politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Foxes and Hedgehogs – a tale of tactics without strategy

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

The Nation voted Leave so that is One Nation

Do you have anything to say to the "other nation" - the 48%?

I was one so can hardly speak to myself other thsn to say respect the result, you lost

OGH Kenobi: "A young Remainer by the name of HYUFD, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Tories hunt down and destroy the Europhiles. Now the Remain Tories are all but extinct. HYUFD was seduced by the Daft Side of the Force."

You were a Leaver seduced to the dark side by diehard Remainers

NickPalmer said:

A host of state polls for the Democrats:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Summary: Biden is still the one to beat, Warren and Sanders the only serious rivals. Buttigieg? 1,3,5,5,5,4%, 6-9% nationally. He';s in good shape to be everyone favourite VP contender - unthreatening, intelligent, balances fears attendant on an elderly President. Anyone else? No.

Ave_it said:

nichomar said:

MarqueeMark said:

nichomar said:

HYUFD said:

nichomar said:

MarqueeMark said:

nichomar said:

MarqueeMark said:

nichomar said:

Ave_it said:

NickPalmer said:

That's a good article. I'm not sure there is time for an informed debate, or popular interest in one. People mostly feel the subject is intrinsically boring and they're either for or against, do not bother us with details. A friend campaigning in a Remain area tells me that interest in a second referendum has largely died away.

Nonetheless, I think that inteliigent tactical voting to prevent an overall Conservative majority is the only way to avoid the decision being taken purely on Boris's whim and the ERG's will.

I say Tactically Vote Conservative for a One Nation Britain and to stop the Corbynistas!

There are no one nation tories left, those that there are reflect the membership which is bluekip at best

You know nothing about the Conservtive Party.

Enough to know i wouldn’t knowingly have anything to do with any of them

As I say, you know nothing.

I know a lot about the Conservative party and it’s members, enough to know I would not mix with them socially. They think they have a natural right to run local government in vast swathes of the U.K. and hate anybody that gets in their way.

Whereas you clearly just hate Tories fullstop

Yes nothing wrong with that I also hate extreme labour politicians. But all extremes are wrong and both parties, lab and con, have driven us to the extremes and you have to live with it.

Hate. The life-force of the Left.

Jews. Tories. Anybody else we're missing?

The tories hate anybody that gets in their way of controlling local government in their area. They think it is their god given right to choose the councilors and the mayor.

The only good local and national government is CON.

With LAB its always pay more get less! And LD are LAB's little helpers (assuming they are standing of course)

CatMan said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Hmmm....

Pub landlord orders staff they can ONLY serve people this Remembrance Sunday if they're wearing a poppy

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7664893/Pub-landlord-bans-non-poppy-wearers-pub.html

OK, that makes sense. It's Remembrance Sunday after all.

I don't see the point of people, particularly celebs on TV, wearing poppies three weeks before the event!

I thought the point was celebrating the people who died for our freedom, including the right to *not* wear a poppy.

nichomar said:

Ave_it said:

nichomar said:

MarqueeMark said:

nichomar said:

HYUFD said:

nichomar said:

MarqueeMark said:

nichomar said:

MarqueeMark said:

nichomar said:

Ave_it said:

NickPalmer said:

That's a good article. I'm not sure there is time for an informed debate, or popular interest in one. People mostly feel the subject is intrinsically boring and they're either for or against, do not bother us with details. A friend campaigning in a Remain area tells me that interest in a second referendum has largely died away.

Nonetheless, I think that inteliigent tactical voting to prevent an overall Conservative majority is the only way to avoid the decision being taken purely on Boris's whim and the ERG's will.

I say Tactically Vote Conservative for a One Nation Britain and to stop the Corbynistas!

There are no one nation tories left, those that there are reflect the membership which is bluekip at best

You know nothing about the Conservtive Party.

Enough to know i wouldn’t knowingly have anything to do with any of them

As I say, you know nothing.

I know a lot about the Conservative party and it’s members, enough to know I would not mix with them socially. They think they have a natural right to run local government in vast swathes of the U.K. and hate anybody that gets in their way.

Whereas you clearly just hate Tories fullstop

Yes nothing wrong with that I also hate extreme labour politicians. But all extremes are wrong and both parties, lab and con, have driven us to the extremes and you have to live with it.

