Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As Johnson launches CON membership polling finds his backers m

1235789

Comments

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 35,324
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    kamski said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    kamski said:

    kinabalu said:

    kamski said:

    One of the most depressing things about the possibility of Boris Johnson as PM is he is openly racist, sexist and homophobic. And doubly depressing that a lot of people don't seem to be that bothered by this.

    take this not so well known example:
    'In 2001, Johnson wrote in his book Friends, Voters, Countrymen that “if gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog”.'

    from this list:
    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/boris-johnson-s-racist-insults-dog-whistles-and-slurs

    Bit more than 'not bothered'. Approving. The Trump effect. Toxic. Potent. Pervasive. Insidious. Far-reaching.

    It was NOT "Muslim Women" - it was "Muslim women wot wear the veil".
    Either way, Johnson thinks it's ok for Johnson to tell ethnic minority women what to wear.
    Who knew that Islam was an ethnicity?

    Idiot.
    here's a tip, to avoid making an "idiot" of yourself, try replacing the word "Islam" with the word "Judaism" or the world "muslims" with the word "jews" in any statement to see how it sounds, it should help you with your blindspot.
    Indeed and just as it is offence to Muslims to suggest Islam demands women not be seen and be covered up from head to toe, it would be equally offensive to Jews to suggest Judaism demands it too...
    Which might be a reasonable point to make if you didn't do so by describing people as 'letterboxes', and adding that's it's important to say what you mean.
    They do look like letterboxes.

    Mockery is a perfectly valid tool. We should mock misogynistic behaviour.
    Strange letterboxes in your part of the world. In England ours are red and cylindrical.
    Poor show, Foxy. Postbox v Letterbox.
    So Muslim women look like doors?!?
    Not all Muslim women wear the veil.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,005
    Q
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    kamski said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    kamski said:

    kinabalu said:

    kamski said:

    One of the most depressing things about the possibility of Boris Johnson as PM is he is openly racist, sexist and homophobic. And doubly depressing that a lot of people don't seem to be that bothered by this.

    take this not so well known example:
    'In 2001, Johnson wrote in his book Friends, Voters, Countrymen that “if gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog”.'

    from this list:
    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/boris-johnson-s-racist-insults-dog-whistles-and-slurs

    Bit more than 'not bothered'. Approving. The Trump effect. Toxic. Potent. Pervasive. Insidious. Far-reaching.

    It was NOT "Muslim Women" - it was "Muslim women wot wear the veil".
    Either way, Johnson thinks it's ok for Johnson to tell ethnic minority women what to wear.
    Who knew that Islam was an ethnicity?

    Idiot.
    here's a tip, to avoid making an "idiot" of yourself, try replacing the word "Islam" with the word "Judaism" or the world "muslims" with the word "jews" in any statement to see how it sounds, it should help you with your blindspot.
    Indeed and just as it is offence to Muslims to suggest Islam demands women not be seen and be covered up from head to toe, it would be equally offensive to Jews to suggest Judaism demands it too...
    Which might be a reasonable point to make if you didn't do so by describing people as 'letterboxes', and adding that's it's important to say what you mean.
    They do look like letterboxes.

    Mockery is a perfectly valid tool. We should mock misogynistic behaviour.
    Strange letterboxes in your part of the world. In England ours are red and cylindrical.
    Poor show, Foxy. Postbox v Letterbox.
    So Muslim women look like doors?!?
    Don’t BLAME (..PB’ers are encouraged to help a certain long-standing member disguise his new account) me! Letterboxes are on houses. Postboxes are in the street.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,016
    Sean_F said:


    Sean Gabb is not a fan of Boris.

    "Sean Gabb
    1 hr ·

    E-mail sent to my MP:
    Dear Charlie,
    I allow that you know these people better than I do. However, I have had dealings over the years with Boris Johnson, and am aware of the wider issues surrounding his character and abilities. Everything I know about him inclines me to the view that he is a lazy charlatan - a liar, an adulterer, a procurer of abortions of convenience, and a dangerously incompetent Foreign Secretary. He will not secure a decent exit from the European Union. He will not oversee a reconstruction of our politics. He will be murdered, come the next election, by Jeremy Corbyn. The only reward you will get from supporting him is the loss of your seat.
    I urge you to consider giving support to Dominic Raab, who at least looks competent, and possibly is."

    Shades of Henry Root.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 34,581
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good launch by Boris, made clear he still wants a Deal with the EU but unlike May will not take No Deal off the table and made clear the Tories must deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal

    He was subdued, even nervous, and managed to be gaff free but has made impossible promises
    What promise is impossible?
    No deal on 31st October
    Not impossible, there are multiple paths to it happening. Just improbable as it stands.

    Possible ways.

    1: Boris three-line whips for No Deal making it a Confidence motion. Passes.
    2: Boris calls an election for a mandate for it. Wins.
    3: Boris find a way to avoid asking for an extension. Times out, default out.
    4: Macron (or A N Other) vetoes an extension. Times out, default out.
    How do you make something a confidence motion in the post-FTPA era?
    Say that you are viewing this as a matter of confidence and if the vote fails you are tabling an early election motion the next day and will whip the party to vote in favour of the early election. Whip will be removed from anyone who rebels in either vote.
    The election motion requites a 2/3 majority so that would be a completely pointless manoeuvre.
    Corbyn would whip in favour, any Labour MPs who broke that whip would have their whip removed.

    SNP and DUP probably opposed but its moot.

    434 = 2/3rds of 650 (even not taking into account speakers and Sinn Fein).

    Tory and Labour alone have 560
    Why would Labour whip in favour of an immediate election. This is one of the few times when it would be politically and electorally better to ensure a November election and there would be plausible reasons to do so.
    In any case, Labour could just table their own confidence motion and whip against the government's election motion.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    O/T

    Megha Mohan, BBC Gender and Identity correspondent

    wtf!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,020
    BL Ody hell big failure by Oz, they were on course for 360
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,005
    ”Time is running out for Labour to clean up its act. If not now, then when?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/11/prospect-boris-johnson-prime-minister-reignited-labour-civil-war
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,265

    O/T

    Megha Mohan, BBC Gender and Identity correspondent

    wtf!

    That acronym is the non-politically correct version of the job title.
  • isamisam Posts: 33,959
    1.48 to lay Hunt to make the Final 2
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,005
    Interesting that Cox is playing a prominent role in Boris’s campaign.

    The same Cox that so dramatically and effectively ridiculed those of his colleagues in parliament who actively wanted to leave the EU with no deal.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,580

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?

    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.

    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?

    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50

    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.

    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,164

    O/T

    Megha Mohan, BBC Gender and Identity correspondent

    wtf!

    That acronym is the non-politically correct version of the job title.
    :D
  • eekeek Posts: 9,458

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?

    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.

    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?

    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50

    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.

    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    That's irrelevant. If we need 6-8 months of preparations and we haven't started how do you leave on October 31st without things going wrong..
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,312
    Ok, I'm reconciling myself to the idea that Boris is deffo in the last 2.

    I can't work out who will be the other person. The only hint will be after the first round of voting and then all the value will be gone.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,334

    justin124 said:


    Labour vote share fell by 17%. Tories fell by 25%. The big rises were in the parties most leave and most remain. If people had things if more interest then logically they would have voted for it. I'm looking at not just this by-election, also at the Euros and the locals. Labour and Tory are increasingly disconnected and irrelevant from what voters are interested in.

