politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Failed CON leadership contender, Rory Stewart, to fight for th

JBriskinindyref2 said:

SandyRentool said:

JBriskinindyref2 said:

CV Question (I can't rely on Coffey forever) -

I was advised about ten years ago that after my contact details I should start with a Personal Statement. I always thought this was a bit namby pampy but that's what I was advised. Is this still de riguer/the way to go???

That's how I start:

'Sanderson Rentool is a card-carrying eco-socialist who would like to see humankind become extinct. He holds one of those wanky PPE degrees and spends a lot of time on PB.'

Gets me an interview every time.

I guess I could go JBriskinindyref2 is a PB tory with no wanky PPE degree.

Any serious answers ?

Sorry, I was being serious in saying that I start with a personal statement highlighting my key experience and expertise. While I have not applied for a job for several years, myself and others have found that approach effective in getting interviews.

My company also uses this format on our corporate CVs that go in proposals to clients.

Hope that is useful.

SandyRentool said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SandyRentool said:

So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.

But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.

Then we have a GE.

I suspect the electorate will brutally punish anyone who chooses to inflict 2 more years of this uncertainty on the country.

We wouldn't actually faff about for another 2 years. Tories win the GE, out we go with No Deal. Labour form a Government and it is second referendum time, where Remain wins, Revoke again and forget about it.

Who forgets about it? Certainly not the millions who decide democracy has failed.

Anorak said:

DougSeal said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It would be responsible if the country were now to be mentally (physically I trust we are as well prepared as possible) prepared for No deal. The UK Government has made significant concessions, and opponents of its proposals have failed to highlight any aspects that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to their operability. They just fancy their chances (thanks to our parliament - good one guys) of pushing us into another deeply damaging extension.

I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.

I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.

What makes you say that? Have you been there lately? I’m hearing they’re well ahead of where we are.

Luckyguy lives under a rock reading the Daily Express and conspiracy sites.

The rock protects him from satellites and contrails; MI5 have had a microphone in the rock for 8 years.

Only if the rock is in the UK would it be MI5. As it appears to be in St. Petersburg, it would be MI6.

rpjs said:

SandyRentool said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SandyRentool said:

So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.

But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.

Then we have a GE.

I suspect the electorate will brutally punish anyone who chooses to inflict 2 more years of this uncertainty on the country.

We wouldn't actually faff about for another 2 years. Tories win the GE, out we go with No Deal. Labour form a Government and it is second referendum time, where Remain wins, Revoke again and forget about it.

If we go out with no deal, we would have to rejoin (which means € + Schengen). Revoke is no longer an option.

I meant one or the other, rather than a sequence of events.

As an aside, if we do Remain I would rather have full-fat EU with the benefits of the Euro and Schengen than our current semi-detachedness.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

YouGov have disclosed that they have conducted a poll after the Conservative conference that shows Johnson's net rating at its least worst yet (-12, compared to -24 Swinson and -50 Corbyn).

The link in the article to the data tables for the poll is at the moment inactive - clearly they would also disclose GE voting intention polling that is due to be published over the weekend. The changes in favourability ratings in the latest poll support the expectation of a small post Conference Conservative polling bounce.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/10/04/conference-season-makes-little-difference-views-ma

Update

Topline VI data for YouGov polling on Brexit expectations (fieldwork 1-2 Oct) is disclosed in a separate YouGov article which may also be the source of the above:
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hberx91nj1/YouGov - Brexit deadline tracker 191002.pdf

Con 402
Lab 254
LD 247
BXP 159

It may not necessarily be the fieldwork for their weekend poll, but depending on the VI for the other parties remaining at 10% the VI from that would be roughly:

Con 34
Lab 22
LD 21
BXP 13

nichomar said:

dyedwoolie said:

Of course a factor often overlooked when thinking no deal is going to be hell on earth is that for many they feel that they are overlooked, out of luck and hard up against it regardless of the status of Brexit and nobody gives a damn about them. The tribulations of the well off will be of little regard to them should Brexit cause chaos. They feel the chaos anyway. Many of them are passionate leavers.

