politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This unique feel good moment has the potential to change our p

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

You can have all the tech you like in sports, and that *should* reduce errors (And will in the long run) but there is always an element of probability and random variation (luck for want of a better word) that can decide things.

One of the hawk-eye reviewed balls in the tennis my other half distinctly saw some white chalk fly up, but the ball was out by a millimetre or so - perhaps the chalk was outside where the lines should have been (Which is what I think hawkeye works off).

It happens in all sports, Kane WIlliamson would not want a repeat of yesterday due to a misruling - the umpire's decision is always final.
Stuff can always be improved (I think LBWs will become progressively less in favour of the batsmen over time for instance) but there'll always be the potential for freak stuff to happen that's totally outside what might be envisioned. That can never be eliminated.

I think the challenge system in tennis and cricket is a very good middle ground.

I'd up the number of challenges in ODI cricket to two, 1 for 50 overs feels a bit light. 1 challenge per side per 300 events.
Tennis has about 1 challenge per 20 odd events (A set is perhaps 60 points or so on average, and there are 3) ! That might be too much for cricket but perhaps a couple is fair.

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

You can have all the tech you like in sports, and that *should* reduce errors (And will in the long run) but there is always an element of probability and random variation (luck for want of a better word) that can decide things.

One of the hawk-eye reviewed balls in the tennis my other half distinctly saw some white chalk fly up, but the ball was out by a millimetre or so - perhaps the chalk was outside where the lines should have been (Which is what I think hawkeye works off).

It happens in all sports, Kane WIlliamson would not want a repeat of yesterday due to a misruling - the umpire's decision is always final.
Stuff can always be improved (I think LBWs will become progressively less in favour of the batsmen over time for instance) but there'll always be the potential for freak stuff to happen that's totally outside what might be envisioned. That can never be eliminated.

I think the challenge system in tennis and cricket is a very good middle ground.

I'd up the number of challenges in ODI cricket to two, 1 for 50 overs feels a bit light. 1 challenge per side per 300 events.
Tennis has about 1 challenge per 20 odd events (A set is perhaps 60 points or so on average, and there are 3) ! That might be too much for cricket but perhaps a couple is fair.

Yes I agree. 2 per innings seems fair.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Get the feck in.

I tipped Alan Turing at 33/1

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/17/who-will-be-the-face-of-the-new-50-note/


https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1150710805265911814?s=21

Wd, have some icing on the cake.

https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1150667802262614016

Who is on Scottish £50 notes, as a matter of interest?

Malcom?

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

You can have all the tech you like in sports, and that *should* reduce errors (And will in the long run) but there is always an element of probability and random variation (luck for want of a better word) that can decide things.

One of the hawk-eye reviewed balls in the tennis my other half distinctly saw some white chalk fly up, but the ball was out by a millimetre or so - perhaps the chalk was outside where the lines should have been (Which is what I think hawkeye works off).

It happens in all sports, Kane WIlliamson would not want a repeat of yesterday due to a misruling - the umpire's decision is always final.
Stuff can always be improved (I think LBWs will become progressively less in favour of the batsmen over time for instance) but there'll always be the potential for freak stuff to happen that's totally outside what might be envisioned. That can never be eliminated.

I think the challenge system in tennis and cricket is a very good middle ground.

I'd up the number of challenges in ODI cricket to two, 1 for 50 overs feels a bit light. 1 challenge per side per 300 events.
Tennis has about 1 challenge per 20 odd events (A set is perhaps 60 points or so on average, and there are 3) ! That might be too much for cricket but perhaps a couple is fair.

Don't forget for batsmen though it is 1 challenge per 10 events.

He's up!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150720283654938625

Curious "analysis" (sic)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150717474624692224

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150717475421663233

US taxpayers aren't facing higher prices?

CarlottaVance said:

He's up!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150720283654938625

Interesting that the Secret Barrister says if a UK politician tweeted/said the same sentiments as Trump did yesterday they'd be facing charges here.

CarlottaVance said:

He's up!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150720283654938625

That's early. Has he got to get somewhere for lunch?