    But estimates suggest that Labour would have polled circa 22% in the EU elections in the Peterborough constituency. Last week the party managed 31% - which is a fair jump in two weeks. In the context of a GE campaign and a likely turnout of 65% - 70% , I could see Labour polling circa 40% there. Ditto for the Tories.
    I very much hope you are right and I am wrong. The Euros are not the marker for what happens in a general election. But they do indicate what switching is possible. Labour absolutely will win some people back, especially vs a populist Tory.

    The difference between 22% and 31% in PBoro is turnout - people could be persuaded to come out for a by-election who stayed home in the Euro. And in that particular seat perhaps we do better with less switching away and more people holding their nose.

    Which won't matter a jot if the Tories go for no deal with a populist. BXP + Tory is more than enough to win the seat regardless of Labour. If Johnson sets out a clear stall - vote for me and get Brexit next week - that sweeps up all the right / leave votes and with it the keys to Downing Street.

    Corbyn was popular in 2017 having sucked in the young and the optimistic. Who have now seen the man behind the curtain and have gone back to the Greens / LibDems. He won't get anywhere near that height in 2019.

    But what Johnson would be saying in those circumstances is vote for me and get NO DEAL Brexit next week and that proposition would not sweep up all the right/leave votes. It would be likely to provoke widespread tactical voting by remain supporters which would deny the Tories a majority once again.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,580
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good launch by Boris, made clear he still wants a Deal with the EU but unlike May will not take No Deal off the table and made clear the Tories must deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal

    He was subdued, even nervous, and managed to be gaff free but has made impossible promises
    What promise is impossible?
    No deal on 31st October
    Not impossible, there are multiple paths to it happening. Just improbable as it stands.

    Possible ways.

    1: Boris three-line whips for No Deal making it a Confidence motion. Passes.
    2: Boris calls an election for a mandate for it. Wins.
    3: Boris find a way to avoid asking for an extension. Times out, default out.
    4: Macron (or A N Other) vetoes an extension. Times out, default out.
    How do you make something a confidence motion in the post-FTPA era?
    Say that you are viewing this as a matter of confidence and if the vote fails you are tabling an early election motion the next day and will whip the party to vote in favour of the early election. Whip will be removed from anyone who rebels in either vote.
    The election motion requites a 2/3 majority so that would be a completely pointless manoeuvre.
    Corbyn would whip in favour, any Labour MPs who broke that whip would have their whip removed.

    SNP and DUP probably opposed but its moot.

    434 = 2/3rds of 650 (even not taking into account speakers and Sinn Fein).

    Tory and Labour alone have 560
    Why would Labour whip in favour of an immediate election. This is one of the few times when it would be politically and electorally better to ensure a November election and there would be plausible reasons to do so - for the entertainment of watching Boris fail to deliver on October 31st if nothing else...
    Corbyn would look ridiculous to turn down an election. It would be worse than Gordon Brown cancelling the election that never was. Furthermore he couldn't it is just not in his wavelength to reject an election.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,265

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?

    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.

    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?

    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50

    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.

    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.

    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,655



    Frightening? Oh give over.

    And the victims are more victimised by those who justify it as being appropriate for their ethnicity or appropriate for their religion than anyone else. It isnt appropriate and it shouldn't be normalised.

    Of course it is frightening, you bullying little arse. or would be if you actually did it rather than drooling about it on here.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,580
    eek said:

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?

    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.

    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?

    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50

    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.

    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    That's irrelevant. If we need 6-8 months of preparations and we haven't started how do you leave on October 31st without things going wrong..
    I will put faith in the civil service that they have done their jobs and started to prepare. They have had the time do so.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,005
    Government benches are almost completely deserted as the beginning of the Opposition debate looms. Are Tories going once again to abstain on anything put forward during an opposition day debate?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,016
    A possible pivot is of course staring us in the face.

    Let us remember that the WA *is* leaving. All Boris needs to do is bring his essential Borisness into play by telling the Francois gang just that and to vote it through and Voila!
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    If the PM wants to leave and is prepared to leave without a deal, I fail to see how Parliament can stop it unless it is prepared to bring the PM down or revoke Article 50 unilaterally.

    ...

    If Parliament can convince the PM that they will bring them down if they make a bad faith request to extend Article 50 then the PM has the choice of calling their bluff, or folding to retain office.

    I agree that the crucial component is that Parliament has to convince the PM that they are willing to vote them out if they defy the Commons.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 14,878

    I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.

    There is one quite good excuse. Johnson is planning to snaffle the No Deal prep money to fund tax cuts for the affluent classes.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,580

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?

    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.

    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?

    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50

    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.

    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.

    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.
    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?

    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,005

    eek said:

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?

    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.

    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?

    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50

    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.

    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    That's irrelevant. If we need 6-8 months of preparations and we haven't started how do you leave on October 31st without things going wrong..
    I will put faith in the civil service that they have done their jobs and started to prepare. They have had the time do so.
    It is the myriad adverse consequences they have identified while doing such that led May to abandon her previous position.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 10,614

    eek said:

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?

    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.

    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?

    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50

    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.

    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    That's irrelevant. If we need 6-8 months of preparations and we haven't started how do you leave on October 31st without things going wrong..
    I will put faith in the civil service that they have done their jobs and started to prepare. They have had the time do so.
    F*ck me the blame game is beginning already.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 34,581
    TOPPING said:

    A possible pivot is of course staring us in the face.

    Let us remember that the WA *is* leaving. All Boris needs to do is bring his essential Borisness into play by telling the Francois gang just that and to vote it through and Voila!

    Theresa May should vote against it. ;)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,580

    If the PM wants to leave and is prepared to leave without a deal, I fail to see how Parliament can stop it unless it is prepared to bring the PM down or revoke Article 50 unilaterally.

    ...

    If Parliament can convince the PM that they will bring them down if they make a bad faith request to extend Article 50 then the PM has the choice of calling their bluff, or folding to retain office.

    I agree that the crucial component is that Parliament has to convince the PM that they are willing to vote them out if they defy the Commons.
    If the PM is prepared to call their bluff then the Commons has to do that. Although by then the Commons will be obliged to either as an emergency unite behind PM Corbyn (who won't back anyone else) or we No Deal by default as there won't be the time to hold an election and see a new government request an extension.

    Corbyn would hold the whip hand. He would tell all potential Tory rebels and others that only he can request an extension and they must make him PM in order to get one. Without almost all Tories defecting from Boris, without Corbyn on board there can be no Government of National Unity.
  • TOPPING said:

    A possible pivot is of course staring us in the face.

    Let us remember that the WA *is* leaving. All Boris needs to do is bring his essential Borisness into play by telling the Francois gang just that and to vote it through and Voila!

    There is also the possibility that the EU will budge sufficiently on the backstop to allow enough MPs to get on board
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,016

    TOPPING said:

    A possible pivot is of course staring us in the face.

    Let us remember that the WA *is* leaving. All Boris needs to do is bring his essential Borisness into play by telling the Francois gang just that and to vote it through and Voila!