The well off will feel little pain from no deal the really well off will probably make money any impact will fall on those who were lied to to get their vote. There will be no positive benefit to their lives and I doubt they will enjoy their new sovereignty

Possibly. But when things are shit, a new layer of shit isn't really the issue.

nichomar said:

dyedwoolie said:

Of course a factor often overlooked when thinking no deal is going to be hell on earth is that for many they feel that they are overlooked, out of luck and hard up against it regardless of the status of Brexit and nobody gives a damn about them. The tribulations of the well off will be of little regard to them should Brexit cause chaos. They feel the chaos anyway. Many of them are passionate leavers.

The well off will feel little pain from no deal the really well off will probably make money any impact will fall on those who were lied to to get their vote. There will be no positive benefit to their lives and I doubt they will enjoy their new sovereignty

They will, their house prices will go down, working class Leavers will benefit from tighter controls on immigration and the extra spending Boris is pushing

Charles said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

They've got something up their sleeve but I can't think what the hell it is!

History suggests they really don't.

They are telling Brexiteers they do (and they believe them)

They are telling the courts they don't (and refuse to actually sign any contrary documents)

Free advice to ScottP, Leo Varadkar, and every remainer in between these high and lowly examples, all of whom are currently displaying the Twitter equivalent of bladder weakness. Paraphrasing our own Richard Nabavi - the deal is brilliant. Take the deal.

As we now know, the deal even includes utterly unnecessary Phillip Hammond financial giveaways - so good they're treasonable.

When no deal happens, you won't be able to say there was no warning, or that there was no alternative. You'll just look like a bunch of greedy schmucks.

As of this moment, no deal other than the WA exists. I know Boris has written proposals about the deal he would like to have, but neither Parliament nor the European Council nor the European Parliament have agreed to it. It's October 4th. We have twenty-seven days to deadline. We have little time to expend on dreams...

The WA isn't "a deal" according to the definitions of some on here.

It was "a proposal" by the former PM which has been comprehensively rejected by Parliament.

It was and still is an agreement between the UK and the EU.
It's the nearest thing to a deal that we have.

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1180161105999601664?s=20

Julian Smith mentioned earlier in the day about the Stormont situation and removing the petition of concern . That would make it fair and a simple vote that can’t be vetoed by a minority .

The issue is what the DUP might do if that’s the case .

dyedwoolie said:

SandyRentool said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SandyRentool said:

So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.

But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.

Then we have a GE.

I suspect the electorate will brutally punish anyone who chooses to inflict 2 more years of this uncertainty on the country.

We wouldn't actually faff about for another 2 years. Tories win the GE, out we go with No Deal. Labour form a Government and it is second referendum time, where Remain wins, Revoke again and forget about it.

Second referendum on what? The EU wont negotiate with someone dicking about with article 50, theyll say you'll get your offer of a deal in 2 years we will enjoy your contributions until then.

It would be a more egregious abuse of power than prorogation 1

The UK would repeal the ECA and not pay any more contributions in that situation I suspect.

But it doesn't matter as there is no way the EU would not extend. It was already agreed with Grieve and Letwin.

Channel 4 News: Plaid Cymru demands reparations from the UK government for a "century of negelect".

nichomar said:

dyedwoolie said:

nichomar said:

dyedwoolie said:

Of course a factor often overlooked when thinking no deal is going to be hell on earth is that for many they feel that they are overlooked, out of luck and hard up against it regardless of the status of Brexit and nobody gives a damn about them. The tribulations of the well off will be of little regard to them should Brexit cause chaos. They feel the chaos anyway. Many of them are passionate leavers.

The well off will feel little pain from no deal the really well off will probably make money any impact will fall on those who were lied to to get their vote. There will be no positive benefit to their lives and I doubt they will enjoy their new sovereignty

Possibly. But when things are shit, a new layer of shit isn't really the issue.

I accept that it really doesn’t matter how deep it is you are still in it. What I don’t understand is how those people think a Tory government will ever drain their shit because they won’t. Labour will make promises but will never be elected to be in a position to deliver because purity is more important than winning. I don’t know the answer as the so called main parties move to the extremes.