DecrepitJohnL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Get the feck in.

I tipped Alan Turing at 33/1

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/17/who-will-be-the-face-of-the-new-50-note/


https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1150710805265911814?s=21

Wd, have some icing on the cake.

https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1150667802262614016

Who is on Scottish £50 notes, as a matter of interest?

Bank of Scotland is Walter Scott, RBS is some previous bank governor from long ago
Had to look up Clydesdale bank , Elsie Inglis
RBS was Lord Ilay former governor

South Africa's Jacob Zuma denies being 'king of corrupt people'

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-48989499

Prince of....then?

FrancisUrquhart said:

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

justin124 said:

I would prefer to see a replay such as used to occur when FA and World Cup Finals were drawn.. Far better than a victory which already appears tarnished.

Deary me...its sport...its part of the attraction that there is luck, incorrect decisions and cheating. Its why people watch, its why they still talk about great matches 50 years later.

If we took your approach, they would still be just about finishing the rerunning of most sporting competitions from the 90s about now. 60 year old sprinters in the 10th rerun of the 1988 100m finals.

But why would a replay be so unreasonable - given that was the norm for FA and World Cup Finals when the teams remained level following Extra Time?

We would first need to replay all the previous 47 matches in the world cup, as in each there were equally incorrect decisions.

Remember a number of games got rained off, that alone would have changed who got in the final 4.

I am not really into sport - though much prefer cricket to football. Nevertheless I do believe that allowing poor decisions to stand - in any sport - is actually an insult to both participants and spectators.

I am not sure many players from the Women's world cup will agree with you...there was near universal hate for the way VAR was used to try to "correct" every single decision.

What prompts a VAR decision to be taken in football ? In rugby the referee always orders it off his own back, in cricket and tennis the captain/player asks for it.
VAR seems to have a weird hotpotch system where if players scream and shout at the referee for a while they might have a look at things...

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

justin124 said:

I would prefer to see a replay such as used to occur when FA and World Cup Finals were drawn.. Far better than a victory which already appears tarnished.

Deary me...its sport...its part of the attraction that there is luck, incorrect decisions and cheating. Its why people watch, its why they still talk about great matches 50 years later.

If we took your approach, they would still be just about finishing the rerunning of most sporting competitions from the 90s about now. 60 year old sprinters in the 10th rerun of the 1988 100m finals.

But why would a replay be so unreasonable - given that was the norm for FA and World Cup Finals when the teams remained level following Extra Time?

We would first need to replay all the previous 47 matches in the world cup, as in each there were equally incorrect decisions.

Remember a number of games got rained off, that alone would have changed who got in the final 4.

I am not really into sport - though much prefer cricket to football. Nevertheless I do believe that allowing poor decisions to stand - in any sport - is actually an insult to both participants and spectators.

I am not sure many players from the Women's world cup will agree with you...there was near universal hate for the way VAR was used to try to "correct" every single decision.

What prompts a VAR decision to be taken in football ? In rugby the referee always orders it off his own back, in cricket and tennis the captain/player asks for it.
VAR seems to have a weird hotpotch system where if players scream and shout at the referee for a while they might have a look at things...

No...the way VAR was implemented for the world cup was that the VAR officials are constantly reviewing every decision (and non-decision) in important areas of the field, regardless of the on field ref or players.

OK That's a relief, the optics of footballers crowding the referee for stuff are still terrible though.

mwadams said:

NickPalmer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Always fascinating to see that a boring, crappy sport like Cricket produces such passion in my fellow PBers

Wouldn't go that far, but it's one of those things that are not as universally appealing as fans think. I mentioned it at work today - nobody had been following it, though one guy said he'd caught up with the final moments and they "seemed quite exciting".

Politics strikes most of them the same way - a hobby for other people. By contrast, football interests nearly everyone.

I think that the "real" interest levels in football are far below the "need to have some kind of an opinion for social norms" interest level.

Particularly if you are male.

The fact that football has achieved this social function is interesting in and of itself, though, and does make it special.

