two all-english games" scenario you have:
AvB CvD
AvC BvD
AvD BvC
I.e. "A" can only play one of three other teams, and the other game is fixed as there are only two english teams left.
And that's it! Even if you double up by switching the orders you're going to end up with an even number, i.e. not 9.
You arrange EFGH in three ways as above, and you have:
AvB CvD (combination 1)
AvC BvD (combination 2)
AvD BvC (combination 3)
And combinations 4,5,6 for the other set. Mixing them up you have
1,4 / 2,5 / 3,6
1,4 / 2,6 / 3,5
1,5 / 2,4 / 3,6
1,5 / 2,6 / 3,4
1,6 / 2,4 / 3,5
1,6 / 2,5 / 3,4
I.e. 6 arrangements. Can get away from the even numbers...0 -
I'm surpriesed that I have not seen anyone mention something which is a huge advantage for O'Rourke in the presidential race, and that is Texas.Nigelb said:
The Republicans will have to throw a hunge amount of resources at Texas because they simply cannot risk losing it. If they do lose texas, they loose the presidency.
O'Rourke has already shown that he can get 48% in Texas and that was running against a popular Texan. Add in the home state bonus when running against a non-Texan and it makes this race very close.
The Republicans will have to divert their attention away from other states which could be enough to win back Wisconsin, Penn, Michigan or Ohio.
0 -
Why do you think so? She's as much a Faragist as she is the DUP member for Vauxhall.Sean_F said:
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move onDanny565 said:So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
In any case, the DUP have no incentive to switch.0 -
There are 105:Endillion said:
Para 18.02, top of page 24 here:Sandpit said:
What did you reckon were the permutations?Verulamius said:
I was discussing the different combinations with my 12 year old son this morning on my walk to the station.Sandpit said:
It's not going to be your D or E options, there's only four English teams and a tie involves two of them.TheScreamingEagles said:Right there’s four English teams and four non English teams in the Champions League QFs.
Can someone work out and tell me the probability of
a) 0 all English ties
b) 1 all English tie
c) 2 all English ties
d) 3 all English ties
e) 4 all English ties
From Gracenote statistician on BBC website:
What are the chances of an all-English quarter-final?
Simon Gleave, head of sports analysis, Gracenote
There are 105 possible scenarios for the Champions League draw - at 11:00 GMT on Friday - which will also determine the semi-final line-ups.
Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.
Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.
Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47562984
@Endillion is right that there's 128 different ways of arranging eight teams, so there must be a rule somewhere that certain matches are not allowed to bring it down to 105 - but I can't see any rules anywhere about it - last year's commentary suggested a completely free draw.
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/55/82/79/2558279_DOWNLOAD.pdf
makes no reference to any restrictions. I think Simon Gleave's wrong.
Plonk any team at random in one of the boxes. OK, how many teams can they be drawn against? 7
Plonk another, at random in a different tie. Possible opponents, 5.
And again, 3.
The last tie is fixed, so your number of pair permutations are 7x5x3=105.0 -
I do respect your views but your certainty is brave in this very uncertain climate.kle4 said:
Those two statements are not connected. MV3 is not succeeding despite a large chunk of Tory MPs backing it. Labour will not rescue it. Some Tory MPs seem less keen than they were for MV2. Yes, the DUP switching would make things closer, but the reasoning for them doing so is awfully silly given their reasons for saying no.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Not everyone. 80% of the conservative party voted for itkle4 said:
Amazing that everyone but May already accepts MV3 is not going to succeed.TheScreamingEagles said:
Anything can still happen0 -
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/flkou3sc4v/Internal_190313_Brexit_w.pdfwilliamglenn said:
You can't push something this consequential through if the majority of people in whose name it's being done think that it is worse than the status quo.david_herdson said:
You don't need a majority of leavers; you need a majority of the population, ideally. In truth, you just need a majority of MPs.williamglenn said:
Norway would struggle to get a majority of Leavers behind it, which is ultimately why it’s untenable. It’s only a neat solution on paper.nico67 said:Labour need to ditch a second EU vote and get behind the Norway option .
If Norway is sold properly it could get a majority of the public behind it.
I’m a Remainer but would feel more comfortable with this as it leaves the political institutions of the EU.
It’s a version of Brexit that has quite a lot for Leavers but still leaves a few crumbs for Remainers .
Norway and May's Deal are the two options that substantial numbers find good/acceptable across the divide.
