politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At least ComRes didn’t bring Nelson Mandela into its controver

Byronic said:

TOPPING said:

Byronic said:

OMG

where are you watching this?

Here. He's unconscious. He might be dying. NSFKids.

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1OwxWkNdNapxQ

Thanks found it shocking. Expect movement by PRC soon.

OllyT said:

Cyclefree said:

I’ll check in later to review the (doubtless lengthy) list of competition-inhibiting regulations @Philip_Thompson will have provided.

Laters!

I half suspect that Johnson wants to be stopped, I think it is going to be fascinating to see what he does if he isn't.

It does seem that a lot of Boris's plans are based on an us versus them electoral campaign. But if them don't provide the ammo it will be interesting to see how he reacts as late October comes around and he still owns No Deal.

Has this poll received a lot of attention here because the accompanying VI shows the Lib Dem surge to be more of a dirge (groan)...

eek said:

It does seem that a lot of Boris's plans are based on an us versus them electoral campaign. But if them don't provide the ammo it will be interesting to see how he reacts as late October comes around and he still owns No Deal.

It is fascinating. I personally think he's bluffing and wants neither No Deal nor a snap election. I see him at the crunch agreeing to an extension for fresh talks with the EU. Then he'll try and get a deal through. After that, succeed or fail, an election in 2020.

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Byronic said:

The police have to go in now and save this guy at the airport.

The whole world is watching. Incredible.

Next time Scottish Nats and Sturgeon complain about being ignored by Westminster I hope Boris reminds them of what the likes of Xi and Rajoy have done to internal dissenters and separatists and how lucky they are and were to get indyref 2014

And you as a diehard remainer would be first up against the wall, sunshine.

No, as I respect democracy

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Byronic said:

TOPPING said:

Byronic said:

OMG

where are you watching this?

Here. He's unconscious. He might be dying. NSFKids.

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1OwxWkNdNapxQ

That's terrible optics for the protesters. Paramedics literally having to force their way out with a seriously injured casualty can only lose support-and increase the likely hood of a brutal crackdown by the Chinese authorities.

As opposed to police firing rubber bullets at close range at protestors yesterday, imagine if police did that in Glasgow at Yes campaigners?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/hong-kong-protests-police-rubber-bullets-demonstration-violence-a9054366.html

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

I see that @Philip_Thompson thinks it inappropriate to ask what regulations he would like to remove. I am suspicious of claims of general principle unaccompanied by any examples. It's like people claiming that the government could spend less by cutting waste but are wholly unable to identify any examples of this waste.

No it is not like saying we should cut waste. It is like saying we should elect politicians who are responsible for the budget.

The public can elect a government then to cut spending or raise spending as we vote. Do you see the difference @Cyclefree ?

I have given you a specific example re GM foods where consumers' rights will be worse regardless of their ability to vote for this or that politician.

My question still is: what regulations do you think are making us uncompetitive because we are in the EU and which you want to get rid of once we leave? Surely you have 1 or 2 examples.

The question of GM I agree with. I oppose any agreement that forbids labelling, information should be available to the public.

It is a distraction to argue specific regulations rather than the principles.

Edmund Burke needs to be taught in schools and colleges urgently.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1161246052638441477

When we have the inevitable public inquiry into the whole Brexit disaster, I think the remit should include looking at the appalling level of public understanding of the British system of democracy.

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Byronic said:

The police have to go in now and save this guy at the airport.

The whole world is watching. Incredible.

Next time Scottish Nats and Sturgeon complain about being ignored by Westminster I hope Boris reminds them of what the likes of Xi and Rajoy have done to internal dissenters and separatists and how lucky they are and were to get indyref 2014

And you as a diehard remainer would be first up against the wall, sunshine.

No, as I respect democracy

We are not talking about democracy here we are talking about the regime getting rid of its enemies and as a diehard remainer you are an enemy of this current regime.

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Byronic said:

The police have to go in now and save this guy at the airport.

The whole world is watching. Incredible.

Next time Scottish Nats and Sturgeon complain about being ignored by Westminster I hope Boris reminds them of what the likes of Xi and Rajoy have done to internal dissenters and separatists and how lucky they are and were to get indyref 2014

And you as a diehard remainer would be first up against the wall, sunshine.