My office is 80% female, and they seemed really into it during the World Cup. Possibly the sweepstake on the outcome helped though.

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

justin124 said:

I would prefer to see a replay such as used to occur when FA and World Cup Finals were drawn.. Far better than a victory which already appears tarnished.

Deary me...its sport...its part of the attraction that there is luck, incorrect decisions and cheating. Its why people watch, its why they still talk about great matches 50 years later.

If we took your approach, they would still be just about finishing the rerunning of most sporting competitions from the 90s about now. 60 year old sprinters in the 10th rerun of the 1988 100m finals.

But why would a replay be so unreasonable - given that was the norm for FA and World Cup Finals when the teams remained level following Extra Time?

We would first need to replay all the previous 47 matches in the world cup, as in each there were equally incorrect decisions.

Remember a number of games got rained off, that alone would have changed who got in the final 4.

I am not really into sport - though much prefer cricket to football. Nevertheless I do believe that allowing poor decisions to stand - in any sport - is actually an insult to both participants and spectators.

I am not sure many players from the Women's world cup will agree with you...there was near universal hate for the way VAR was used to try to "correct" every single decision.

What prompts a VAR decision to be taken in football ? In rugby the referee always orders it off his own back, in cricket and tennis the captain/player asks for it.
VAR seems to have a weird hotpotch system where if players scream and shout at the referee for a while they might have a look at things...

No...the way VAR was implemented for the world cup was that the VAR officials are constantly reviewing every decision (and non-decision) in important areas of the field, regardless of the on field ref or players.

OK That's a relief, the optics of footballers crowding the referee for stuff are still terrible though.

The most ridiculous thing about VAR in football is the on-field ref being sent over to the dugouts to have a look for themselves at the replay. If the person watching the TV thinks an error has been made, just overrule the decision.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/Athersmike/status/1150551891920789505
https://twitter.com/chrisafhaines/status/1150615938594553857

Viewing figures now out, Wimbledon men's final got 9.6 million viewers, cricket world cup final got 7.9 million and British GP got 2.5 million yesterday

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/48986939?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=5d2c5f45eaee9a067bb1a727&TV viewing figures&2019-07-15T11:14:10.338Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:3d0e586d-5713-4061-853f-d5e5566dff51&pinned_post_asset_id=5d2c5f45eaee9a067bb1a727&pinned_post_type=share

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

He's up!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150720283654938625

Interesting that the Secret Barrister says if a UK politician tweeted/said the same sentiments as Trump did yesterday they'd be facing charges here.

1st amendment in the USA the right to free speech however unpalatable

My view is that we should treat social media like a pub. The landlord decides who (s)he wants in the pub. If Twitter are happy to have Trump saying stuff like that, then that's up to them.

tlg86 said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

He's up!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150720283654938625

Interesting that the Secret Barrister says if a UK politician tweeted/said the same sentiments as Trump did yesterday they'd be facing charges here.

1st amendment in the USA the right to free speech however unpalatable

My view is that we should treat social media like a pub. The landlord decides who (s)he wants in the pub. If Twitter are happy to have Trump saying stuff like that, then that's up to them.

Pubs still have to obey the law. Landlords do not get to decide to have smoking in pubs nowadays.

What Trump said might have been unlawful here but is legal [and protected] free speech there.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Above, problem with Cooper/Benn is that Clarke is a respected elder statesman who is clearly not going to try and be a permanent PM. Whereas Cooper/Benn could have decades ahead of them, which means being PM would be both a huge career advantage and very helpful for Labour (Clarke being PM would not be correspondingly helpful for the Conservatives).

How are Clarke or Cooper or Benn going to become PM when the Tory or Labour leaderships would both oppose them?

OllyT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

justin124 said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/timwig/status/1150692603945521153?s=21

Ouch.
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?

Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.

Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).

Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.

Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.

It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.

No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.

Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.

"Fair play" is respecting that the umpire's decision is final.

Don't make me laugh, can you imagine the British tabloids if England had lost in a similar fashion.

Only a Mankad dismissal would have been controversial.

There's no controversy about the result of yesterday's match. The NZ team are disappointed but not complaining.

