politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why punters have got it right making a 2019 general election a

It’ll be fun.

Second

FPT:

IanB2 said:

Programme Motion debate starts. Cross-party (Benn) amendment called. Other amendments not called, although Letwin says he supports votes on Monday if Brexit isn't resolved.

Sean_F said:

Just reading that Corbyn will demand a Customs Union. alignment on workers rights, but won't demand F o M, a second referendum, or taking part in Euro elections.

Is that a runner?

Probably not in the Labour Party!

But it might be a runner in parliament.

Sean_F said:

I don't think TIG would want an early election.

Just reading that Corbyn will demand a Customs Union. alignment on workers rights, but won't demand F o M, a second referendum, or taking part in Euro elections.

Is that a runner?

Not for most of labour...He'll send the PV movement mad if not another referendum.


He really wants to leave doesn't he..

Slackbladder said:

Sean_F said:

I don't think TIG would want an early election.

Just reading that Corbyn will demand a Customs Union. alignment on workers rights, but won't demand F o M, a second referendum, or taking part in Euro elections.

Is that a runner?

Not for most of labour...He'll send the PV movement mad if not another referendum.

He really wants to leave doesn't he..

My guess is that watering down Brexit + second referendum is unsellable to a very large majority of Conservative MP's.

If people are required to make concessions, they won't then concede the right to campaign against the deal that has been reached.

Sean_F said:

I don't think TIG would want an early election.

Just reading that Corbyn will demand a Customs Union. alignment on workers rights, but won't demand F o M, a second referendum, or taking part in Euro elections.

Is that a runner?

Corbyn is as desperate to leave as Peter Bone. They'll probably take us out on a three-line whip on terms like that.

Meanwhile:

Petition To Revoke - 6,000,000 signatures
Petition to Leave with No Deal - 10x fewer

This latest manifestation of public feeling doesn't exactly support a position towards the hard Brexit end of the 52%, i.e. SM + CU being at the soft end.

TOPPING said:

fpt

https://twitter.com/nickherbertmp/status/1113404170172817408

Sensible stuff from Nick Herbert. He could have added that it also takes us out of the CAP and CFP.

Slackbladder said:

Sean_F said:

Slackbladder said:

Sean_F said:

I don't think TIG would want an early election.

Just reading that Corbyn will demand a Customs Union. alignment on workers rights, but won't demand F o M, a second referendum, or taking part in Euro elections.

Is that a runner?

Not for most of labour...He'll send the PV movement mad if not another referendum.

He really wants to leave doesn't he..

My guess is that watering down Brexit + second referendum is unsellable to a very large majority of Conservative MP's.

If people are required to make concessions, they won't then concede the right to campaign against the deal that has been reached.

If the ERG are 'truely' of the opinion that staying is better than being part of the CU/BINO then they might start campaigning for a referendum and to stay...

LOL

I would not be surprised.

It's unwise to jump ahead of oneself by hours, let alone days, at the moment. However, let's suppose May-Corbyn find a compromise that doesn't include a 2nd ref. Although Keir Starmer is going to be at the meeting, it's clear that JC is lukewarm about it, so let's just go with that for a moment.

A compromise WA-CU+ comes to the house with the alleged support of both parties (ho ho), that would then be amendable.

In that scenario it's going to be fascinating to see what happens to a 2nd Ref amendment. It will be do or die and I could see it garnering support in unusual ways, including from Brexiteers. Of course, were they to take the risk of adding 'No Deal' as one of the options to a 2nd Ref they'd probably land a huge majority. But it's a big gamble. (Because No Deal might win in the country.)

dixiedean said:

Hang on. TIG "would love the opportunity to test their electoral potency..."
By elections are available.

Indeed. Perhaps they're worried about losing their own seats (hint: they are), but there's also one tomorrow they ducked.

I wonder whether May's promise to resign was dependent on her deal passing or any deal. If she wants to see through any Customs Union plan that the house passes, then there obviously won't be an election any time soon.

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

https://twitter.com/nickherbertmp/status/1113404170172817408

Sensible stuff from Nick Herbert. He could have added that it also takes us out of the CAP and CFP.

Useful post from Nick Herbert, and I like the Motions Table summary too.

I had thought "CM2.0" was a better outcome than Ken Clarke's "CU" proposal, but I am not so sure now. Will "CU" really tick all the same boxes as May's Deal other than "independent trade policy" - which I think most of us have decided is not really worth the fag of wrecking the economy for.

dixiedean said:

Pulpstar said:

There's a possibility that even if both May and Corbyn whip for the final May-Corbyn Customs Brexit it doesn't pass the house.
Unlikely, but there will be a big rebellion from both sides. Thangam Debonnaire probably won't want to be a teller for any sort of Brexit for instance.