No, as I respect democracy

We are not talking about democracy here we are talking about the regime getting rid of its enemies and as a diehard remainer you are an enemy of this current regime.

Half the Cabinet voted Remain but they back Boris to deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal like me and respect the Leave vote

Nigelb said:

Hmmm.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-death-shrieking-heard-jail-cell-morning-he-died-metropolitan-correctional-center/
On the morning of Jeffrey Epstein's death there was shouting and shrieking from his jail cell, a source familiar with the situation told CBS News. Corrections officers attempted to revive him while saying "breathe, Epstein, breathe."

Congress is the latest to start investigating Epstein's apparent suicide over the weekend, with new reports raising questions about the federal jail where he was being held. One of Epstein's guards at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the night he died was reportedly not a regular corrections officer....

I’m not usually one for conspiracy theories, but this one....

eek said:

OllyT said:

Cyclefree said:

I’ll check in later to review the (doubtless lengthy) list of competition-inhibiting regulations @Philip_Thompson will have provided.

Laters!

I half suspect that Johnson wants to be stopped, I think it is going to be fascinating to see what he does if he isn't.

It does seem that a lot of Boris's plans are based on an us versus them electoral campaign. But if them don't provide the ammo it will be interesting to see how he reacts as late October comes around and he still owns No Deal.

It's all a bit phoney war at the moment, isn't it? The government is making determined statements, telling us that it will spend lots of money, making plans. But what happens once those plans become public- that will have to happen before the big day, won't it? The current relative popularity of No Deal might last, but then again, it might not.

When is the Point of No Return for an October 31, no matter what Brexit? The later it is, the more chance the PM has for an almighty reverse ferret, blaming Gove and Cummings for not being able to come up with a secure plan for November and onwards.

rottenborough said:

When we have the inevitable public inquiry into the whole Brexit disaster, I think the remit should include looking at the appalling level of public understanding of the British system of democracy.

As opposed to the appalling refusal of most MPs to respect the largest vote in post War history no surprise we get results like this poll

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

When we have the inevitable public inquiry into the whole Brexit disaster, I think the remit should include looking at the appalling level of public understanding of the British system of democracy.

As opposed to the appalling refusal of most MPs to respect the largest vote in post War history no surprise we get results like this poll

I look forward to you attempting to implement Labour manifesto policies after Labour wins a general election.

Philip_Thompson said:

I view Westminster as a better form of democracy by ensuring the most popular MP in each constituency is the only one elected. If you want to win the election, become more popular - this can lead to huge wipeouts as we saw in Scotland in 2015.

Wrong, as usual.

Sneaking a 30% plurality does not mean "most popular". Unless you are arguing for AV...

And as for safe seats, well, anyone who supports such a system is neither a libertarian nor a democrat.

Philip_Thompson said:

nichomar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Gate, an elected dictatorship?

Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.

Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.

I’m not pretending it isn’t a form of democracy, hence elected dictatorship. Its a well known phrase in political science.

As we don’t have separation of powers, a party can be given a majority on circa 30% of the vote and then essentially have unchecked power over anything for the next 5 years. This is a fact. Parliament is sovereign.

Yes, it is a good system with accountability. If you don't like what the party does [and no party has ever got a majority on 30%] then you can vote differently at the next election. Votes actually matter.

Most votes don’t mean diddley squat

Yes it does.

100 conservatives of various flavours stand for election and 1 socialist. There are 102 electors. The 100 conservatives and 2 socialist. The socialist gets elected on 2 votes.

I know it is an extreme example, but that is what we are doing.

Ok another one: Party A has 49% of the vote split evenly across the country. Party B and C have 25.5% split evenly across exactly half of the country each. Party B and C therefore win all of the seats and party A wins none.

Again extreme but it demonstrates the bizarre system we operate under.

JBriskinindyref2 said:

nichomar said:

JBriskinindyref2 said:

rottenborough said:

Edmund Burke needs to be taught in schools and colleges urgently.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1161246052638441477

I was taught that they're to do both in Modern Studies, no need for Burke; although it was a comprehensive.