The only people who are trying to make an issue of it are those intent on pissing on other people's happiness.

Brilliant decision by Mark Carney to have Alan Turing on the new £50 note .

nico67 said:

Brilliant decision by Mark Carney to have Alan Turing on the new £50 note .

Surely nobody can really be pissed off at that decision...checks twitter, first tweet with hashtag..oh yes there is.

https://twitter.com/chrisontwatter2/status/1150736256181133312?s=19

I wont bother to correct him...

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Above, problem with Cooper/Benn is that Clarke is a respected elder statesman who is clearly not going to try and be a permanent PM. Whereas Cooper/Benn could have decades ahead of them, which means being PM would be both a huge career advantage and very helpful for Labour (Clarke being PM would not be correspondingly helpful for the Conservatives).

How are Clarke or Cooper or Benn going to become PM when the Tory or Labour leaderships would both oppose them?

Because it would be for about 1 week to remove the October 31st deadline that's blocking a general election from being practical and allowing said election to occur...

And the entire point of using Boles or Clarke say to do it is so that no-one else takes the blame for said revocation or extension.

After all could Boris ask for said extension given what he's said on TV...

tlg86 said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

He's up!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150720283654938625

Interesting that the Secret Barrister says if a UK politician tweeted/said the same sentiments as Trump did yesterday they'd be facing charges here.

1st amendment in the USA the right to free speech however unpalatable

My view is that we should treat social media like a pub. The landlord decides who (s)he wants in the pub. If Twitter are happy to have Trump saying stuff like that, then that's up to them.

Except that Trump is tweeting in his official capacity as President of the US.
Which is recognised by the federal courts, which have therefore ruled he may not block people on Twitter.

A comment in the pub is not the same as a public statement by the US president.

https://twitter.com/adamboultonSKY/status/1150682040355950592?s=20

Nigelb said:

tlg86 said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

He's up!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150720283654938625

Interesting that the Secret Barrister says if a UK politician tweeted/said the same sentiments as Trump did yesterday they'd be facing charges here.

1st amendment in the USA the right to free speech however unpalatable

My view is that we should treat social media like a pub. The landlord decides who (s)he wants in the pub. If Twitter are happy to have Trump saying stuff like that, then that's up to them.

Except that Trump is tweeting in his official capacity as President of the US.
Which is recognised by the federal courts, which have therefore ruled he may not block people on Twitter.

A comment in the pub is not the same as a public statement by the US president.

That's a fairer argument, and if the courts in a country think a law specific to such an individual has been broken, then a prosecution would seem reasonable.

One of the things that often gets said by those celebs and politicians who get abuse on Twitter is "people shouldn't be allowed to be anonymous on Twitter." Actually, I think the problem is that people want to be themselves on Twitter to build up a social media profile. The internet works much better, in my opinion, when people are simply "someone on the internet."

Pro_Rata said:

Out of interest, whilst we celebrate the Holy Trinity of World Cup wins in Cricket, RU and football, what is England / GBs fourth best team sport World Cup / Championship win?

I would say rugby league. 1954, 1960 and 1972.

Incidentally, there was a guy on the radio this morning who was at all 3 of the events you mention.

notme2 said:

what charges? If you can be prosecuted for a tweet that isnt acting somone to break the law then we need the protections the USA have.

That sounds like a good idea. Unfortunately Britain doesn't have the same kind of constitution that America does. You can pass an amendment, for example by sending an pseudonymous letter to The Times, but then it could be repealed by somebody else sending a different pseudonymous letter to The Times.

OblitusSumMe said:

Pro_Rata said:

Out of interest, whilst we celebrate the Holy Trinity of World Cup wins in Cricket, RU and football, what is England / GBs fourth best team sport World Cup / Championship win?

Would The Davis Cup in tennis, or the Ryder Cup in golf, count as a team sport in your view?

Davis Cup yes. Ryder Cup only has two teams.