It's certainly a possibility.

More likely to emerge through amendments than by defeating the proposal altogether

Bob__Sykes said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

https://twitter.com/nickherbertmp/status/1113404170172817408

Sensible stuff from Nick Herbert. He could have added that it also takes us out of the CAP and CFP.

Useful post from Nick Herbert, and I like the Motions Table summary too.

I had thought "CM2.0" was a better outcome than Ken Clarke's "CU" proposal, but I am not so sure now. Will "CU" really tick all the same boxes as May's Deal other than "independent trade policy" - which I think most of us have decided is not really worth the fag of wrecking the economy for.

I too prefer a Boles CM2.0 Brexit, but CU potentially doesn't break May's FoM red line so it's a goer.

SandyRentool said:

I await the 2am knock on the door from two men in leather overcoats...

What you and those chaps from Grindr get up to in the middle of the night at the Brunei embassy is an entirely private matter ....

Jezza been seen marching into Downing St to give Theresa her orders yet?

Sean_F said:

I don't think TIG would want an early election.

Just reading that Corbyn will demand a Customs Union. alignment on workers rights, but won't demand F o M, a second referendum, or taking part in Euro elections.

Is that a runner?

Yes but with the ERG imploding and Steve Baker doing his Vesuvius turn on the hour, every hour.

Bob__Sykes said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

https://twitter.com/nickherbertmp/status/1113404170172817408

Sensible stuff from Nick Herbert. He could have added that it also takes us out of the CAP and CFP.

Useful post from Nick Herbert, and I like the Motions Table summary too.

I had thought "CM2.0" was a better outcome than Ken Clarke's "CU" proposal, but I am not so sure now. Will "CU" really tick all the same boxes as May's Deal other than "independent trade policy" - which I think most of us have decided is not really worth the fag of wrecking the economy for.

We couldn't set our own external tariffs, so from that point of view we'd have a little less 'sovereignty'. However, EU tariffs are actually mostly very low anyway, so it's not of any great practical importance. On the plus side, a customs union arrangement makes the Irish border issue a bit easier (it doesn't solve it completely, but at least you haven't got to worry about tariffs and checks on goods).

Overall I think it's a reasonable compromise, and not in practice very different from what Theresa May was trying to do. The lack of ability to enter into our own full-blown FTAs is of little importance IMO; we'd have a lot of difficulty anyway, and nothing we could do would compensate for the loss (in a no-deal scenario) of the mother of all FTAs, with the EU27.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SamGyimah/status/1113432315047419904

The biggest obstacle to the future of the Conservative Party is that they don’t appeal to the young, he says. For the Party, “young” is now “below 47”. “We need to find new voters,” he says.

TOPPING said:

fpt

https://twitter.com/nickherbertmp/status/1113404170172817408

And the contrary opinion, held by the vast majority of Conservatives:
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1112608964053745669

IanB2 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SamGyimah/status/1113432315047419904

The biggest obstacle to the future of the Conservative Party is that they don’t appeal to the young, he says. For the Party, “young” is now “below 47”. “We need to find new voters,” he says.

I've just turned 46, and find the current Conservative Party utterly unsupportable. Too many of its MPs have gone utterly insane.

And as for Labour ...

Richard_Nabavi said:

Bob__Sykes said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

https://twitter.com/nickherbertmp/status/1113404170172817408

Sensible stuff from Nick Herbert. He could have added that it also takes us out of the CAP and CFP.

Useful post from Nick Herbert, and I like the Motions Table summary too.

I had thought "CM2.0" was a better outcome than Ken Clarke's "CU" proposal, but I am not so sure now. Will "CU" really tick all the same boxes as May's Deal other than "independent trade policy" - which I think most of us have decided is not really worth the fag of wrecking the economy for.

We couldn't set our own external tariffs, so from that point of view we'd have a little less 'sovereignty'. However, EU tariffs are actually mostly very low anyway, so it's not of any great practical importance. On the plus side, a customs union arrangement makes the Irish border issue a bit easier (it doesn't solve it completely, but at least you haven't got to worry about tariffs and checks on goods).

Overall I think it's a reasonable compromise, and not in practice very different from what Theresa May was trying to do. The lack of ability to enter into our own full-blown FTAs is of little importance IMO; we'd have a lot of difficulty anyway, and nothing we could do would compensate for the loss (in a no-deal scenario) of the mother of all FTAs, with the EU27.