    Theresa May should vote against it. ;)
    LOL
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 54,079
    Mr. P, I wrote something similar earlier, about pre- and post-referendum Borises being quite different in terms of appealing to certain groups.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,580

    eek said:

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?

    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.

    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?

    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50

    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.

    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    That's irrelevant. If we need 6-8 months of preparations and we haven't started how do you leave on October 31st without things going wrong..
    I will put faith in the civil service that they have done their jobs and started to prepare. They have had the time do so.
    F*ck me the blame game is beginning already.
    Given that no deal has been a plausible outcome for a year by October (since it is default and all other outcomes have looked unlikely), who would you blame if 6-8 months of preparations haven't happened?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,265


    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.

    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.

    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?

    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    Once again, you read of a report that says that Britain is not ready and decide that Britain just has to suffer the consequences if so. How many avoidable deaths caused by this imperative would you regard as an acceptable trade-off?
  • eekeek Posts: 9,458

    TOPPING said:

    A possible pivot is of course staring us in the face.

    Let us remember that the WA *is* leaving. All Boris needs to do is bring his essential Borisness into play by telling the Francois gang just that and to vote it through and Voila!

    There is also the possibility that the EU will budge sufficiently on the backstop to allow enough MPs to get on board
    What colour unicorn did you vote for?
  • StreeterStreeter Posts: 684

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?

    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.

    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?

    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50

    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.

    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.

    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.
    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?

    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    Whining about the civil service - yep, that'll guarantee the supply of essential medicines (to take just one example of the clusterfucks that would occur following a no deal exit).

    Jeez.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?
    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.
    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?
    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50
    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.
    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.
    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.
    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?
    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    The civil service is answerable to its bosses. Who have not been able to agree among themselves. Please stop blaming the civil service.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,016

    TOPPING said:

    A possible pivot is of course staring us in the face.

    Let us remember that the WA *is* leaving. All Boris needs to do is bring his essential Borisness into play by telling the Francois gang just that and to vote it through and Voila!

    There is also the possibility that the EU will budge sufficiently on the backstop to allow enough MPs to get on board
    Was anything more heard of the report (in The Sun) that the EU was looking at some kind of technological solution?
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 6,042
    TOPPING said:

    A possible pivot is of course staring us in the face.

    Let us remember that the WA *is* leaving. All Boris needs to do is bring his essential Borisness into play by telling the Francois gang just that and to vote it through and Voila!

    I'm sure that will be his plan: revive Theresa's deal whilst pretending it's something else and hope that the ERG are either too spaced out on Boris worship to kick up a fuss or too dim to notice.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 10,614


    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.

    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.

    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?

    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    Once again, you read of a report that says that Britain is not ready and decide that Britain just has to suffer the consequences if so. How many avoidable deaths caused by this imperative would you regard as an acceptable trade-off?
    If the Civil Service just got off their knees and believed harder in Britain the medicines will just appear in the warehouses. Stop talking Britain down.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,580
    PClipp said:

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?
    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.
    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?
    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50
    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.
    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.
    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.
    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?
    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    The civil service is answerable to its bosses. Who have not been able to agree among themselves. Please stop blaming the civil service.
    The civil service have a duty to prepare for all eventualities, including the fall of the government and the opposition taking over. Not just the whims of the government of the day.

    Given no deal has been a likely outcome it is a deriliction of duty not to prepare for it.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    O/T

    Megha Mohan, BBC Gender and Identity correspondent

    wtf!

    That acronym is the non-politically correct version of the job title.
    Who rather that wot?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,580


    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.

    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.

    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?

    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    Once again, you read of a report that says that Britain is not ready and decide that Britain just has to suffer the consequences if so. How many avoidable deaths caused by this imperative would you regard as an acceptable trade-off?
    I think its Project Fear garbage. I don't believe our civil service is that irresponsible as to have not prepared.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,005
    Debate on EU opposition day motion begins, moved by Starmer
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,135
    Alistair said:

    Ok, I'm reconciling myself to the idea that Boris is deffo in the last 2.

    I can't work out who will be the other person. The only hint will be after the first round of voting and then all the value will be gone.

    when are we expecting the result of the first ballot?

    If Johnson, Gove and Hunt are frontrunners then is Johnson the likely home for Raab/Mcvey supporters, and Hunt for those from Javid,Hancock and Stewart?

    Where does Gove get tranfers from? Or do Remain/Deal MPs thinking putting Hunt to the members is a waste of time so try to put Gove through as they think he might at least have a chance v Boris with the membership?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,016
    edited June 2019

    PClipp said:

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?
    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.
    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?
    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50
    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.
    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.
    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.
    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?
    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    The civil service is answerable to its bosses. Who have not been able to agree among themselves. Please stop blaming the civil service.
    The civil service have a duty to prepare for all eventualities, including the fall of the government and the opposition taking over. Not just the whims of the government of the day.

    Given no deal has been a likely outcome it is a deriliction of duty not to prepare for it.
    LOL

    How are their preparations for a North Korea seaborne invasion of the British Isles going?
  • eekeek Posts: 9,458

    Alistair said:

    Ok, I'm reconciling myself to the idea that Boris is deffo in the last 2.

    I can't work out who will be the other person. The only hint will be after the first round of voting and then all the value will be gone.

    when are we expecting the result of the first ballot?

    If Johnson, Gove and Hunt are frontrunners then is Johnson the likely home for Raab/Mcvey supporters, and Hunt for those from Javid,Hancock and Stewart?

    Where does Gove get tranfers from? Or do Remain/Deal MPs thinking putting Hunt to the members is a waste of time so try to put Gove through as they think he might at least have a chance v Boris with the membership?
    1pm tomorrow
  • RobDRobD Posts: 49,116
    TOPPING said:

    PClipp said:

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?
    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.
    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?
    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50
    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.
    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.
    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.
    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?
    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    The civil service is answerable to its bosses. Who have not been able to agree among themselves. Please stop blaming the civil service.
    The civil service have a duty to prepare for all eventualities, including the fall of the government and the opposition taking over. Not just the whims of the government of the day.

    Given no deal has been a likely outcome it is a deriliction of duty not to prepare for it.
    LOL

    How are their preparations for a North Korea seaborne invasion of the British Isles going?
    Realistic outcomes, surely? And No deal Brexit is a very real possibility.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,016

    O/T

    Megha Mohan, BBC Gender and Identity correspondent

    wtf!

    That acronym is the non-politically correct version of the job title.
    Who rather that wot?
    Like the old joke - whereas a psychologist asks "how are you?", an existential phenomenologist asks "are you?"
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,043
    isam said:

    1.48 to lay Hunt to make the Final 2

    Cheers, have laid a bit. Might turn out to be a pants bet come 1pm on Friday, but at this stage I think it's too short.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,016
    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    PClipp said:

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?
    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.
    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?
    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50
    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.
    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.
    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.
    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?
    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    The civil service is answerable to its bosses. Who have not been able to agree among themselves. Please stop blaming the civil service.
    The civil service have a duty to prepare for all eventualities, including the fall of the government and the opposition taking over. Not just the whims of the government of the day.

    Given no deal has been a likely outcome it is a deriliction of duty not to prepare for it.
    LOL

    How are their preparations for a North Korea seaborne invasion of the British Isles going?
    Realistic outcomes, surely? And No deal Brexit is a very real possibility.
    HEY!!!