No Deal, and No Brexit are the two that appeal most to partisans.0 -
An unexpected contribution.
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1106128676163342337
To put it as delicately as I can, Soldier F needs to face public questioning and to be confronted by his actions.0 -
You hopewilliamglenn said:
Why do you think so? She's as much a Faragist as she is the DUP member for Vauxhall.Sean_F said:
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move onDanny565 said:So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
In any case, the DUP have no incentive to switch.0 -
It's all very well finding common ground in the middle, but unless you carry the people without whom we wouldn't be doing Brexit at all, it will get stuck. That why May's deal has failed in parliament.Sean_F said:
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/flkou3sc4v/Internal_190313_Brexit_w.pdfwilliamglenn said:
You can't push something this consequential through if the majority of people in whose name it's being done think that it is worse than the status quo.david_herdson said:
You don't need a majority of leavers; you need a majority of the population, ideally. In truth, you just need a majority of MPs.williamglenn said:
Norway would struggle to get a majority of Leavers behind it, which is ultimately why it’s untenable. It’s only a neat solution on paper.nico67 said:Labour need to ditch a second EU vote and get behind the Norway option .
If Norway is sold properly it could get a majority of the public behind it.
I’m a Remainer but would feel more comfortable with this as it leaves the political institutions of the EU.
It’s a version of Brexit that has quite a lot for Leavers but still leaves a few crumbs for Remainers .
Norway and May's Deal are the two options that substantial numbers find good/acceptable across the divide.
No Deal, and No Brexit are the two that appeal most to partisans.0 -
-
This did not age well.Endillion said:
Para 18.02, top of page 24 here:Sandpit said:
What did you reckon were the permutations?Verulamius said:
I was discussing the different combinations with my 12 year old son this morning on my walk to the station.Sandpit said:
It's not going to be your D or E options, there's only four English teams and a tie involves two of them.TheScreamingEagles said:Right there’s four English teams and four non English teams in the Champions League QFs.
Can someone work out and tell me the probability of
a) 0 all English ties
b) 1 all English tie
c) 2 all English ties
d) 3 all English ties
e) 4 all English ties
From Gracenote statistician on BBC website:
What are the chances of an all-English quarter-final?
Simon Gleave, head of sports analysis, Gracenote
There are 105 possible scenarios for the Champions League draw - at 11:00 GMT on Friday - which will also determine the semi-final line-ups.
Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.
Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.
Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47562984
@Endillion is right that there's 128 different ways of arranging eight teams, so there must be a rule somewhere that certain matches are not allowed to bring it down to 105 - but I can't see any rules anywhere about it - last year's commentary suggested a completely free draw.
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/55/82/79/2558279_DOWNLOAD.pdf
makes no reference to any restrictions. I think Simon Gleave's wrong.0 -
The ERG + Kate Hoey + Graham Stringer (probably fair to lump those two in with them) ain't quite enough on their own to flip their vote, I don't think. I make it 313 votes for the deal with them onside, with 320 againast.Pulpstar said:
So would enough of the ERG (I think)Sean_F said:
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move onDanny565 said:So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
You'd have to also get some of the Tory "People's Vote" rebels (I make it 6 - Bebb, Greening, Grieve, Gyimah, Lee, Jo Johnson), OR the DUP, OR some of the Labour soft Brexiteers on board.