Yesterday's clash between the cricket and the tennis has to go down as the worst sports TV dilemma of all time. You had to choose one and pretend the other was not happening, otherwise both would be spoiled. I did the tennis - and I'm glad I did - but I feel cheesed off at not being able to watch that cricket climax live. Still, what can you do.

Nigelb said:

Pro_Rata said:

Out of interest, whilst we celebrate the Holy Trinity of World Cup wins in Cricket, RU and football, what is England / GBs fourth best team sport World Cup / Championship win?

Formula 1.

That's a bit like having India, India A and India U19s compete in the cricket world cup. Which is to say that I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen and it might not be a total disaster.

kinabalu said:

Yesterday's clash between the cricket and the tennis has to go down as the worst sports TV dilemma of all time. You had to choose one and pretend the other was not happening, otherwise both would be spoiled. I did the tennis - and I'm glad I did - but I feel cheesed off at not being able to watch that cricket climax live. Still, what can you do.

You could have watched the end of the cricket on C4 +1 and still seen the end of Wimbledon pn BBC1 as well

The guys who run the traffic signs in Manchester are awesome.

edmundintokyo said:

eek said:

After all could Boris ask for said extension given what he's said on TV...

I think he could and probably will. Although he's been saying they have to be firm on the deadline, the reason he gives is that if you don't have a firm deadline nothing will get done, which sets everything up for a "we had to set the deadline to get things moving, but now that it's come..."

Blaming the extension on parliament also sounds like it would have its attractions, but he could do this just by letting them pass a motion as they did with TMay, rather than needing to go so far as to force them to remove him from office. You can see the tactical case for getting himself fired by parliament then attempting to win his job back in the election that would hopefully follow, but he spent a long time maneuvering to get this job, and it's dangerous to give up control of he ball like that.

Yep. HY and his ilk are hearing what they want to hear and the rest of us can see the wriggle room.

kinabalu said:

Yesterday's clash between the cricket and the tennis has to go down as the worst sports TV dilemma of all time. You had to choose one and pretend the other was not happening, otherwise both would be spoiled. I did the tennis - and I'm glad I did - but I feel cheesed off at not being able to watch that cricket climax live. Still, what can you do.

Do you only have one screen? No iPad, phone or laptop? No PIP option on your TV?

HYUFD said:

algarkirk said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Above, problem with Cooper/Benn is that Clarke is a respected elder statesman who is clearly not going to try and be a permanent PM. Whereas Cooper/Benn could have decades ahead of them, which means being PM would be both a huge career advantage and very helpful for Labour (Clarke being PM would not be correspondingly helpful for the Conservatives).

How are Clarke or Cooper or Benn going to become PM when the Tory or Labour leaderships would both oppose them?

By MPs acting in the national interest? Something doesn't sound right about this....

Alternatively, Clarke could lead a GNU in which we either do an EFTA type deal or revoke so that blame is shared by all parties and Clarke would do what he thought right and hasn't got anything to lose.

One of the central problems is that lots of people want someone else to take the blame for doing what they, quietly, think is the right thing (eg most MPs want and intend to remain). The DUP is the most egregious example of this but they are not alone.

I cannot see that happening, most Tory MPs would not back a Clarke led Government to Revoke Brexit and nor would most Labour MPs from Leave seats risk handing their seats to the Brexit Party on a plate by backing revoke or free movement and EEA membership continuing either

But that assumes it's revoke and continue in power when in reality it would revoke / extend to allow the current situation to be resolved via a fresh election....

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Above, problem with Cooper/Benn is that Clarke is a respected elder statesman who is clearly not going to try and be a permanent PM. Whereas Cooper/Benn could have decades ahead of them, which means being PM would be both a huge career advantage and very helpful for Labour (Clarke being PM would not be correspondingly helpful for the Conservatives).

How are Clarke or Cooper or Benn going to become PM when the Tory or Labour leaderships would both oppose them?

It is obviously a long shot, possibly 50/1 to happen this year, 150/1 to happen before Boris gets into No 10, so each named individual probably at least 500/1 for next PM at the moment.