    He said "all eventualities". I have only just got started. An invasion of highly trained killer bees?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,265


    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.

    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.

    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?

    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    Once again, you read of a report that says that Britain is not ready and decide that Britain just has to suffer the consequences if so. How many avoidable deaths caused by this imperative would you regard as an acceptable trade-off?
    I think its Project Fear garbage. I don't believe our civil service is that irresponsible as to have not prepared.
    Project Fear garbage. A Cabinet level report with input from the Brexit Secretary.

    It'll take deaths to convince the death cult. Even then they will be regarded as necessary sacrifices to the cult deity.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,970
    I love the argument that the civil service are so competent that they must have prepared for No Deal, but so incompetent that you can't trust a word they say about the consequences of No Deal.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,016


    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.

    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.

    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?

    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    Once again, you read of a report that says that Britain is not ready and decide that Britain just has to suffer the consequences if so. How many avoidable deaths caused by this imperative would you regard as an acceptable trade-off?
    I think its Project Fear garbage. I don't believe our civil service is that irresponsible as to have not prepared.
    Fair enough. It's not as though it's a high risk gambit though so I wouldn't worry too much.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 10,614
    @Philip_Thompson. I myself take very important, very expensive imported medicine as well as using other imported medical appliances. If there is supply problems it won't be the Civil Service I will be blaming, and there will be hell to pay.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    eek said:

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?

    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.

    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?

    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50

    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.

    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    That's irrelevant. If we need 6-8 months of preparations and we haven't started how do you leave on October 31st without things going wrong..
    I will put faith in the civil service that they have done their jobs and started to prepare. They have had the time do so.
    F*ck me the blame game is beginning already.
    Given that no deal has been a plausible outcome for a year by October (since it is default and all other outcomes have looked unlikely), who would you blame if 6-8 months of preparations haven't happened?
    I do wonder how so many people find the concept of "default option" so difficult to grasp.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,825
    Charles said:



    Britain isn't a confederation.

    We don't have a coalition government *just because* one part of the country voted for a different party. The same applies to UK referendum results.

    So it's the "will of the province" when it suits you and then an imperialistic land grab when it also suits?
    No. The province can choose to leave the UK at will or remain in the UK at will.

    The province can also elect representatives to Parliamentary bodies that shape its laws and make decisions. Except it can't if the backstop goes through, then it will be a colony.
    FPT

    Just to understand your issues with the back stop:

    1. The legitimacy of NI being subject to regulations they have no input in shaping
    2. The concern about some form of regulatory checks between GB and NI

    Both are reasonable and valid concerns. Couldn’t they be resolved by:

    1. Allowing NI to elect MEPs while the backstop is in force*
    2. Asking the people of NI to choose between No Deal & a hard border and Deal with limited checks between them and GB? **

    * arguably GB should also elect MEPs while the U.K.-wide backstop is in force

    ** NB this is a recognition of the unique circumstances of NI and not a concession on a U.K.-wide second referendum so don’t waste OGH’s server storage
    Polling seems to demonstrate that around two thirds of the NI electorate are not massively bothered by either 1 or 2, if it comes to a choice between the WA and No Deal.

    If all that’s at issue were the consent of the NI electorate, the WA would have passed long ago.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 14,878
    TOPPING said:

    A possible pivot is of course staring us in the face.

    Let us remember that the WA *is* leaving. All Boris needs to do is bring his essential Borisness into play by telling the Francois gang just that and to vote it through and Voila!

    This is the big question. Which way will he go?

    (i) Call a snap election, try to get a mandate for a No Deal 'Bulldog' Brexit.

    (ii) Backtrack, fudge, delay, try to finesse a re-branded May Deal through in 2020.

    I incline towards (ii).

    My sense is that Johnson, once he has realized his life's ambition of getting the top job, will not want to risk losing it until he has to.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 35,324
    TOPPING said:

    O/T

    Megha Mohan, BBC Gender and Identity correspondent

    wtf!

    That acronym is the non-politically correct version of the job title.
    Who rather that wot?
    Like the old joke - whereas a psychologist asks "how are you?", an existential phenomenologist asks "are you?"
    Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain.

    Doctor says, "Treatment is simple. The great blogger Mike Smithson is online tonight. Go and read politicalbetting.com. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Mike Smithson!"

    Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum. Curtains.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,825

    I love the argument that the civil service are so competent that they must have prepared for No Deal, but so incompetent that you can't trust a word they say about the consequences of No Deal.

    Easily resolved if one views them as competent traitors, I guess.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,458
    Nigelb said:

    I love the argument that the civil service are so competent that they must have prepared for No Deal, but so incompetent that you can't trust a word they say about the consequences of No Deal.

    Easily resolved if one views them as competent traitors, I guess.
    If Boris got the ERG to vote for May's Deal (once he explains its only a starting point) would they votes be enough to win?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,016
    edited June 2019
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    A possible pivot is of course staring us in the face.

    Let us remember that the WA *is* leaving. All Boris needs to do is bring his essential Borisness into play by telling the Francois gang just that and to vote it through and Voila!

    This is the big question. Which way will he go?

    (i) Call a snap election, try to get a mandate for a No Deal 'Bulldog' Brexit.

    (ii) Backtrack, fudge, delay, try to finesse a re-branded May Deal through in 2020.

    I incline towards (ii).

    My sense is that Johnson, once he has realized his life's ambition of getting the top job, will not want to risk losing it until he has to.
    As has often been said a lot of it is in the delivery. If May had come back from Brussels and spun the WA as a victory over the European enemy with attendant Daily Mail Union Jack-swathed front pages then it would have been a brave ERG-er (they are of course all cowards) to have defied her.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,265

    @Philip_Thompson. I myself take very important, very expensive imported medicine as well as using other imported medical appliances. If there is supply problems it won't be the Civil Service I will be blaming, and there will be hell to pay.

    I'm afraid the headbangers would regard your death or serious injury as a necessary casualty of their obsession.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,704
    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:



    Britain isn't a confederation.

    We don't have a coalition government *just because* one part of the country voted for a different party. The same applies to UK referendum results.

    So it's the "will of the province" when it suits you and then an imperialistic land grab when it also suits?
    No. The province can choose to leave the UK at will or remain in the UK at will.

    The province can also elect representatives to Parliamentary bodies that shape its laws and make decisions. Except it can't if the backstop goes through, then it will be a colony.
    FPT

    Just to understand your issues with the back stop:

    1. The legitimacy of NI being subject to regulations they have no input in shaping
    2. The concern about some form of regulatory checks between GB and NI

    Both are reasonable and valid concerns. Couldn’t they be resolved by:

    1. Allowing NI to elect MEPs while the backstop is in force*
    2. Asking the people of NI to choose between No Deal & a hard border and Deal with limited checks between them and GB? **

    * arguably GB should also elect MEPs while the U.K.-wide backstop is in force

    ** NB this is a recognition of the unique circumstances of NI and not a concession on a U.K.-wide second referendum so don’t waste OGH’s server storage
    Polling seems to demonstrate that around two thirds of the NI electorate are not massively bothered by either 1 or 2, if it comes to a choice between the WA and No Deal.