It’s quite simple

1 in the best interests of the nation
2 in the best INTERESTS of their constituents
3 and the only if the above are fulfilled to represent the views of their constituents

Where did you learn that ?

Google Erskin May obligations of MPs but if you actually mean where, then only because I was interested I very much doubt it was at school.

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

I see that @Philip_Thompson thinks it inappropriate to ask what regulations he would like to remove. I am suspicious of claims of general principle unaccompanied by any examples. It's like people claiming that the government could spend less by cutting waste but are wholly unable to identify any examples of this waste.

No it is not like saying we should cut waste. It is like saying we should elect politicians who are responsible for the budget.

The public can elect a government then to cut spending or raise spending as we vote. Do you see the difference @Cyclefree ?

I have given you a specific example re GM foods where consumers' rights will be worse regardless of their ability to vote for this or that politician.

My question still is: what regulations do you think are making us uncompetitive because we are in the EU and which you want to get rid of once we leave? Surely you have 1 or 2 examples.

The question of GM I agree with. I oppose any agreement that forbids labelling, information should be available to the public.

It is a distraction to argue specific regulations rather than the principles.

Well, however much you or I may oppose GM foods they will get forced on us regardless of our votes. We'll be taking back control from the EU where we have some say and giving it to the US where we will have none.

Specific examples are not distractions. They illuminate the principles. We have a say in the EU, imperfect as it is. We have no say outside it. The trajectory is wrong.

Anyway must be off for a bit. Thanks for the chat.

surbiton19 said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

When we have the inevitable public inquiry into the whole Brexit disaster, I think the remit should include looking at the appalling level of public understanding of the British system of democracy.

As opposed to the appalling refusal of most MPs to respect the largest vote in post War history no surprise we get results like this poll

I look forward to you attempting to implement Labour manifesto policies after Labour wins a general election.

It wasn’t the largest vote in post war history the 1992 election was, get your facts right or present them better

kinabalu said:

nichomar said:

Most votes don’t mean diddley squat

In an atomic and deeply unhelpful sense every person's vote is always utterly meaningless. Unless the margin in your seat is 1 (vanishingly unlikely) the practical outcome of the election is not affected one iota by your participation in the democratic process.

You're just messing with us now aren't you?

Mango said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I view Westminster as a better form of democracy by ensuring the most popular MP in each constituency is the only one elected. If you want to win the election, become more popular - this can lead to huge wipeouts as we saw in Scotland in 2015.

Wrong, as usual.

Sneaking a 30% plurality does not mean "most popular". Unless you are arguing for AV...

And as for safe seats, well, anyone who supports such a system is neither a libertarian nor a democrat.

Unless you have another definition for most, most votes is most popular.

I don't support a system of safe seats. No seat is safe any seat can change hands.

surbiton19 said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1161310335342731264

Johnson needs to be careful not to get too far up Trump's ass.

The Orange Racist may be gone in just over a year.

Fear not. BJ will be gone well before then.

One can but hope!

JBriskinindyref2 said:

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

nichomar said:

Most votes don’t mean diddley squat

In an atomic and deeply unhelpful sense every person's vote is always utterly meaningless. Unless the margin in your seat is 1 (vanishingly unlikely) the practical outcome of the election is not affected one iota by your participation in the democratic process.

You're just messing with us now aren't you?

No. I was taught this in my OU course on politics - it's irrational to vote because of this reason.

The random ballot is by far and away the best system in ensuring that all votes count and all opinions are (eventually) represented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_ballot

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

I see that @Philip_Thompson thinks it inappropriate to ask what regulations he would like to remove. I am suspicious of claims of general principle unaccompanied by any examples. It's like people claiming that the government could spend less by cutting waste but are wholly unable to identify any examples of this waste.

No it is not like saying we should cut waste. It is like saying we should elect politicians who are responsible for the budget.

The public can elect a government then to cut spending or raise spending as we vote. Do you see the difference @Cyclefree ?

I have given you a specific example re GM foods where consumers' rights will be worse regardless of their ability to vote for this or that politician.

My question still is: what regulations do you think are making us uncompetitive because we are in the EU and which you want to get rid of once we leave? Surely you have 1 or 2 examples.

The question of GM I agree with. I oppose any agreement that forbids labelling, information should be available to the public.