They expect the Tories to dump on them (but perhaps sort law and order and represent some sort of ideal lost Britain of yore), labour have spent a century and a half falsely claiming to represent them and that perceived betrayal is more grievous. The workers party has become a party of fruitcakes, anti semites and luvvie socialists
That's why labour are finished. Once it becomes a thing that red rosettes on a donkey dont have to be voted for they disappear, as in Scotland.

SandyRentool said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SandyRentool said:

So I reckon Bozo is banking on the EU saying 'Non' (or perhaps 'Nem') to an extension. So he'll then think we are out with No Deal.

But not so fast big man. Faced with that situation, parliament can VONC, get a new PM who then Revokes A50 and then the next day Reinvokes to reset the clock.

Then we have a GE.

I suspect the electorate will brutally punish anyone who chooses to inflict 2 more years of this uncertainty on the country.

We wouldn't actually faff about for another 2 years. Tories win the GE, out we go with No Deal. Labour form a Government and it is second referendum time, where Remain wins, Revoke again and forget about it.

I think that No Extension will lead back to the WA. It will be a point of the gun decision with no referendum or GE to fall back on. MPs don't have the balls to revoke and No Deal is a non-starter.

Andy_JS said:

Channel 4 News: Plaid Cymru demands reparations from the UK government for a "century of negelect".

Ffs

.

Pulpstar said:

Anorak said:

Amazing inversion of the accompanying commentary. Very, very clever.
https://twitter.com/TomKibasi/status/1180141621679185922

Brilliant.

Makes a nice change from all the negative ads these days.

The_Taxman said:

HYUFD said:

nichomar said:

dyedwoolie said:

Of course a factor often overlooked when thinking no deal is going to be hell on earth is that for many they feel that they are overlooked, out of luck and hard up against it regardless of the status of Brexit and nobody gives a damn about them. The tribulations of the well off will be of little regard to them should Brexit cause chaos. They feel the chaos anyway. Many of them are passionate leavers.

The well off will feel little pain from no deal the really well off will probably make money any impact will fall on those who were lied to to get their vote. There will be no positive benefit to their lives and I doubt they will enjoy their new sovereignty

They will, their house prices will go down, working class Leavers will benefit from tighter controls on immigration and the extra spending Boris is pushing

All that is going to happen on Immigration is instead of being EU migrants, people from the rest of the world will be queuing to come here. £10 an hour minimum wage is a big pull if you are on £1 a day in Pakistan, India or Africa or anywhere else for that matter. The point is I can see your Leave working class voters welcoming the new immigrants with open arms. What could go wrong?

Well, at least the Working Class will be rapidly getting much less White!

viewcode said:

Casino_Royale said:

I just saw Hillary Clinton at 17.5.

I couldn’t stand it anymore so I laid the lot on offer.

Every 17.5 in gets you 1+17.5 back, so that's (18.5/17.5) - 1, which is 5.7% return in 1 year. Not bad (assuming she doesn't win )

How much did you get on, if you don't mind me asking?

Not big money. There was only £13 on offer. And it also allows me to leverage up my Yang lays a bit as well.

I just thought it was insane.

Edit: assuming I don’t trade it will pay out in 9 months max (not a year) as Democratic convention is in July.

.

TGOHF2 said:

Lefty liars caught out again https://twitter.com/frasernelson/status/1180178238779330560?s=21

Fake news? Surely not

Casino_Royale said:

viewcode said:

Casino_Royale said:

I just saw Hillary Clinton at 17.5.

I couldn’t stand it anymore so I laid the lot on offer.

Every 17.5 in gets you 1+17.5 back, so that's (18.5/17.5) - 1, which is 5.7% return in 1 year. Not bad (assuming she doesn't win )

How much did you get on, if you don't mind me asking?

Not big money. There was only £13 on offer. And it also allows me to leverage up my Yang lays a bit as well.

I just thought it was insane.

Edit: assuming I don’t trade it will pay out in 9 months max (not a year) as Democratic convention is in July.

I'm in the hole for about £1700 on Clinton.

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:

.

Pulpstar said:

Anorak said:

Amazing inversion of the accompanying commentary. Very, very clever.
https://twitter.com/TomKibasi/status/1180141621679185922

Brilliant.

Makes a nice change from all the negative ads these days.