    If all that’s at issue were the consent of the NI electorate, the WA would have passed long ago.

    Yep - Remainers are frequently accused of using the border as a means to prevent Brexit, whereas in fact the reality is that Leavers are using it to secure a No Deal Brexit. The entire issue could be resolved if the decision about triggering the backstop were left with the people who would be affected by it. Maybe this is Johnson's magic solution.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    eek said:

    Alistair said:

    Ok, I'm reconciling myself to the idea that Boris is deffo in the last 2.

    I can't work out who will be the other person. The only hint will be after the first round of voting and then all the value will be gone.

    when are we expecting the result of the first ballot?

    If Johnson, Gove and Hunt are frontrunners then is Johnson the likely home for Raab/Mcvey supporters, and Hunt for those from Javid,Hancock and Stewart?

    Where does Gove get tranfers from? Or do Remain/Deal MPs thinking putting Hunt to the members is a waste of time so try to put Gove through as they think he might at least have a chance v Boris with the membership?
    1pm tomorrow
    eek said:

    Alistair said:

    Ok, I'm reconciling myself to the idea that Boris is deffo in the last 2.

    I can't work out who will be the other person. The only hint will be after the first round of voting and then all the value will be gone.

    when are we expecting the result of the first ballot?

    If Johnson, Gove and Hunt are frontrunners then is Johnson the likely home for Raab/Mcvey supporters, and Hunt for those from Javid,Hancock and Stewart?

    Where does Gove get tranfers from? Or do Remain/Deal MPs thinking putting Hunt to the members is a waste of time so try to put Gove through as they think he might at least have a chance v Boris with the membership?
    1pm tomorrow
    If past form is anything to go for, favourites in Tory leader competitions have a piss poor record. However, if BJ makes it to the play off it's hard to see him losing
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    PClipp said:

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?
    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.
    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?
    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50
    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.
    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.
    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.
    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?
    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    The civil service is answerable to its bosses. Who have not been able to agree among themselves. Please stop blaming the civil service.
    The civil service have a duty to prepare for all eventualities, including the fall of the government and the opposition taking over. Not just the whims of the government of the day.

    Given no deal has been a likely outcome it is a deriliction of duty not to prepare for it.
    LOL

    How are their preparations for a North Korea seaborne invasion of the British Isles going?
    Realistic outcomes, surely? And No deal Brexit is a very real possibility.
    HEY!!!

    He said "all eventualities". I have only just got started. An invasion of highly trained killer bees?
    The don't have to gameplan for your idiotic comment.. they are spared that.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 34,581
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    A possible pivot is of course staring us in the face.

    Let us remember that the WA *is* leaving. All Boris needs to do is bring his essential Borisness into play by telling the Francois gang just that and to vote it through and Voila!

    This is the big question. Which way will he go?

    (i) Call a snap election, try to get a mandate for a No Deal 'Bulldog' Brexit.

    (ii) Backtrack, fudge, delay, try to finesse a re-branded May Deal through in 2020.

    I incline towards (ii).

    My sense is that Johnson, once he has realized his life's ambition of getting the top job, will not want to risk losing it until he has to.
    As has often been said a lot of it is in the delivery. If May had come back from Brussels and spun the WA as a victory over the European enemy with attendant Daily Mail Union Jack-swathed front pages then it would have been a brave ERG-er (they are of course all cowards) to have defied her.
    That's what Gove tried to do. Remember the comments about having Macron over a barrel because of the backstop? It didn't work...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,704


    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.

    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.

    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?

    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    Once again, you read of a report that says that Britain is not ready and decide that Britain just has to suffer the consequences if so. How many avoidable deaths caused by this imperative would you regard as an acceptable trade-off?
    I think its Project Fear garbage. I don't believe our civil service is that irresponsible as to have not prepared.

    The civil service does as it is told, doesn't it?


  • So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.

    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.

    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?

    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    Once again, you read of a report that says that Britain is not ready and decide that Britain just has to suffer the consequences if so. How many avoidable deaths caused by this imperative would you regard as an acceptable trade-off?
    I think its Project Fear garbage. I don't believe our civil service is that irresponsible as to have not prepared.
    Their political masters keep insisting they can't have the money and can't be seen to be prepping for doomsday as there definitely won't be doomsday as we survived the blitz.

    Surely you should be saying "there won't be any shortages" not "there will be shortages and its the civil service's fault for not listening to su when we said no shortages"
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,704

    PClipp said:

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?
    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.
    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?
    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50
    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.
    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.
    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.
    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?
    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    The civil service is answerable to its bosses. Who have not been able to agree among themselves. Please stop blaming the civil service.
    The civil service have a duty to prepare for all eventualities, including the fall of the government and the opposition taking over. Not just the whims of the government of the day.

    Given no deal has been a likely outcome it is a deriliction of duty not to prepare for it.

    The civil service cannot just go around spending money willy-nilly without political authorisation.

  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 2,553

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    In your maths, there are 30 months between late May and late October?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 5,813


    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.

    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.

    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?

    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    Once again, you read of a report that says that Britain is not ready and decide that Britain just has to suffer the consequences if so. How many avoidable deaths caused by this imperative would you regard as an acceptable trade-off?
    I think its Project Fear garbage. I don't believe our civil service is that irresponsible as to have not prepared.
    Project Fear garbage. A Cabinet level report with input from the Brexit Secretary.

    It'll take deaths to convince the death cult. Even then they will be regarded as necessary sacrifices to the cult deity.
    Philip Thompson wants us to go to war. Like Reg in The Life of Brian he will probably stay at home because he has a bad back.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,016

    The don't have to gameplan for your idiotic comment.. they are spared that.

    Zing! You're on fire here.
  • isamisam Posts: 33,959
    TOPPING said:

    PClipp said:

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?
    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.
    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?
    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50
    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.
    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.
    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.
    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?
    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    The civil service is answerable to its bosses. Who have not been able to agree among themselves. Please stop blaming the civil service.
    The civil service have a duty to prepare for all eventualities, including the fall of the government and the opposition taking over. Not just the whims of the government of the day.

    Given no deal has been a likely outcome it is a deriliction of duty not to prepare for it.
    LOL

    How are their preparations for a North Korea seaborne invasion of the British Isles going?
    Has that traded at Evens on Betfair like No Deal?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 34,581


    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.

    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.

    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?

    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    Once again, you read of a report that says that Britain is not ready and decide that Britain just has to suffer the consequences if so. How many avoidable deaths caused by this imperative would you regard as an acceptable trade-off?
    I think its Project Fear garbage. I don't believe our civil service is that irresponsible as to have not prepared.
    Project Fear garbage. A Cabinet level report with input from the Brexit Secretary.

    It'll take deaths to convince the death cult. Even then they will be regarded as necessary sacrifices to the cult deity.
    Philip Thompson wants us to go to war. Like Reg in The Life of Brian he will probably stay at home because he has a bad back.
    He fantasises about enlisting the forces of the global Anglosphere into the fight against the new hegemonic continental enemy. Utterly bonkers.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 49,116

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:



    Britain isn't a confederation.

    We don't have a coalition government *just because* one part of the country voted for a different party. The same applies to UK referendum results.

    So it's the "will of the province" when it suits you and then an imperialistic land grab when it also suits?
    No. The province can choose to leave the UK at will or remain in the UK at will.