0 -
-
-
@Yokel seemed to think the decision was quite finely balanced. The incentive to switch would be the desire not to harm the interests of Unionists. I'm not saying that would be enough.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You hopewilliamglenn said:
Why do you think so? She's as much a Faragist as she is the DUP member for Vauxhall.Sean_F said:
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move onDanny565 said:So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
In any case, the DUP have no incentive to switch.0 -
If you got that close with the 3rd vote I'm sure there would be a 4th vote allowed and it would pass. The danger is if the 3rd vote doesn't get over 300 ayes and then it's dead.Danny565 said:
The ERG + Kate Hoey + Graham Stringer (probably fair to lump those two in with them) ain't quite enough on their own to flip their vote, I don't think. I make it 313 votes for the deal with them onside, with 320 againast.Pulpstar said:
So would enough of the ERG (I think)Sean_F said:
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move onDanny565 said:So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
You'd have to also get some of the Tory "People's Vote" rebels (I make it 6 - Bebb, Greening, Grieve, Gyimah, Lee, Jo Johnson), OR the DUP, OR some of the Labour soft Brexiteers on board.0 -
I hope this passes, but I don't really see how it canScott_P said:0 -
Something which I realised four months ago.Scott_P said:0 -
How to get the full ERG across? I can't see Francois changing his [tiny] mind, for one.Brom said:
If you got that close with the 3rd vote I'm sure there would be a 4th vote allowed and it would pass. The danger is if the 3rd vote doesn't get over 300 ayes and then it's dead.Danny565 said:
The ERG + Kate Hoey + Graham Stringer (probably fair to lump those two in with them) ain't quite enough on their own to flip their vote, I don't think. I make it 313 votes for the deal with them onside, with 320 againast.Pulpstar said:
So would enough of the ERG (I think)Sean_F said:
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move onDanny565 said:So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
You'd have to also get some of the Tory "People's Vote" rebels (I make it 6 - Bebb, Greening, Grieve, Gyimah, Lee, Jo Johnson), OR the DUP, OR some of the Labour soft Brexiteers on board.0 -
Chris Bryant is an idiot who has no solutions. Hopefully this won't pass.Stereotomy said:
I hope this passes, but I don't really see how it canScott_P said:0 -
Odds on bercow choosing this one...... ...Stereotomy said:
I hope this passes, but I don't really see how it canScott_P said:0 -
I quoted the entire relevant section of Erskine May yesterday, and frankly it seems that if the House was desiring to vote on the MV again a way could be found within the rules, but that there is a lot of scope for the Speaker to say it is out of order. But as Bercow himself has decided, you don't always follow precedent anyway.Scott_P said:
Relying on procedural arcana to avoid voting on it against seems unnecessary0 -
No idea but from his perspective I imagine he'd much rather be able to point to a decision by parliament on this rather than having to rule on it himself and piss a load of people off.Scrapheap_as_was said:
Odds on bercow choosing this one...... ...Stereotomy said:
I hope this passes, but I don't really see how it canScott_P said:0 -
Thanks for that, very interesting and disturbing.Theuniondivvie said:An unexpected contribution.
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1106128676163342337
To put it as delicately as I can, Soldier F needs to face public questioning and to be confronted by his actions.
I think they should face prosecution but, if convicted, should serve one night in prison before being released.0 -
That's kinda the point though isn't it? Have the decision backed by a vote instead of just procedural arcanakle4 said:
I quoted the entire relevant section of Erskine May yesterday, and frankly it seems that if the House was desiring to vote on the MV again a way could be found within the rules, but that there is a lot of scope for the Speaker to say it is out of order. But as Bercow himself has decided, you don't always follow precedent anyway.Scott_P said:
Relying on procedural arcana to avoid voting on it against seems unnecessary0 -
Mark Francois responds:-Anorak said:
How to get the full ERG across? I can't see Francois changing his [tiny] mind, for one.Brom said:
If you got that close with the 3rd vote I'm sure there would be a 4th vote allowed and it would pass. The danger is if the 3rd vote doesn't get over 300 ayes and then it's dead.Danny565 said:
The ERG + Kate Hoey + Graham Stringer (probably fair to lump those two in with them) ain't quite enough on their own to flip their vote, I don't think. I make it 313 votes for the deal with them onside, with 320 againast.Pulpstar said:
So would enough of the ERG (I think)Sean_F said:
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move onDanny565 said:So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
You'd have to also get some of the Tory "People's Vote" rebels (I make it 6 - Bebb, Greening, Grieve, Gyimah, Lee, Jo Johnson), OR the DUP, OR some of the Labour soft Brexiteers on board.
"Oi! Adolf! Nineteen sixty six!
I provide the gas in here, fuck off back to Auschwitz
Oi! Adolf! Fuck off back to Belsen
I'm not a yid, I'm on the bog, annex something else, son.
Oi! Adolf! You talking to me?
How come all you krauts can speak German fluently?
Oi! Adolf! Nineteen forty five!
Don't put that accent on for me, speak English or die. "0 -
Douglas Murray wrote a very good book on the Savile hearing into Bloody Sunday.Theuniondivvie said:An unexpected contribution.