It is a distraction to argue specific regulations rather than the principles.

Well, however much you or I may oppose GM foods they will get forced on us regardless of our votes. We'll be taking back control from the EU where we have some say and giving it to the US where we will have none.

Specific examples are not distractions. They illuminate the principles. We have a say in the EU, imperfect as it is. We have no say outside it. The trajectory is wrong.

Anyway must be off for a bit. Thanks for the chat.

For the record I don't oppose GM foods I oppose barriers to labelling.

We have a say outside the EU. The only reason there will be any barriers is if we agree them, and we can end them whenever we want. In the EU those barriers could be forced upon us without our say and we couldn't reverse them.

JBriskinindyref2 said:

nichomar said:

JBriskinindyref2 said:

nichomar said:

JBriskinindyref2 said:

rottenborough said:

Edmund Burke needs to be taught in schools and colleges urgently.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1161246052638441477

I was taught that they're to do both in Modern Studies, no need for Burke; although it was a comprehensive.

It’s quite simple

1 in the best interests of the nation
2 in the best INTERESTS of their constituents
3 and the only if the above are fulfilled to represent the views of their constituents

Where did you learn that ?

Google Erskin May obligations of MPs but if you actually mean where, then only because I was interested I very much doubt it was at school.

apparently it's illegal to teach politics to secondary school pupils - that's why Scotland calls their course "Modern Studies".

What about the party manifesto they were elected on? Is this not worth anything according to Erskin May?

It’s perfectly logical to elect members of parliament to take on the responsibility of acting in the best interests of their constituents rather than represent their views. We expect them to spend more than a nano second considering the implications of what the are voting unlike the voting public.

kjh said:

You're just messing with us now aren't you?

A bit but not totally.

The point is that the 2 statements "My vote doesn't count" and "All votes count the same" can be reconciled.

Byronic said:

RobD said:

Nigelb said:

Hmmm.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-death-shrieking-heard-jail-cell-morning-he-died-metropolitan-correctional-center/
On the morning of Jeffrey Epstein's death there was shouting and shrieking from his jail cell, a source familiar with the situation told CBS News. Corrections officers attempted to revive him while saying "breathe, Epstein, breathe."

Congress is the latest to start investigating Epstein's apparent suicide over the weekend, with new reports raising questions about the federal jail where he was being held. One of Epstein's guards at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the night he died was reportedly not a regular corrections officer....

I’m not usually one for conspiracy theories, but this one....

It's not even a conspiracy. He was clearly murdered.

Perhaps, but there are different kinds of murder in US jails:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/thirty-two-stories-jeffrey-epstein-prison-death/596029/

JBriskinindyref2 said:

kjh said:

JBriskinindyref2 said:

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

nichomar said:

Most votes don’t mean diddley squat

In an atomic and deeply unhelpful sense every person's vote is always utterly meaningless. Unless the margin in your seat is 1 (vanishingly unlikely) the practical outcome of the election is not affected one iota by your participation in the democratic process.

You're just messing with us now aren't you?

No. I was taught this in my OU course on politics - it's irrational to vote because of this reason.

I was joking

Sorry, (did you study the same course?)(joke)

No but I have to say when it came to the LD leadership election I didn't know who to vote for. I decided on the flimsiest of reasons and then fretted about it, before I told myself to get a grip and that it was exceedingly unlikely that my vote was going to make any difference whatsoever.

JBriskinindyref2 said:

nichomar said:

JBriskinindyref2 said:

nichomar said:

JBriskinindyref2 said:

nichomar said:

JBriskinindyref2 said:

rottenborough said:

Edmund Burke needs to be taught in schools and colleges urgently.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1161246052638441477

I was taught that they're to do both in Modern Studies, no need for Burke; although it was a comprehensive.

It’s quite simple

1 in the best interests of the nation
2 in the best INTERESTS of their constituents
3 and the only if the above are fulfilled to represent the views of their constituents

Where did you learn that ?

Google Erskin May obligations of MPs but if you actually mean where, then only because I was interested I very much doubt it was at school.

apparently it's illegal to teach politics to secondary school pupils - that's why Scotland calls their course "Modern Studies".

What about the party manifesto they were elected on? Is this not worth anything according to Erskin May?