Hate. The life-force of the Left.

Jews. Tories. Anybody else we're missing?

The tories hate anybody that gets in their way of controlling local government in their area. They think it is their god given right to choose the councilors and the mayor.

The only good local and national government is CON.

With LAB its always pay more get less! And LD are LAB's little helpers (assuming they are standing of course)

Give up I can talk shit but that trumps my most shittiest shit

stodge said:

Evening all

An interesting piece - I'm not quite sure why the negative jibes against Jo Swinson. The LD policy is Revoke if a majority is won or support a second vote if not.

I do think the opposition need to be clever here - as the article suggests, the WA is only the start of the journey out of the EU yet it has been billed as being the end of the journey.

Boris can wield No Deal as a weapon and clearly some of his candidates are happy to countenance that but we still don't know whether the next Parliament would, if confronted with No Deal on 31/1/20, vote for it.

Are we then to assume the WA has just been obfuscation and leaving without a WA on 31/1/20 remains the option? I doubt that but I do think leaving without an agreed FTA on 31/12/20 remains very much on the table.

So what could or would the Opposition do IF they were able to outvote the Conservatives in the next Parliament? I think the WA should be passed so we go into transition and then ensure the trade and political arrangements with the EU are as close to BINO as possible before we finally leave. That may take some time but no one would be in any rush would they?

We are continually told the 2016 Referendum result must be "respected" - fine but leaving and maintaining a close political and economic relationship with the EU achieves that as much as crashing out with no agreement at all.

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Wait, what?

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1192903110446002177

TheScreamingEagles said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Wait, what?

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1192903110446002177

‪George Wallace pulled this trick when the term limits meant he couldn’t stand for another consecutive term as Governor of Alabama. ‬

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

nichomar said:

HYUFD said:

nichomar said:

HYUFD said:

If the Withdrawal Agreement is passed then there will not be No Deal as the Deal will have been delivered. The fact Boris may not agree to extend the transition period and keep the UK in the Single Market and Customs Union indefinitely is not No Deal it is continuing FTA talks with the EU as an Independent nation.

No Deal would have meant no Withdrawal Agreement agreed and passed and no FTA talks with the EU.

You keep peddling this but if there is no agreement on the future relationship then without extension it is back to WTO rules, now if WTO rules is not no deal then fair enough I think you are being deceitful by claiming their can’t be a no deal brexit but the reality is that there is no agreement and no extension it is no deal.

There is not, the Withdrawal Agreement is the Deal, a delay in completion of FTA talks and no extended transition period is not No Deal. That is only failing to agree and pass the Withdrawal Agreement leading to the EU refusing to start FTA talks too

Come on that’s complete crap, if the future relationship (note I don’t call it a FTA) isn’t extended if not agreed it is WTO rules

Temporally until a FTA is agreed but that is not No Deal as the Withdrawal Agreement has been passed so WTO terms are not permanent as they would have been with No Deal and no Withdrawal Agreement agreed and passed

You really have no understanding of what departure from the EU means, do you. As of 31 December 2020 - as things currently stand - Britain will overnight turn into a third country. If there is no FTA agreed by then. All previous agreements with the EU - all of them - fall away, overnight. God knows what will replace them.

The effect is exactly the same if we had left the EU on 31 October 2019 without a Withdrawal Agreement - overnight we’d have become a third country vis-a-vis the EU.

All we have got as a result of Boris’s marvellous deal is a cliff edge at the end of 2020 and an earlier cliff edge in June to decide whether or mot we want to extend the transition.

None of which means No Deal.

The Deal is the Withdrawal Agreement which enables FTA talks which will ultimately produce a FTA, even Canada got one with the EU after 7 years and we already have closer links with the EU than them.

No Deal means no Withdrawal Agreement and no FTA talks with the EU until a Deal is agreed and pased

Casino_Royale said:

theakes said:

Surely the easiest way to get Brexit DONE is to Revoke Article 50, then it is done. Any other action just drags things on for transistion periods and endless trade negotiations. Years

Revoke doesn't end it either.

The fact of a reneged vote will hang over British politics for decades polluting it and, with 45% of the electorate favouring it, they will win a GE sooner or later and go full on hard Leave.