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1106128676163342337
To put it as delicately as I can, Soldier F needs to face public questioning and to be confronted by his actions.0 -
Spurs v ajaxTheScreamingEagles said:
You wish you were Sol.Scrapheap_as_was said:
I'm not Sol.TheScreamingEagles said:
Burn your season ticket and start supporting Arsenal?Scrapheap_as_was said:
The same as if Dele did so for Andrew Bridgen?TheScreamingEagles said:
How would you react if Harry Kane backed Mark Francois for Tory leader ?Scrapheap_as_was said:
He needs to focus on actually getting Spurs back in to Europe....williamglenn said:
With Andy Robertson suspended for the first leg of the QF we’re going to draw Juve.
Watch Ronaldo murder Alberto Moreno in the first leg.
City v porto
Liv v man u
Barca v juve.0 -
But their vote is predicted on the belief that the procedural arcana backs them up (which it mostly does, but seems like a way could be found). You're right if it passes then the house will have made its will known, but based on something which it does not need to be based on, and makes them essentially saying it is not us doing it, we're just following the rules.Stereotomy said:kle4 said:p397
matters already decided during the same session
A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session. Since 1994 this rule has been applied so that, in the case of ten minute rule motions under Standing Order No 23, refusal by the House of leave to introduce a bill should be treated as the rejection of that bill at a substantive stage, with the effect that a bill with the same or a very similar long title could not be presented again in the same season. Attempts have been made made to evade this rule by raising again, with verbal alterations, the essential portions of motions which have been negatived. Whether the second motion is substantially the same as the first is finally a matter for the judgement of the Chair. In some cases the second motion has been ruled to be substantially the same as an earlier motion. The same rule has been applied to an amendment reviewing reviewing a motion which had been already negatived. Some motions, however, have been framed with sufficient ingenuity to avoid the rule. On rare occasions where the House has been offered a series of alternative proposals for its consideration, an order was made specifically directing the Chair to put the questions or later motions notwithstanding any decision of the House on earlier motions.
However, a question which has not been definitely decided may be raised again. Thus, a motion or amendment which has been withdrawn, or on which the Chair has declared the question not decided when it appeared that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in a division, or for some other reason, may be repeated. In such cases a Member may speak again on the second occasion. Where a certain course in relation to the procedure of the House has been rejected on a particular day, it may be revived on a subsequent day.
Other parts may apply as well, but looks to me like it could be possible for another vote on the WA to be allowed, but that the Chair has wide discretion on it. And it is Bercow.0 -
But saying "what part of no means no do you not understand" seems entirely necessary.kle4 said:
I quoted the entire relevant section of Erskine May yesterday, and frankly it seems that if the House was desiring to vote on the MV again a way could be found within the rules, but that there is a lot of scope for the Speaker to say it is out of order. But as Bercow himself has decided, you don't always follow precedent anyway.Scott_P said:
Relying on procedural arcana to avoid voting on it against seems unnecessary0 -
-
-
Wouldn't this also scupper Cooper/Letwin? I'm unclear if theirplan is for the Commons to agree the way forward before or during an extension, and if the latter then that's a no no.Scott_P said:0 -
-
There is a mistake in that Champions League draw probabilities piece:
Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.
Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.
Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.
It should be 68.6% for exactly one all-English tie0 -
I understand what you mean, but I don't think it matters. It's just a way of saying "and hey, look, it's not some crazy idea we came up with, this very thing was thought about by the rule-makers too". Everyone understands that it's ultimately a political decision.kle4 said:
But their vote is predicted on the belief that the procedural arcana backs them up (which it mostly does, but seems like a way could be found). You're right if it passes then the house will have made its will known, but based on something which it does not need to be based on, and makes them essentially saying it is not us doing it, we're just following the rules.Stereotomy said:0 -
If Sarah Wollaston's amendment gets voted down (as I expect) then presumably it would have much the same effect as passing the anti-second ref one.Scott_P said:0 -
PO ERG WASScott_P said:0 -
The soldiers weren't supposed to be on either side.david_herdson said:
Agreed. Which is why none of them should be. Ireland has enough history to worry about without dragging up the past for sport. Every peace process involves a putting aside of past atrocities on both sides, which is what the early releases were about in NI, among other things. That principle should be kept here too. Certainly, that will upset some victims' families but I'm afraid that sometimes peace demands that.
The military should be held to a higher standard than terrorists.