It’s perfectly logical to elect members of parliament to take on the responsibility of acting in the best interests of their constituents rather than represent their views. We expect them to spend more than a nano second considering the implications of what the are voting unlike the voting public.

That wasn't my question - what role do the party manifestos play in Erskine May's written rules

An MP once elected represents all of his/her constituents therefore the manifesto is irrelevant unless you get to point three

Philip_Thompson said:

There's no such thing as a safe seat in this country, just ask Michael Portillo, not like PR where sitting on top of your parties list means you are virtually guaranteed a seat whether your party does well or badly.

Specialist subject: total bollocks.

Party lists: also bollocks.

Philip_Thompson said:

nichomar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

nichomar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mango said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I view Westminster as a better form of democracy by ensuring the most popular MP in each constituency is the only one elected. If you want to win the election, become more popular - this can lead to huge wipeouts as we saw in Scotland in 2015.

Wrong, as usual.

Sneaking a 30% plurality does not mean "most popular". Unless you are arguing for AV...

And as for safe seats, well, anyone who supports such a system is neither a libertarian nor a democrat.

Unless you have another definition for most, most votes is most popular.

I don't support a system of safe seats. No seat is safe any seat can change hands.

That’s deluded stupidity

Can tell you have no argument so just saying that.

If we had multi member constituencies elected by STV then every vote counts under FPTP most votes against the obvious donkey wearing the right color rosette mean didley squat.

Every vote counts in FPTP. The right colour only matters if it's the choice of most individuals within that constituency and they can change their mind. No seat is safe from that.

I’m sorry but that is totally delusional FPTP is an abomination of a voting system which facilitates the election of anyone representing the right party and ignoring those who opposed them.

kjh said:

JBriskinindyref2 said:

kjh said:

JBriskinindyref2 said:

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

nichomar said:

Most votes don’t mean diddley squat

In an atomic and deeply unhelpful sense every person's vote is always utterly meaningless. Unless the margin in your seat is 1 (vanishingly unlikely) the practical outcome of the election is not affected one iota by your participation in the democratic process.

You're just messing with us now aren't you?

No. I was taught this in my OU course on politics - it's irrational to vote because of this reason.

I was joking

Sorry, (did you study the same course?)(joke)

No but I have to say when it came to the LD leadership election I didn't know who to vote for. I decided on the flimsiest of reasons and then fretted about it, before I told myself to get a grip and that it was exceedingly unlikely that my vote was going to make any difference whatsoever.

Oddly enough I actually meant most votes mean diddley squat in the lib dem leadership I voted for Davey only because we could move on to Swinson at a later date.

Byronic said:

RobD said:

Nigelb said:

Hmmm.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-death-shrieking-heard-jail-cell-morning-he-died-metropolitan-correctional-center/
On the morning of Jeffrey Epstein's death there was shouting and shrieking from his jail cell, a source familiar with the situation told CBS News. Corrections officers attempted to revive him while saying "breathe, Epstein, breathe."

Congress is the latest to start investigating Epstein's apparent suicide over the weekend, with new reports raising questions about the federal jail where he was being held. One of Epstein's guards at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the night he died was reportedly not a regular corrections officer....

I’m not usually one for conspiracy theories, but this one....

It's not even a conspiracy. He was clearly murdered.

It is a conspiracy. And in line with many other conspiracy theories, it is probably true.

Philip_Thompson said:

Rexel56 said:

If I’ve understood the discussion today, which has been interesting:

- vote in an election but not for the FPTP winner = democracy OK
- my MP votes in Parliament against a Bill that is nonetheless passed = democracy OK
- my Government votes against an EU measure that passes on QMV = democracy NOT OK

So participating but losing is OK in the first two cases, it’s democracy in action, but not the third even though the “rules” were agreed to by my democratically elected Government.

No you have it wrong. Yes the third is democracy but it is not democracy of our voters. The question isn't whether it is democratic or not, it is whether we want our voters to decide or not.

Ah, I see. For democracy on a national level, it’s OK because all voters are citizens of the nation but for democracy on a EU level it’s NOT OK because all voters are citizens of member nations of the EU.