    The province can also elect representatives to Parliamentary bodies that shape its laws and make decisions. Except it can't if the backstop goes through, then it will be a colony.
    FPT

    Just to understand your issues with the back stop:

    1. The legitimacy of NI being subject to regulations they have no input in shaping
    2. The concern about some form of regulatory checks between GB and NI

    Both are reasonable and valid concerns. Couldn’t they be resolved by:

    1. Allowing NI to elect MEPs while the backstop is in force*
    2. Asking the people of NI to choose between No Deal & a hard border and Deal with limited checks between them and GB? **

    * arguably GB should also elect MEPs while the U.K.-wide backstop is in force

    ** NB this is a recognition of the unique circumstances of NI and not a concession on a U.K.-wide second referendum so don’t waste OGH’s server storage
    Polling seems to demonstrate that around two thirds of the NI electorate are not massively bothered by either 1 or 2, if it comes to a choice between the WA and No Deal.

    If all that’s at issue were the consent of the NI electorate, the WA would have passed long ago.

    Yep - Remainers are frequently accused of using the border as a means to prevent Brexit, whereas in fact the reality is that Leavers are using it to secure a No Deal Brexit. The entire issue could be resolved if the decision about triggering the backstop were left with the people who would be affected by it. Maybe this is Johnson's magic solution.

    Triggering the backstop? I thought it was an automatic procedure.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,016
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    PClipp said:

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?
    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.
    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?
    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50
    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.
    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.
    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.
    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?
    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    The civil service is answerable to its bosses. Who have not been able to agree among themselves. Please stop blaming the civil service.
    The civil service have a duty to prepare for all eventualities, including the fall of the government and the opposition taking over. Not just the whims of the government of the day.

    Given no deal has been a likely outcome it is a deriliction of duty not to prepare for it.
    LOL

    How are their preparations for a North Korea seaborne invasion of the British Isles going?
    Has that traded at Evens on Betfair like No Deal?
    Yeah looking on betfair is a bloody sensible way of operating the civil service.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,546
    edited June 2019
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    A possible pivot is of course staring us in the face.

    Let us remember that the WA *is* leaving. All Boris needs to do is bring his essential Borisness into play by telling the Francois gang just that and to vote it through and Voila!

    This is the big question. Which way will he go?

    (i) Call a snap election, try to get a mandate for a No Deal 'Bulldog' Brexit.

    (ii) Backtrack, fudge, delay, try to finesse a re-branded May Deal through in 2020.

    I incline towards (ii).

    My sense is that Johnson, once he has realized his life's ambition of getting the top job, will not want to risk losing it until he has to.
    As has often been said a lot of it is in the delivery. If May had come back from Brussels and spun the WA as a victory over the European enemy with attendant Daily Mail Union Jack-swathed front pages then it would have been a brave ERG-er (they are of course all cowards) to have defied her.
    But the thought of Boris Johnson as the protagonist of "The Emperor's New Clothes" is not a pleasant one. Perhaps No Deal would be preferable.
  • isamisam Posts: 33,959
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    PClipp said:

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?
    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.
    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?
    It will have been over 40 months to prepare since the Brexit vote
    It will have been over three years since a PM was elected saying "No Deal is better than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50
    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.
    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.
    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.
    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?
    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    The civil service is answerable to its bosses. Who have not been able to agree among themselves. Please stop blaming the civil service.
    The civil service have a duty to prepare for all eventualities, including the fall of the government and the opposition taking over. Not just the whims of the government of the day.

    Given no deal has been a likely outcome it is a deriliction of duty not to prepare for it.
    LOL

    How are their preparations for a North Korea seaborne invasion of the British Isles going?
    Has that traded at Evens on Betfair like No Deal?
    Yeah looking on betfair is a bloody sensible way of operating the civil service.
    Its a reasonable measure of how likely things are to happen
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:



    Britain isn't a confederation.

    We don't have a coalition government *just because* one part of the country voted for a different party. The same applies to UK referendum results.

    So it's the "will of the province" when it suits you and then an imperialistic land grab when it also suits?
    No. The province can choose to leave the UK at will or remain in the UK at will.

    The province can also elect representatives to Parliamentary bodies that shape its laws and make decisions. Except it can't if the backstop goes through, then it will be a colony.
    FPT

    Just to understand your issues with the back stop:

    1. The legitimacy of NI being subject to regulations they have no input in shaping
    2. The concern about some form of regulatory checks between GB and NI

    Both are reasonable and valid concerns. Couldn’t they be resolved by:

    1. Allowing NI to elect MEPs while the backstop is in force*
    2. Asking the people of NI to choose between No Deal & a hard border and Deal with limited checks between them and GB? **

    * arguably GB should also elect MEPs while the U.K.-wide backstop is in force

    ** NB this is a recognition of the unique circumstances of NI and not a concession on a U.K.-wide second referendum so don’t waste OGH’s server storage
    Polling seems to demonstrate that around two thirds of the NI electorate are not massively bothered by either 1 or 2, if it comes to a choice between the WA and No Deal.

    If all that’s at issue were the consent of the NI electorate, the WA would have passed long ago.

    Yep - Remainers are frequently accused of using the border as a means to prevent Brexit, whereas in fact the reality is that Leavers are using it to secure a No Deal Brexit. The entire issue could be resolved if the decision about triggering the backstop were left with the people who would be affected by it. Maybe this is Johnson's magic solution.
    Not sure about your summation of the problem and your choice of decision makers is disingenuous
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,704
    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:



    Britain isn't a confederation.

    We don't have a coalition government *just because* one part of the country voted for a different party. The same applies to UK referendum results.

    So it's the "will of the province" when it suits you and then an imperialistic land grab when it also suits?
    No. The province can choose to leave the UK at will or remain in the UK at will.

    The province can also elect representatives to Parliamentary bodies that shape its laws and make decisions. Except it can't if the backstop goes through, then it will be a colony.
    FPT

    Just to understand your issues with the back stop:

    1. The legitimacy of NI being subject to regulations they have no input in shaping
    2. The concern about some form of regulatory checks between GB and NI

    Both are reasonable and valid concerns. Couldn’t they be resolved by:

    1. Allowing NI to elect MEPs while the backstop is in force*
    2. Asking the people of NI to choose between No Deal & a hard border and Deal with limited checks between them and GB? **

    * arguably GB should also elect MEPs while the U.K.-wide backstop is in force

    ** NB this is a recognition of the unique circumstances of NI and not a concession on a U.K.-wide second referendum so don’t waste OGH’s server storage
    Polling seems to demonstrate that around two thirds of the NI electorate are not massively bothered by either 1 or 2, if it comes to a choice between the WA and No Deal.

    If all that’s at issue were the consent of the NI electorate, the WA would have passed long ago.

    Yep - Remainers are frequently accused of using the border as a means to prevent Brexit, whereas in fact the reality is that Leavers are using it to secure a No Deal Brexit. The entire issue could be resolved if the decision about triggering the backstop were left with the people who would be affected by it. Maybe this is Johnson's magic solution.

    Triggering the backstop? I thought it was an automatic procedure.

    It is - to protect the interests of NI. But if you leave the decision to the people of NI then that is no longer an issue. Let them decide if they want a customs border on the island of Ireland or in the Irish Sea.