I think the lack of justice for these families risks rather than protects the peace.0 -
Time for a vote of no confidence in Bercow Baggins0
-
Doesn't need to justify itself with reference to procedural rules, because as Members have made clear as possibilities to to suspend various rules, they can always find a way if they want. If they want to say 'no means no' it doesn't need to pretend that procedure is the overriding concern.Philip_Thompson said:
But saying "what part of no means no do you not understand" seems entirely necessary.kle4 said:
I quoted the entire relevant section of Erskine May yesterday, and frankly it seems that if the House was desiring to vote on the MV again a way could be found within the rules, but that there is a lot of scope for the Speaker to say it is out of order. But as Bercow himself has decided, you don't always follow precedent anyway.Scott_P said:
Relying on procedural arcana to avoid voting on it against seems unnecessary
Seriously, how does he select amendments and how many? He has very wide discretion, but say it was not about Brexit, in which we know for a fact his personal wishes are becoming prominent as he has admitted to not thinking about longer term consequences, what general principles is he meant to apply to inform his discretion?Scott_P said:0 -
Yep it makes sense to only select one of Wollaston/Snell, it should fire up parliament to vote down Wollaston's. I'd imagine she's as unpopular in parliament as she is on PB. Would have made more sense to allow the Snell one instead.Sean_F said:
If Sarah Wollaston's amendment gets voted down (as I expect) then presumably it would have much the same effect as passing the anti-second ref one.Scott_P said:0 -
I didn't realise Mark Francois had a mode other than furious.Scott_P said:0 -
I'm not the greatest fan of his politics (ie not at all), but he writes clearly & well even when I don't agree with him.Cyclefree said:
Douglas Murray wrote a very good book on the Savile hearing into Bloody Sunday.Theuniondivvie said:An unexpected contribution.
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1106128676163342337
To put it as delicately as I can, Soldier F needs to face public questioning and to be confronted by his actions.0 -
The anti-referendum amendment had sweet FA to do with the substantive motion. Of course it shouldn't be called.0
-
-
I guess you're right, but I have to fiddle with procedure a lot, and it still annoys when people selectively rely or reject on it to provide even marginal cover for what they simply want to do, or not do.Stereotomy said:
I understand what you mean, but I don't think it matters. It's just a way of saying "and hey, look, it's not some crazy idea we came up with, this very thing was thought about by the rule-makers too". Everyone understands that it's ultimately a political decision.kle4 said:
But their vote is predicted on the belief that the procedural arcana backs them up (which it mostly does, but seems like a way could be found). You're right if it passes then the house will have made its will known, but based on something which it does not need to be based on, and makes them essentially saying it is not us doing it, we're just following the rules.Stereotomy said:0 -
Well, maybe to cheer us all up we should have a competition where we vote on what we think will happen on 29 March. The winner gets a tin of lentils and some loo rolls.0
-
I laughed. I surely did.Dura_Ace said:
Ser Jorah will never forsake his Khaleesi.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting they are surprised how many are saying to their reporters how much they support TM and affirming that she is the only grown up in this
0 -
That may well be sound, but no doubt many examples can be found of allowed amendments which had FA to do with the substantive motion. It could well be another example of right decision for wrong reason.AlastairMeeks said:The anti-referendum amendment had sweet FA to do with the substantive motion. Of course it shouldn't be called.
0 -
I should have thought that the incentive for the DUP would be avoiding anything that makes a border poll and Irish reunification more likely, which is what be crash-out no-deal Brexit would be.williamglenn said:
Why do you think so? She's as much a Faragist as she is the DUP member for Vauxhall.Sean_F said:
Kate Hoey would switch if the DUP did.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It all depends on the DUP. If they come on board that will bring a lot of ERG on board increasing the chances of the deal passing and allowing many labour mps from leave areas to back the deal and move onDanny565 said:So which Labour MPs do the PB commentariat expect to ride to Mrs May's rescue in the next vote on her deal?
I think she'll do well to even hang onto the 3 Labour MPs who sided with her on Tuesday - I note Caroline Flint voted with the Labour whip on all 3 of yesterday's votes...