Yes. The big issue if it was a CU with the CU is that there would be no incentive for anyone to do a free trade deal with us as they would have asymmetric access to our markets. But in the absence of anything else and as you say bearing in mind the enormity of the EU wrt our trade then it could be a goer.

The Guardian is trying to trigger Charles today..
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/shortcuts/2019/apr/03/how-to-blag-your-way-into-first-class-with-a-standard-train-ticket

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

https://twitter.com/nickherbertmp/status/1113404170172817408

And the contrary opinion, held by the vast majority of Conservatives:
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1112608964053745669

Yes I know all that. So what is Mr Hannan's (and your) alternative. That could get through the house.

IanB2 said:

The biggest obstacle to the future of the Conservative Party is that they don’t appeal to the young, he says. For the Party, “young” is now “below 47”. “We need to find new voters,” he says.

At our recent Conservative constituency AGM a new chairman was appointed, who I think will make considerable efforts to try to encourage younger people to join the party. But as a very senior member said to me afterwards: "Anyone under 50 who'd heard tonight's discussion would run a mile.'

We have a big, big problem, and as Sam Gyimah says, we've gone a long way backwards since the Cameron days.

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Bob__Sykes said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

https://twitter.com/nickherbertmp/status/1113404170172817408

Sensible stuff from Nick Herbert. He could have added that it also takes us out of the CAP and CFP.

Useful post from Nick Herbert, and I like the Motions Table summary too.

I had thought "CM2.0" was a better outcome than Ken Clarke's "CU" proposal, but I am not so sure now. Will "CU" really tick all the same boxes as May's Deal other than "independent trade policy" - which I think most of us have decided is not really worth the fag of wrecking the economy for.

We couldn't set our own external tariffs, so from that point of view we'd have a little less 'sovereignty'. However, EU tariffs are actually mostly very low anyway, so it's not of any great practical importance. On the plus side, a customs union arrangement makes the Irish border issue a bit easier (it doesn't solve it completely, but at least you haven't got to worry about tariffs and checks on goods).

Overall I think it's a reasonable compromise, and not in practice very different from what Theresa May was trying to do. The lack of ability to enter into our own full-blown FTAs is of little importance IMO; we'd have a lot of difficulty anyway, and nothing we could do would compensate for the loss (in a no-deal scenario) of the mother of all FTAs, with the EU27.

Yes. The big issue if it was a CU with the CU is that there would be no incentive for anyone to do a free trade deal with us as they would have asymmetric access to our markets. But in the absence of anything else and as you say bearing in mind the enormity of the EU wrt our trade then it could be a goer.

Even less of an incentive if we No Deal and zero rate our tariffs...

Well exactly.

JosiasJessop said:

I've just turned 46, and find the current Conservative Party utterly unsupportable. Too many of its MPs have gone utterly insane.

And as for Labour ...

Just let the frustrations go and get out the paint ball gun and er ....

Utterly OT, and 8 years out of date, but I just got a mage with 100 Conjuration in Skyrim (and visiting Winterhold repeatedly is a pain in Survival Mode, with no fast travel and freezing temperatures). It's rather nice strolling through dungeons with a pair of Dremora Lords seeing to anyone who gets near me.

TM and JC should agree that we remain in the EU Customs Union until a fully fledged Free Trade Agreement with the EU replaces it.

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

IanB2 said:

The biggest obstacle to the future of the Conservative Party is that they don’t appeal to the young, he says. For the Party, “young” is now “below 47”. “We need to find new voters,” he says.

At our recent Conservative constituency AGM a new chairman was appointed, who I think will make considerable efforts to try to encourage younger people to join the party. But as a very senior member said to me afterwards: "Anyone under 50 who'd heard tonight's discussion would run a mile.'

We have a big, big problem, and as Sam Gyimah says, we've gone a long way backwards since the Cameron days.

Cameron seemed to think modernisation meant promoting ERG-type nutters in a quid-pro-quo for giving him leeway on the social issues. The state of the party now is the culmination of Cameron's strategy.

No, he really didn't.

New York Times:

It's being led by a ship of fools — a Conservative Party bloc that is now radical in its obsession with leaving Europe and a Labour Party that has gone Marxist. If the people here can’t force their politicians to compromise with one another and with reality (there’s still a glimmer of hope that this might happen), there is going to be a crackup of the British political system and some serious economic pain. This is scary.

https://nyti.ms/2K1BcIl

@NicolaSturgeon: "Just had a positive meeting with @jeremycorbyn - I’d be surprised and very disappointed if Labour sold out for such a bad deal."

Nigel_Foremain said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

IanB2 said:

The biggest obstacle to the future of the Conservative Party is that they don’t appeal to the young, he says. For the Party, “young” is now “below 47”. “We need to find new voters,” he says.