The Labour leadership is actually a small group in parliament, in his VONC Corbyn got 40 votes, 172 were against him. If Labour MPs are asked to choose between loyalty to Corbyn vs stopping a no deal Brexit, then a majority would choose to stop no deal, as long as 1) they can see a plausible path to doing so, 2) there is no other way to stop no deal happening.

If there are other ways to stop no deal happening, they will much prefer those to going down the national govt route. If they do not believe in a plausible path then very few will give it any support as it is obviously bad for the short term careers of those who start it.

If they can get Labour to back it for a couple of weeks to extend with a GE they would need around about 15 tories to support it.

Without Corbyn, it is a stretch and think would need to be headed by a Labour figure, but 200 Labour, 70 Other, 30 Tories, and 30 abstentions across Labour, Tory and DUP is not impossible.

On topic I don't see how winning the cricket world cup changes anything particularly.
Brexiteers can point to it being a sport outside europe (Save for a small amount of playing in the Netherlands and Ireland) played amongst the commonwealth, and remainers can point to the Irish captain and various other immigrant players in the side.

How precisely does it change anything ?

GIN1138 said:

nico67 said:

Brilliant decision by Mark Carney to have Alan Turing on the new £50 note .

Would be better if they'd made it a £5, £10 or £20 note.

Can't remember the last time I saw a £50 note. Must be years and years ago.

It's a great way of getting low key diversity messaging to builders and criminals.

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

How are Clarke or Cooper or Benn going to become PM when the Tory or Labour leaderships would both oppose them?

It is obviously a long shot, possibly 50/1 to happen this year, 150/1 to happen before Boris gets into No 10, so each named individual probably at least 500/1 for next PM at the moment.

The Labour leadership is actually a small group in parliament, in his VONC Corbyn got 40 votes, 172 were against him. If Labour MPs are asked to choose between loyalty to Corbyn vs stopping a no deal Brexit, then a majority would choose to stop no deal, as long as 1) they can see a plausible path to doing so, 2) there is no other way to stop no deal happening.

If there are other ways to stop no deal happening, they will much prefer those to going down the national govt route. If they do not believe in a plausible path then very few will give it any support as it is obviously bad for the short term careers of those who start it.

If they can get Labour to back it for a couple of weeks to extend with a GE they would need around about 15 tories to support it.

Without Corbyn, it is a stretch and think would need to be headed by a Labour figure, but 200 Labour, 70 Other, 30 Tories, and 30 abstentions across Labour, Tory and DUP is not impossible.

I don't think they'd see it as a choice between defying Corbyn and Brexit, but as a choice between betraying the Labour movement and Brexit - the institutional memory of Ramsay Macdonald's national government is too strong. And these things create their own new reality - Ken Clarke might form a temporary GNU with a promise to have a GE thereafter with "normal" parties, but there would instantly be a demand to lead a GNU-inspired party himself.

I can see a conceivable deal between the leaderships involving a temporary fix followed by an election, but I think a backbench-led GNU is a fantasy.

PClipp said:

What you are missing, dear old HY, is that both the Labour Party and the Conservatives are now dead and done with. They have no future. They have both failed the country.

No offence, but we've been reading posts like that from you as a LibDem activist for what feels like forever, in good times and bad. The LibDems always feel they're poised to break through in Westminster, and they never quite do. I agree that the times are so turbulent that they've got a better shot than usual, but I think you assume the end to the major parties too readily. Frankly none of us really know what's coming.

Cyclefree said:

** checks in **

** sees people still going on about bloody cricket **

** checks out again **

Surely it makes a change from correcting HYUFD and Brexit...

FrancisUrquhart said:

Do you only have one screen? No iPad, phone or laptop? No PIP option on your TV?

I have lots of screens but I find I can only properly immerse myself in one live sports events. If I try and mix it or split it I end up not fully into either.

Strange for an ex City Trader but there you go!

Miss Cyclefree, I'm more than happy to discuss F1 instead

So we did not actually win the Cricket World Cup, umpires error, the batsmen never crossed in that 6 incident, should have been 5. If I was New Zealand Cricket Board I would appeal, and presumably with fact and morality on their side they would succeed.