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,425

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    No problem at all.
    This field of candidates has excellent first-hand experience at ensuring drug supply.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,704


    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.

    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.

    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?

    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    Once again, you read of a report that says that Britain is not ready and decide that Britain just has to suffer the consequences if so. How many avoidable deaths caused by this imperative would you regard as an acceptable trade-off?
    I think its Project Fear garbage. I don't believe our civil service is that irresponsible as to have not prepared.
    Their political masters keep insisting they can't have the money and can't be seen to be prepping for doomsday as there definitely won't be doomsday as we survived the blitz.

    Surely you should be saying "there won't be any shortages" not "there will be shortages and its the civil service's fault for not listening to su when we said no shortages"

    I think we all understand that Philip is looking for people to blame, not for a feasible solution

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,160
    Charles said:



    Britain isn't a confederation.

    We don't have a coalition government *just because* one part of the country voted for a different party. The same applies to UK referendum results.

    So it's the "will of the province" when it suits you and then an imperialistic land grab when it also suits?
    No. The province can choose to leave the UK at will or remain in the UK at will.

    The province can also elect representatives to Parliamentary bodies that shape its laws and make decisions. Except it can't if the backstop goes through, then it will be a colony.
    FPT

    Just to understand your issues with the back stop:

    1. The legitimacy of NI being subject to regulations they have no input in shaping
    2. The concern about some form of regulatory checks between GB and NI

    Both are reasonable and valid concerns. Couldn’t they be resolved by:

    1. Allowing NI to elect MEPs while the backstop is in force*
    2. Asking the people of NI to choose between No Deal & a hard border and Deal with limited checks between them and GB? **

    * arguably GB should also elect MEPs while the U.K.-wide backstop is in force

    ** NB this is a recognition of the unique circumstances of NI and not a concession on a U.K.-wide second referendum so don’t waste OGH’s server storage
    Had the May administration not been dependent on the DUP for S&C, then I suspect there would have been a referendum in Northern Ireland.

    I wonder if a referendum there is on Boris's agenda.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,016
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    PClipp said:

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?
    No I want the UK to be prepared and come Halloween there will be no excuse not to be prepared.
    So it takes 6-8 months to prepare. So what?
    It will have been over etter than a bad deal"
    It will have been over 30 months since the invocation of Article 50
    More cruically though:
    It will have been over 12 months since mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.
    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.
    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.
    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?
    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    The civil service is answerable to its bosses. Who have not been able to agree among themselves. Please stop blaming the civil service.
    The civil service have a duty to prepare for all eventualities, including the fall of the government and the opposition taking over. Not just the whims of the government of the day.

    Given no deal has been a likely outcome it is a deriliction of duty not to prepare for it.
    LOL

    How are their preparations for a North Korea seaborne invasion of the British Isles going?
    Has that traded at Evens on Betfair like No Deal?
    Yeah looking on betfair is a bloody sensible way of operating the civil service.
    Its a reasonable measure of how likely things are to happen
    Not really if you think about it.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,546

    Alistair said:

    Ok, I'm reconciling myself to the idea that Boris is deffo in the last 2.

    I can't work out who will be the other person. The only hint will be after the first round of voting and then all the value will be gone.

    when are we expecting the result of the first ballot?

    If Johnson, Gove and Hunt are frontrunners then is Johnson the likely home for Raab/Mcvey supporters, and Hunt for those from Javid,Hancock and Stewart?

    Where does Gove get tranfers from? Or do Remain/Deal MPs thinking putting Hunt to the members is a waste of time so try to put Gove through as they think he might at least have a chance v Boris with the membership?
    Or does Johnson secretly get half his supporters to vote for Leadsom so that she will be his opponent in the members' ballot?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    TOPPING said:

    The don't have to gameplan for your idiotic comment.. they are spared that.

    Zing! You're on fire here.
    no just pointing out the idiocy of your comment.. how likely do you think there will be a North Korean invasion of the British Isles...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 14,089

    TOPPING said:

    O/T

    Megha Mohan, BBC Gender and Identity correspondent

    wtf!

    That acronym is the non-politically correct version of the job title.
    Who rather that wot?
    Like the old joke - whereas a psychologist asks "how are you?", an existential phenomenologist asks "are you?"
    Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain.

    Doctor says, "Treatment is simple. The great blogger Mike Smithson is online tonight. Go and read politicalbetting.com. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Mike Smithson!"

    Good joke. Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum. Curtains.
    If only it were curtains for your attempts at humour Sunil! :wink:
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312


    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.

    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.

    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?

    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    Once again, you read of a report that says that Britain is not ready and decide that Britain just has to suffer the consequences if so. How many avoidable deaths caused by this imperative would you regard as an acceptable trade-off?
    I think its Project Fear garbage. I don't believe our civil service is that irresponsible as to have not prepared.

    The civil service does as it is told, doesn't it?

    From my, somewhat distant experience, the answer is sometimes
  • isamisam Posts: 33,959
    edited June 2019
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    PClipp said:

    I look forward to all the rebuttals from the death cult:

    6 to 8 months to prepare and we have had over 30 months come Halloween. Do the maths.
    So you want Britain to crash out of the EU when it is unprepared, including on stockpiles of medicine?
    e mass resignations from the cabinet made it look unlikely that the government could pass the withdrawal agreement.
    It will have been over 10 months since the vote on the withdrawal agreement was pulled as it would be lost.
    It will have been over 9 months since the house rejected the Withdrawal Agreement by record margins.
    So why in that time have 6-8 months of preparations not occured?
    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.
    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.
    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?
    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    The civil service is answerable to its bosses. Who have not been able to agree among themselves. Please stop blaming the civil service.
    The civil service have a duty to prepare for all eventualities, including the fall of the government and the opposition taking over. Not just the whims of the government of the day.

    Given no deal has been a likely outcome it is a deriliction of duty not to prepare for it.
    LOL

    How are their preparations for a North Korea seaborne invasion of the British Isles going?
    Has that traded at Evens on Betfair like No Deal?
    Yeah looking on betfair is a bloody sensible way of operating the civil service.
    Its a reasonable measure of how likely things are to happen
    Not really if you think about it.
    It is really, I think about it a lot. It’s why firms use it to hedge
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,704
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:



    Britain isn't a confederation.

    We don't have a coalition government *just because* one part of the country voted for a different party. The same applies to UK referendum results.

    So it's the "will of the province" when it suits you and then an imperialistic land grab when it also suits?
    No. The province can choose to leave the UK at will or remain in the UK at will.

    The province can also elect representatives to Parliamentary bodies that shape its laws and make decisions. Except it can't if the backstop goes through, then it will be a colony.
    FPT

    Just to understand your issues with the back stop:

    1. The legitimacy of NI being subject to regulations they have no input in shaping
    2. The concern about some form of regulatory checks between GB and NI

    Both are reasonable and valid concerns. Couldn’t they be resolved by:

    1. Allowing NI to elect MEPs while the backstop is in force*
    2. Asking the people of NI to choose between No Deal & a hard border and Deal with limited checks between them and GB? **

    * arguably GB should also elect MEPs while the U.K.-wide backstop is in force

    ** NB this is a recognition of the unique circumstances of NI and not a concession on a U.K.-wide second referendum so don’t waste OGH’s server storage
    Had the May administration not been dependent on the DUP for S&C, then I suspect there would have been a referendum in Northern Ireland.