At our recent Conservative constituency AGM a new chairman was appointed, who I think will make considerable efforts to try to encourage younger people to join the party. But as a very senior member said to me afterwards: "Anyone under 50 who'd heard tonight's discussion would run a mile.'

We have a big, big problem, and as Sam Gyimah says, we've gone a long way backwards since the Cameron days.

Cameron seemed to think modernisation meant promoting ERG-type nutters in a quid-pro-quo for giving him leeway on the social issues. The state of the party now is the culmination of Cameron's strategy.

I had never thought of it like that, but I think you may well be right.

No I think an ageing and declining membership kept selecting nutjobs - Cameron tried modernisation which sent Woolaston to parliament out of an open primary. He did not see it through (like a lot of things) as he bored easily.

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

IanB2 said:

The biggest obstacle to the future of the Conservative Party is that they don’t appeal to the young, he says. For the Party, “young” is now “below 47”. “We need to find new voters,” he says.

At our recent Conservative constituency AGM a new chairman was appointed, who I think will make considerable efforts to try to encourage younger people to join the party. But as a very senior member said to me afterwards: "Anyone under 50 who'd heard tonight's discussion would run a mile.'

We have a big, big problem, and as Sam Gyimah says, we've gone a long way backwards since the Cameron days.

Cameron seemed to think modernisation meant promoting ERG-type nutters in a quid-pro-quo for giving him leeway on the social issues. The state of the party now is the culmination of Cameron's strategy.

Indeed, and I'm not sure all those A Listers parachuted into safe seats in 2010 have returned Dave's favour.

Nigelb said:

A totally non-Freudian slip...

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1113154561013891072

I think he nearly got it right the third time. Anyway, he hasn't totally lost it, because he did eventually manage to think of an alternative word. It's fine.

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

https://twitter.com/nickherbertmp/status/1113404170172817408

And the contrary opinion, held by the vast majority of Conservatives:
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1112608964053745669

Yes I know all that. So what is Mr Hannan's (and your) alternative. That could get through the house.

To be honest, remaining in the EU and being shits from the inside is way better than anything involving a customs union with the organisation we just left. It’s the worst possible outcome.

https://twitter.com/gimblemusk/status/1113370024348213248

That's Brexit for you ...

JackW said:

JosiasJessop said:

I've just turned 46, and find the current Conservative Party utterly unsupportable. Too many of its MPs have gone utterly insane.

And as for Labour ...

Just let the frustrations go and get out the paint ball gun and er ....

I have a four year old son. He's bad enough with a child's Nerf gun. Given the damage he can do with a foam dart, he's not seeing paintballs until he's at least 25 ...

geoffw said:

TM and JC should agree that we remain in the EU Customs Union until a fully fledged Free Trade Agreement with the EU replaces it.

Isn't that called the WA Backstop?

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1113434728143773697

Rather 'interesting' numbers here.

Endillion said:

TGOHF said:

GIN1138 said:

TGOHF said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SamGyimah/status/1113432315047419904

Heidi Allen 2.0

Actually I think he'll find The Big Society crashed and burned with the Posh Boys 2010 general election shambles.

What the hell WAS that?

The sooner all parties stops picking these pole climbing grasping PPE clones the better.

I'm sorry; you think Sam Gyimah looks like your typical Oxford PPE graduate?

Indeed!

Sean_F said:

I don't think TIG would want an early election.

Just reading that Corbyn will demand a Customs Union. alignment on workers rights, but won't demand F o M, a second referendum, or taking part in Euro elections.

Is that a runner?

Theresa must know that CU is the absolute minimum Corbyn would ask for, so he's not exactly pushing the boat out. I wonder how the alignment on workers rights would actually be enshrined in law...?

Slackbladder said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1113434728143773697

Rather 'interesting' numbers here.

Also "helpfully" misses out Scotland and Wales....

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

https://twitter.com/nickherbertmp/status/1113404170172817408

And the contrary opinion, held by the vast majority of Conservatives:
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1112608964053745669

Yes I know all that. So what is Mr Hannan's (and your) alternative. That could get through the house.

To be honest, remaining in the EU and being shits from the inside is way better than anything involving a customs union with the organisation we just left. It’s the worst possible outcome.

Welcome back to the fold. We will only tell you once every fifteen minutes that we told you it would likely end up like this.

LOL. My preferences in order:

Deal with no backstop
No Deal
EEA/EFTA Deal
May’s Deal
Remain in EU
Anything involving a customs union.