I don’t get this.

It did nothing for me.

You're very right wing though

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1180183215417499649?s=20

As if they thought they'd stump him by asking him to name a pub in London - considering he WORKS in London??

Charles said:

nico67 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It would be responsible if the country were now to be mentally (physically I trust we are as well prepared as possible) prepared for No deal. The UK Government has made significant concessions, and opponents of its proposals have failed to highlight any aspects that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to their operability. They just fancy their chances (thanks to our parliament - good one guys) of pushing us into another deeply damaging extension.

I really don't see the Benn act as an issue. Any bill attempting to force an individual do something is clearly fraught with pitfalls. We all know that unless people act within the spirit of a law, rather than just the letter, it becomes almost impossible to enforce. Worst case scenario, Boris should be prepared to break the law.

I honestly think people would be relieved. I think Britain is well prepared. Europe (if such an expression is useful in this instance) isn't as well prepared, but of course some countries will barely feel it. Ireland strikes me as woefully underprepared.

So giving the DUP a veto isn’t seen as an insurmountable problem ? You want the referendum honoured but want to give the DUP a veto over the majority in NI !

Can you explain this contradiction ?

There is a basic principle in the GFA that the consent of both communities is required.

"given the DUP a veto" is the same as "giving SF a veto"

There is only one veto available, which happens to be the veto the DUP wants and only the DUP wants

egg said:

dyedwoolie said:

Andy_JS said:

Channel 4 News: Plaid Cymru demands reparations from the UK government for a "century of negelect".

Ffs

Absolutely

We should have kept the castles in operational order.

And this is only for the utter smashing we give them on the rugby pitch most years.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1180071127114289152

https://twitter.com/JenSmithGLT/status/1180038921918521344?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1180038921918521344&ref_url=https://www.tes.com/news/lady-hale-lets-hear-it-girly-swots

Think you mean Tony Blairs Supreme Court!

That 1000/1 on the Mittster isn’t looking quite so shabby...
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/04/mitt-romney-trump-biden-028114

numbertwelve said:

I’m still unconvinced that EURef II would be an automatic remain win.

There would be a huge boycott of R2 I suspect.

As long as remain beat the leave total last time the anger should be manageable.

TGOHF2 said:

https://twitter.com/dkshrewsbury/status/1180195222212562946?s=21

Snigger

TGOHF2 said:

https://twitter.com/dkshrewsbury/status/1180195222212562946?s=21

What does he need to reflect over ? If barristers think he has a case why not just go for it ! More bluff and bluster .

Wulfrun_Phil said:

OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1180071127114289152

https://twitter.com/JenSmithGLT/status/1180038921918521344?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1180038921918521344&ref_url=https://www.tes.com/news/lady-hale-lets-hear-it-girly-swots

You’ve actually listened to the speech, or read a transcript, then ... ?

nico67 said:

TGOHF2 said:

https://twitter.com/dkshrewsbury/status/1180195222212562946?s=21

What does he need to reflect over ? If barristers think he has a case why not just go for it ! More bluff and bluster .

I have nothing but contempt for Daniel Kawczynski. Not a pleasant individual by all accounts...

Wulfrun_Phil said:

OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1180071127114289152

https://twitter.com/JenSmithGLT/status/1180038921918521344?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1180038921918521344&ref_url=https://www.tes.com/news/lady-hale-lets-hear-it-girly-swots

She's the first woman to head the Judicial Branch in our history. She's just heard an epochal constitutional case where the male head of the Executive Branch used sexist language. A mild public dig given both the President of the Supreme Court and the Prime Minister are role models to young girls seems reasonable and proportionate to me.

YBarddCwsc said:

Andy_JS said:

Channel 4 News: Plaid Cymru demands reparations from the UK government for a "century of negelect".

England exported Mark Reckless and Nick Griffin to Wales.

We deserve compensation for that.

Sounds like repatriation to me. Griffin!? Reckless!? Clearly Welsh

Just supposing you're right, how dark is your darkest valley, and what's the rental? If that doesn't suit then I believe you have some mines that may fit the bill. Failing all that of course, then a few nails through the ears and a handy plank, and the Irish Sea is the place.