    I wonder if a referendum there is on Boris's agenda.

    Yep, a referendum solves it. Do you think the ERG would vote for that?

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,016

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:



    Britain isn't a confederation.

    We don't have a coalition government *just because* one part of the country voted for a different party. The same applies to UK referendum results.

    So it's the "will of the province" when it suits you and then an imperialistic land grab when it also suits?
    No. The province can choose to leave the UK at will or remain in the UK at will.

    The province can also elect representatives to Parliamentary bodies that shape its laws and make decisions. Except it can't if the backstop goes through, then it will be a colony.
    FPT

    Just to understand your issues with the back stop:

    1. The legitimacy of NI being subject to regulations they have no input in shaping
    2. The concern about some form of regulatory checks between GB and NI

    Both are reasonable and valid concerns. Couldn’t they be resolved by:

    1. Allowing NI to elect MEPs while the backstop is in force*
    2. Asking the people of NI to choose between No Deal & a hard border and Deal with limited checks between them and GB? **

    * arguably GB should also elect MEPs while the U.K.-wide backstop is in force

    ** NB this is a recognition of the unique circumstances of NI and not a concession on a U.K.-wide second referendum so don’t waste OGH’s server storage
    Polling seems to demonstrate that around two thirds of the NI electorate are not massively bothered by either 1 or 2, if it comes to a choice between the WA and No Deal.

    If all that’s at issue were the consent of the NI electorate, the WA would have passed long ago.

    Yep - Remainers are frequently accused of using the border as a means to prevent Brexit, whereas in fact the reality is that Leavers are using it to secure a No Deal Brexit. The entire issue could be resolved if the decision about triggering the backstop were left with the people who would be affected by it. Maybe this is Johnson's magic solution.

    Triggering the backstop? I thought it was an automatic procedure.

    It is - to protect the interests of NI. But if you leave the decision to the people of NI then that is no longer an issue. Let them decide if they want a customs border on the island of Ireland or in the Irish Sea.

    Unless you get the wrong answer.

    The system in NI remains a bit mad but it works. Tinker with it at your peril.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Chris said:

    Alistair said:

    Ok, I'm reconciling myself to the idea that Boris is deffo in the last 2.

    I can't work out who will be the other person. The only hint will be after the first round of voting and then all the value will be gone.

    when are we expecting the result of the first ballot?

    If Johnson, Gove and Hunt are frontrunners then is Johnson the likely home for Raab/Mcvey supporters, and Hunt for those from Javid,Hancock and Stewart?

    Where does Gove get tranfers from? Or do Remain/Deal MPs thinking putting Hunt to the members is a waste of time so try to put Gove through as they think he might at least have a chance v Boris with the membership?
    Or does Johnson secretly get half his supporters to vote for Leadsom so that she will be his opponent in the members' ballot?
    I've been wondering about that. We've seen these "loan votes" before so it is plausible but am not convinced Leadsom would be the recipient.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,005
    Barclay trying to argue against the opposition motion on the minutiae of procedure
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Froome out of Tour de France with suspected broken leg.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,075

    TOPPING said:

    The don't have to gameplan for your idiotic comment.. they are spared that.

    Zing! You're on fire here.
    no just pointing out the idiocy of your comment.. how likely do you think there will be a North Korean invasion of the British Isles...
    Who’s taking the piss out of whom?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,704
    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:



    Britain isn't a confederation.

    We don't have a coalition government *just because* one part of the country voted for a different party. The same applies to UK referendum results.

    So it's the "will of the province" when it suits you and then an imperialistic land grab when it also suits?
    No. The province can choose to leave the UK at will or remain in the UK at will.

    The province can also elect representatives to Parliamentary bodies that shape its laws and make decisions. Except it can't if the backstop goes through, then it will be a colony.
    FPT

    Just to understand your issues with the back stop:

    1. The legitimacy of NI being subject to regulations they have no input in shaping
    2. The concern about some form of regulatory checks between GB and NI

    Both are reasonable and valid concerns. Couldn’t they be resolved by:

    1. Allowing NI to elect MEPs while the backstop is in force*
    2. Asking the people of NI to choose between No Deal & a hard border and Deal with limited checks between them and GB? **

    * arguably GB should also elect MEPs while the U.K.-wide backstop is in force

    ** NB this is a recognition of the unique circumstances of NI and not a concession on a U.K.-wide second referendum so don’t waste OGH’s server storage
    Polling seems to demonstrate that around two thirds of the NI electorate are not massively bothered by either 1 or 2, if it comes to a choice between the WA and No Deal.

    If all that’s at issue were the consent of the NI electorate, the WA would have passed long ago.

    Yep - Remainers solution.

    Triggering the backstop? I thought it was an automatic procedure.

    It is - to protect the interests of NI. But if you leave the decision to the people of NI then that is no longer an issue. Let them decide if they want a customs border on the island of Ireland or in the Irish Sea.

    Unless you get the wrong answer.

    The system in NI remains a bit mad but it works. Tinker with it at your peril.

    Northern Ireland has made clear time and again what it wants. Given how precious our Union is to the Conservative party, maybe it should trust the people of Northern Ireland.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,704


    So you read about a report from last month that says that Britain will not be ready for 31 October and just decide that it should be so Britain will just have to suffer if it isn't. Right.

    And they wonder why I call it a death cult.

    Tell me please why more than 12 months since it became obvious the WA was doomed the civil service haven't done 6-8 months of preparations?

    Not fit for the role if that's the case.
    Once again, you read of a report that says that Britain is not ready and decide that Britain just has to suffer the consequences if so. How many avoidable deaths caused by this imperative would you regard as an acceptable trade-off?
    I think its Project Fear garbage. I don't believe our civil service is that irresponsible as to have not prepared.

    The civil service does as it is told, doesn't it?

    From my, somewhat distant experience, the answer is sometimes

    My guess is that if the Civil Service had been refusing to implement No Deal planning ordered by the government we would have heard about it.

  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,043

    Chris said:

    Alistair said:

    Ok, I'm reconciling myself to the idea that Boris is deffo in the last 2.

    I can't work out who will be the other person. The only hint will be after the first round of voting and then all the value will be gone.

    when are we expecting the result of the first ballot?

    If Johnson, Gove and Hunt are frontrunners then is Johnson the likely home for Raab/Mcvey supporters, and Hunt for those from Javid,Hancock and Stewart?

    Where does Gove get tranfers from? Or do Remain/Deal MPs thinking putting Hunt to the members is a waste of time so try to put Gove through as they think he might at least have a chance v Boris with the membership?
    Or does Johnson secretly get half his supporters to vote for Leadsom so that she will be his opponent in the members' ballot?
    I've been wondering about that. We've seen these "loan votes" before so it is plausible but am not convinced Leadsom would be the recipient.
    It would leak, it would be seen as extremely cynical, it would backfire.

    Loaning someone a few votes to get into the first/second ballot is one thing, but loaning dozens to change the final outcome? Way too hard and way too risky. And as Johnson has a big lead in members polls the risk isn't worth it anyway.
This discussion has been closed.