In any case, the DUP have no incentive to switch.0 -
-
He'd survive easily.dyedwoolie said:Time for a vote of no confidence in Bercow Baggins
0 -
Fair enoughkle4 said:
I guess you're right, but I have to fiddle with procedure a lot, and it still annoys when people selectively rely or reject on it to provide even marginal cover for what they simply want to do, or not do.Stereotomy said:
I understand what you mean, but I don't think it matters. It's just a way of saying "and hey, look, it's not some crazy idea we came up with, this very thing was thought about by the rule-makers too". Everyone understands that it's ultimately a political decision.kle4 said:
But their vote is predicted on the belief that the procedural arcana backs them up (which it mostly does, but seems like a way could be found). You're right if it passes then the house will have made its will known, but based on something which it does not need to be based on, and makes them essentially saying it is not us doing it, we're just following the rules.Stereotomy said:0 -
If one regards the order of home and away ties as important then there are 1680 possible ties. If not, 105.tlg86 said:There is a mistake in that Champions League draw probabilities piece:
Nine out of those 105 scenarios involve the four English clubs all being drawn against each other - an 8.6% chance.
Out of the total possible draws, 72 scenarios have exactly one all-English tie - that's 66.6%.
Therefore, the chance of all four English clubs avoiding each other in the quarter final draw is 22.9%.
It should be 68.6% for exactly one all-English tie0 -
His views on Savile are not at all what you might assume. He takes the view, rightly, that the state and its functionaries must not break the law and then repeatedly lie about what they have done.Theuniondivvie said:
I'm not the greatest fan of his politics (ie not at all), but he writes clearly & well even when I don't agree with him.Cyclefree said:
Douglas Murray wrote a very good book on the Savile hearing into Bloody Sunday.Theuniondivvie said:An unexpected contribution.
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1106128676163342337
To put it as delicately as I can, Soldier F needs to face public questioning and to be confronted by his actions.0 -
You and Mr Poll Tax wanted to write a book?NickPalmer said:
A footnote is that Oliver used to be the thinking man's Brexiteer, to the point that we agreed to write a book together called "Double Vision on Europe", in which we'd agree what the facts were and put our alternative pro- and anti-EU views on what conclusion should be drawn (we spiked it when he was promoted to the Shadow Cabinet and no longer could express independent views). He's now in predominantly Remainer company, presumably because he shares their horror at No Deal.TheScreamingEagles said:
And who exactly did you think would be stupid enough to want to read it nevermind wasting their money buying it?0 -
I always find that this explains a great deal about the politics of Northern Ireland.rpjs said:I should have thought that the incentive for the DUP would be avoiding anything that makes a border poll and Irish reunification more likely, which is what be crash-out no-deal Brexit would be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxpYW_w5pgo
0 -
What just happened? Is Wollaston amendment actually for a referendum, or just providing for the time to be made available to have one possibly.0
-
Well he survived the bullying scandals, Stockholm syndrome or some shit with that onekle4 said:
He'd survive easily.dyedwoolie said:Time for a vote of no confidence in Bercow Baggins
0 -
Of course the Speaker is biased to remain.... Just another reason why Brexiteers should have bagged the deal on Tuesday and moved on while they could...Scott_P said:0 -
Exactly and the number of Labour rebels seem to be holding steady. There are probably the numbers to pass a soft Brexit in the CU+SM space. May needs to change the Political Statement and she should get two thirds of her MPS and the bulk of Labour to support it. But it would split her party and so she sticks to Plan A to grim death.Pulpstar said:The DUP won't just flip because we're running out of time though.
0 -
It's a shame that book never got written.NickPalmer said:
A footnote is that Oliver used to be the thinking man's Brexiteer, to the point that we agreed to write a book together called "Double Vision on Europe", in which we'd agree what the facts were and put our alternative pro- and anti-EU views on what conclusion should be drawn (we spiked it when he was promoted to the Shadow Cabinet and no longer could express independent views). He's now in predominantly Remainer company, presumably because he shares their horror at No Deal.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
It's a pity the Speaker didn't choose amendment (b) ruling out a second referendum. Amendment (h) calls for a second referendum. If (b) was called as well as (h) I think both would fail to get agreement. Many members want to keep their options open on a second referendum but if (h) goes down, Leavers will argue the house is against a 2nd referendum.Sean_F said:
If Sarah Wollaston's amendment gets voted down (as I expect) then presumably it would have much the same effect as passing the anti-second ref one.Scott_P said:
I think the Speaker has done the Leavers a favour here - but they don't yet realise it.0 -
NEW THREAD0
-
Good article - makes the point that people who told the truth at Savile were given immunity from prosecution.Theuniondivvie said:An unexpected contribution.
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1106128676163342337
To put it as delicately as I can, Soldier F needs to face public questioning and to be confronted by his actions.0 -
NEW THREAD
0