A CU is an utterly bonkers idea - it locks in all the possible negatives of leaving the EU, whilst foregoing all the positives. It’s the very definition of a vassal state, leaves the EU having every incentive to screw the U.K. over at every opportunity in the future.

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Gove frames it fairly explicitly like that in this 2009 interview.

"Because he was clear on those areas [e.g. Europe], he had permission from the base to move to the centre on issues of social policy like health and education, and also on the environment."

That's not what you said.

Of course, like any party leader, he couldn't ignore a substantial body of opinion in the party, any more than Harold Wilson could ignore the hard left or Maggie the 'wets'.

I just edited my comment to add that Mark Francois was his Shadow Europe Minister. He also brought David Campbell Bannerman back in from UKIP.

He went well beyond not ignoring them.

JohnO said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

IanB2 said:

The biggest obstacle to the future of the Conservative Party is that they don’t appeal to the young, he says. For the Party, “young” is now “below 47”. “We need to find new voters,” he says.

At our recent Conservative constituency AGM a new chairman was appointed, who I think will make considerable efforts to try to encourage younger people to join the party. But as a very senior member said to me afterwards: "Anyone under 50 who'd heard tonight's discussion would run a mile.'

We have a big, big problem, and as Sam Gyimah says, we've gone a long way backwards since the Cameron days.

Cameron seemed to think modernisation meant promoting ERG-type nutters in a quid-pro-quo for giving him leeway on the social issues. The state of the party now is the culmination of Cameron's strategy.

Indeed, and I'm not sure all those A Listers parachuted into safe seats in 2010 have returned Dave's favour.

The “Cutie” I spent days canvassing for, lasted only two years before giving up on the whole MP idea to move to the States. Grr...

Pulpstar said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TOPPING said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

IanB2 said:

The biggest obstacle to the future of the Conservative Party is that they don’t appeal to the young, he says. For the Party, “young” is now “below 47”. “We need to find new voters,” he says.

At our recent Conservative constituency AGM a new chairman was appointed, who I think will make considerable efforts to try to encourage younger people to join the party. But as a very senior member said to me afterwards: "Anyone under 50 who'd heard tonight's discussion would run a mile.'

We have a big, big problem, and as Sam Gyimah says, we've gone a long way backwards since the Cameron days.

Cameron seemed to think modernisation meant promoting ERG-type nutters in a quid-pro-quo for giving him leeway on the social issues. The state of the party now is the culmination of Cameron's strategy.

I think not in his wildest dreams did he think that, Jurassic Park-like, that all those fossils would come back to life.

I think Mark Francois looks a little more like Mr Stay Puft from Ghostbusters

Stay Puft is huge, he's more like Slimer I think.

OK, a short arse Mr Stay Puft. Slimer is too amusing to be Francois

Sandpit said:

...
A CU is an utterly bonkers idea - it locks in all the possible negatives of leaving the EU, whilst foregoing all the positives....

Interesting. So you don't see any of these as positives from leaving the EU?

- Control over immigration
- Leaving the CAP
- Leaving the CFP
- Ending the direct application of EU law to domestic issues outside product regulation
- Leaving the political structures of the EU
- Being free of ever-closer union
- Sending £350m a week to Brussels (yes, I know, I know...)

In other words, you thought 95%+ of what Vote Leave campaigned on wasn't actually anything positive?

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

https://twitter.com/nickherbertmp/status/1113404170172817408

And the contrary opinion, held by the vast majority of Conservatives:
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1112608964053745669

Yes I know all that. So what is Mr Hannan's (and your) alternative. That could get through the house.

To be honest, remaining in the EU and being shits from the inside is way better than anything involving a customs union with the organisation we just left. It’s the worst possible outcome.

Welcome back to the fold. We will only tell you once every fifteen minutes that we told you it would likely end up like this.

LOL. My preferences in order:

Deal with no backstop
No Deal
EEA/EFTA Deal
May’s Deal
Remain in EU
Anything involving a customs union.

A CU is an utterly bonkers idea - it locks in all the possible negatives of leaving the EU, whilst foregoing all the positives. It’s the very definition of a vassal state, leaves the EU having every incentive to screw the U.K. over at every opportunity in the future.

Sandpit - you're an intelligent guy. What's it about the Backstop that worries you?

1. The WA includes a provision for international arbitration regarding the commitment for implementing a technical solution, so if the EU does not follow through on its treaty commitments, we can walk away anyway.

2. The EU doesn't actually want us to be in the Backstop. Let's not forget that the backstop - as well as the Customs Union - also involves us being in the Single Market for goods (like Switzrtland), but without the free movement or fees. That's not something the EU would want to persist, because - errr... - the Swiss would soon start complaining about their deal.