Regarding the Comres poll, no doubt the methodology was flawed, but as soon as I read that there was an outcry, I knew it was a pro-Brexit poll.

Someone also posted another poll on prorogation lower down the last thread, with a Tweet claiming it was an unbiased question, but it wasn't. For one thing, Conservative politicians were clearly mentioned, and that was a red (blue?) rag to a bull.

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

We have that already. Just our coalitions are hidden under the veil of the Labour and the Conservative Party. Our system is dishonest.

Your arguments lends itself to the election of a government which I agree with however we also elect a legislature and it is proper for that legislature to properly reflect the views of the country. FPTP does not do that.

Our coalitions within the Labour and Conservative Parties are known about prior to the election, not after it. Big difference.

Lol @ “known prior”. Labour voters have no idea what their vote might lead to. Neither did voters for Mrs May. Bozo’s position appears clearer, but time will tell. Nevertheless we got Bozo because of the people who voted for Mrs May, not for Bozo.

Everyone who voted for May knew Boris was in her party. It's not like they voted May and got Farage which can happen in Europe.

Pitiful.

It is not really. This has always been the sceptics' strongest argument. The appointment of Ursula von Leyen as European Commission President was astonishingly undemocratic.

*. good/not good according to taste..

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

Edmund Burke needs to be taught in schools and colleges urgently.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1161246052638441477

Polling as a weapon *good* to see Yougov getting in on the act now..

My concern on that poll is the 7% of MPs who didn't know the answer unless f*** off was taken as Don't know...

Cyclefree said:

basicbridge said:

TOPPING said:

basicbridge said:

TOPPING said:

basicbridge said:

Gallowgate said:

Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.

MiFID II

MiFID II is not making us uncompetitive. Dear god please don't let it be that we have a MiFID II discussion here.

Completely agree. But MiFID has undoubtedly made London slightly less competitive versus US and Asian centres. And that was the question that was asked....

I think the US is moving towards EU-type regulations before too long. And as it sounds you are aware, there's no financial services regulation that the UK isn't prepared to a) abide by in the first place; and b) gold plate up its wazoo.

The FCA has been complicit in this, I agree. But a lot of regulation emanates from the EU.

And that is the question I was answering....

The specific question I asked you was whether you wanted to get rid of the MiFiD provisions requiring firms to provide transaction and order information to regulators so that they can monitor for market abuse/insider trading.

And your answer is....?

That’s an unusually stupid question from you Cyclefree

I don’t want to abolish to prohibition on murder in the UK. That doesn’t mean I believe every jot and tittle of U.K. law is perfect

Sat in Dublin airport for my flight home. Interesting trip around Irish grocery retailers - plenty of opportunities I can see for new custom. Then a meeting with a large supermarket buyer where we already supply a couple of products. She is excited about the market and the potential for growth.

But - and its a big but - with Brexit looming large in the window her business is prioritising domestic producers due to the absolute uncertainty of how things will work logistically post "hardest of hard Brexits" and what it will cost in extra costs and tariffs.

Which means that for any UK producers wanting to expand into our closest export market, the door is closed. By us. Whilst simultaneously saying "there is no door" and "don't worry Varadkar is an idiot who will cave in.

When are we getting our no deal leaflets?

eek said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sat in Dublin airport for my flight home. Interesting trip around Irish grocery retailers - plenty of opportunities I can see for new custom. Then a meeting with a large supermarket buyer where we already supply a couple of products. She is excited about the market and the potential for growth.

But - and its a big but - with Brexit looming large in the window her business is prioritising domestic producers due to the absolute uncertainty of how things will work logistically post "hardest of hard Brexits" and what it will cost in extra costs and tariffs.

Which means that for any UK producers wanting to expand into our closest export market, the door is closed. By us. Whilst simultaneously saying "there is no door" and "don't worry Varadkar is an idiot who will cave in.

A senior city IT director of my acquaintance was telling me that the consultancy firms are offering free graduates as they don't have anywhere to place them.

Oh and the Indian consultancies are sending people back home (as in terminate the house rental and sell your car) as no-one is starting IT projects unless absolutely essential

Another proof point that business has been give the nod that Boris is serious. Whereas with May, Hammond and Clarke were given them the nod she would always extend.