TOPPING said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1180071127114289152

https://twitter.com/JenSmithGLT/status/1180038921918521344?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1180038921918521344&ref_url=https://www.tes.com/news/lady-hale-lets-hear-it-girly-swots

Nah calm down it's against abuse of power. Of whatever flavour.

Motes and beams...

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1180071127114289152

https://twitter.com/JenSmithGLT/status/1180038921918521344?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1180038921918521344&ref_url=https://www.tes.com/news/lady-hale-lets-hear-it-girly-swots

Nah calm down it's against abuse of power. Of whatever flavour.

Motes and beams...

Yes good point. The supreme court does have power. Thank the lord because they can rein in politicians trying to take the piss.

Yellow_Submarine said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1180071127114289152

https://twitter.com/JenSmithGLT/status/1180038921918521344?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1180038921918521344&ref_url=https://www.tes.com/news/lady-hale-lets-hear-it-girly-swots

She's the first woman to head the Judicial Branch in our history. She's just heard an epochal constitutional case where the male head of the Executive Branch used sexist language. A mild public dig given both the President of the Supreme Court and the Prime Minister are role models to young girls seems reasonable and proportionate to me.

If this is the sort of thing she's done before then that's fine. If, however, this is some new upgrade in her public presence then she is clearly being political.

(I don't know what the facts say, but I'm totally sure that the above is the right gauge. [at least until someone points out a flaw])

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1180184576817319938?s=20

1 down, 18 to go for impeachment.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

You and Guido are terribly sensitive souls, aren't you?

It's a pretty mild quip to say "let's hear it for girly swots" at a conference of the Association of State Girls Schools.

I also think people need to actually understand a little better at what words like "independent" and "unbiased" mean. You are not required, in order to be independent and unbiased, to be cloistered away and never to have expressed a view (or told a mild joke) about anything. Judicial independence is about being free from improper influence from other branches of government and from private interests. And bias involves being open minded, not empty minded.

Hale, and other Supreme Court judges, have no skin in the game, however much certain commentators seek to insinuate they do. They are more than capable of deciding legal cases based on legal principles, as they did here.

In this particular case - which was handled appallingly by the Government's lawyers - it was never very credible that prorogation wasn't justicable in that the precedents weren't good for them and the logical conclusion of that argument was that a PM could prorogue indefinitely for any reason or no reason. They were always going to need either to say that they did actually need that long to prepare the Queen's Speech (Johnson's public position) or that it was legitimate to prorogue to give time to negotiate with the EU (which would have made a liar of Johnson). They chose not to argue either - no witness statement was provided. The whole thing was high farce and it was never going to fly.

Incidentally, would any of those screaming blue murder over the Supreme Court consider it non-justicable if a future PM Corbyn prorogued Parliament for two years to dodge a no confidence vote, or prevent Parliament interfering by legislating to the contrary with executive action he was taking to get rid of all private schools? Just asking because the logic of the argument the Government was putting to the Supreme Court is precisely that that would be perfectly legal.

TGOHF2 said:

https://twitter.com/dkshrewsbury/status/1180195222212562946?s=21

Personal meeting with barristers, eh? That’s good. So many of their meetings are impersonal

I see it is "Enemies of the People" night on PB.

Predictable I suppose....

Hale was unwise (to be generous) and it is understandable leavers have questions.

She is standing down is she not? Fortuitous timing if so.

DougSeal said:

TGOHF2 said:

https://twitter.com/dkshrewsbury/status/1180195222212562946?s=21

Personal meeting with barristers, eh? That’s good. So many of their meetings are impersonal

Were they Costa or Starbucks baristas, Daniel?

viewcode said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

OK, we're told that the rulings of the Supreme Court are determined by politically impartial judges who seek to remain independent from intervening in the political fray, and as such those making the rulings are sacrosanct from accusations of political bias.

And then their leader indulges in this sort of thing. She'll be following the politically neutral lead of another soon by driving around in a car with "B***ocks to Brexit" on it.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1180071127114289152

https://twitter.com/JenSmithGLT/status/1180038921918521344?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1180038921918521344&ref_url=https://www.tes.com/news/lady-hale-lets-hear-it-girly-swots

It was a unanimous decision of 11 members of the Supreme Court. Are people suggesting all 11 are biased? She, essentially, just read out the majority opinion. Perhaps they should reflect on the outright sexism of the comment she was mocking (a dig made at a conference of girls schools) rather than extrapolating a minor dig into a questioning of what was a closely argued, logical and well reasons judgment of her and 10 of her peers.

I could add that it hasn’t made any difference to Brexit anyway. Nothing in that regard has changed as a result of Parliament returning.

nichomar said:

HYUFD said:

nichomar said:

dyedwoolie said:

Of course a factor often overlooked when thinking no deal is going to be hell on earth is that for many they feel that they are overlooked, out of luck and hard up against it regardless of the status of Brexit and nobody gives a damn about them. The tribulations of the well off will be of little regard to them should Brexit cause chaos. They feel the chaos anyway. Many of them are passionate leavers.

The well off will feel little pain from no deal the really well off will probably make money any impact will fall on those who were lied to to get their vote. There will be no positive benefit to their lives and I doubt they will enjoy their new sovereignty

They will, their house prices will go down, working class Leavers will benefit from tighter controls on immigration and the extra spending Boris is pushing

Johnson’s spending will do nothing but address the cuts that have all ready taken place if that, I’m not sure who is going to wipe our old people’s backsides or pull vegetables from the fields and if house prices collapse the Tories are toast.

If house prices fall more people get to buy houses meaning more Tory voters

Beibheirli_C said:

I see it is "Enemies of the People" night on PB.

Predictable I suppose....

Seriously, why do you post on here?

You make some of the least intelligent and most petulant comments on this site.

I was embarrassed by your posts when you were a tubthumbing BOO’er on here five years ago, and I’m embarrassed by your posts attempting to be insightfully witty (but painfully showing your limitations) now.

Rather than channelling your strongest inner emotions (unfiltered) stick to what you’re good at: insight in areas you know about, and reasoned perspective.

Seriously. It’ll be better for all of us.

egg said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

Anorak said:

Amazing inversion of the accompanying commentary. Very, very clever.
https://twitter.com/TomKibasi/status/1180141621679185922

America could do with a dose of socialism. So could we.

America is where you go to get away from socialism not to have more of it

Comparing UK with US runs into differences, again we are into the land of labels, in different cultures, and different political systems in terms of central control and local democracy. In America they use the term liberal for left. In other countries Liberals represent right wing ideas.

So ideas. Like minimum wage? USA or parts of it had one before we did? Green ideas left wing? There’s some great recycling going on in USA, arguably better than Britain.

So maybe the centre of gravity of the whole politics of a Nation. And on this point there’s things I don’t understand about US politics, please enlighten me. Today there seems to be a centre of gravity between the parties. But before the sixties it was two right of centre parties with the centre of political gravity running amid each one? The south used to elect many Democrats, many of which were overtly racist? Something changed in fifty years? What? And Why?

Up to the 1960s there was a distinct group of Democratic politicians in the former states of the Confederacy who were deeply racist ("Dixiecrats"). As the South was at the time deeply racist and there were long folk memories of Lincoln (the Republican President who freed the slaves and beat the Confederates in the 19th century Civil War), they were electorally very popular. But by the 1960's some things came into play: Vietnam, greater media coverage, and the people of the South started to agitate for civil rights previously denied them. The President at the time was the Democrat Lyndon Johnson who gave greater impetus to this movement in law and legislation was passed. His successor was Richard Nixon, a Republican of remarkable political skill and unremarked racism, who appealed more to the South than the Democrats now did, and the racists in the South transferred their allegiance to him. Before the 1960s the Democrats were seen as the racist party, but after the 1960s the Republicans were so seen.

(Yes, I know there are perfectly decent and nonracist Republicans and perfectly indecent and racist Democrats, but that's not the point: I'm answering the question that was asked)

SunnyJim said:

Hale was unwise (to be generous) and it is understandable leavers have questions.

She is standing down is she not? Fortuitous timing if so.

She reaches the complusory retirement age ( 75 in her case as she was appointed before the general rule of 70 was introduced ) in January. Her sucessor Lord Reed was announced in the Summer.