HYUFD said:

And when has there ever been 100% agreement on what the best regulatory, legislative and economic conditions should be?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Hmmm....

Pub landlord orders staff they can ONLY serve people this Remembrance Sunday if they're wearing a poppy

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7664893/Pub-landlord-bans-non-poppy-wearers-pub.html

OK, that makes sense. It's Remembrance Sunday after all.

I don't see the point of people, particularly celebs on TV, wearing poppies three weeks before the event!

Cyclefree said:

stodge said:

Evening all

An interesting piece - I'm not quite sure why the negative jibes against Jo Swinson. The LD policy is Revoke if a majority is won or support a second vote if not.

I do think the opposition need to be clever here - as the article suggests, the WA is only the start of the journey out of the EU yet it has been billed as being the end of the journey.

Boris can wield No Deal as a weapon and clearly some of his candidates are happy to countenance that but we still don't know whether the next Parliament would, if confronted with No Deal on 31/1/20, vote for it.

Are we then to assume the WA has just been obfuscation and leaving without a WA on 31/1/20 remains the option? I doubt that but I do think leaving without an agreed FTA on 31/12/20 remains very much on the table.

So what could or would the Opposition do IF they were able to outvote the Conservatives in the next Parliament? I think the WA should be passed so we go into transition and then ensure the trade and political arrangements with the EU are as close to BINO as possible before we finally leave. That may take some time but no one would be in any rush would they?

We are continually told the 2016 Referendum result must be "respected" - fine but leaving and maintaining a close political and economic relationship with the EU achieves that as much as crashing out with no agreement at all.

The slight jibes at Ms Swinson are because I feel that the Lib Dems are missing an opportunity to shape the debate on what happens post-Brexit. Someone should be asking these questions and forcing the Tories to say whether they will reduce food, environmental, agricultural, employment standards in order to compete with the EU and/or get other trade deals.

Someone needs to ask about the transition period and spell out what it will mean to turn into a third country overnight.

If the Lib Dems don’t do it who will?

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Gabs2 said:

This is a good, thought-provoking article. Zeroing in on the question, if Britain should look West to the US or to Europe or China, the missing bloc is the CPTPP one (led by Australia, Canada and Japan). My preference would be the European bloc first, then CPTPP, then the US a distant third and China a very distant fourth. I suspect the British public would be the same. They might tolerate, just about, a bit more Thatcherism, but I don't think they would take the complete sell-out to corporate interest that exists in the USA. If the Tories tried, they would get decimated at the next election.

The US is our biggest single export destination, realistically we want trade deals with them first after the EU

Why? If we’ve managed to export so successfully to them without a trade deal what’s in it for us? You surely don’t think the US wants a trade deal in order for us to sell even more to them?

Cyclefree said:

stodge said:

Evening all

An interesting piece - I'm not quite sure why the negative jibes against Jo Swinson. The LD policy is Revoke if a majority is won or support a second vote if not.

I do think the opposition need to be clever here - as the article suggests, the WA is only the start of the journey out of the EU yet it has been billed as being the end of the journey.

Boris can wield No Deal as a weapon and clearly some of his candidates are happy to countenance that but we still don't know whether the next Parliament would, if confronted with No Deal on 31/1/20, vote for it.

Are we then to assume the WA has just been obfuscation and leaving without a WA on 31/1/20 remains the option? I doubt that but I do think leaving without an agreed FTA on 31/12/20 remains very much on the table.

So what could or would the Opposition do IF they were able to outvote the Conservatives in the next Parliament? I think the WA should be passed so we go into transition and then ensure the trade and political arrangements with the EU are as close to BINO as possible before we finally leave. That may take some time but no one would be in any rush would they?

We are continually told the 2016 Referendum result must be "respected" - fine but leaving and maintaining a close political and economic relationship with the EU achieves that as much as crashing out with no agreement at all.

The slight jibes at Ms Swinson are because I feel that the Lib Dems are missing an opportunity to shape the debate on what happens post-Brexit. Someone should be asking these questions and forcing the Tories to say whether they will reduce food, environmental, agricultural, employment standards in order to compete with the EU and/or get other trade deals.

Someone needs to ask about the transition period and spell out what it will mean to turn into a third country overnight.

If the Lib Dems don’t do it who will?

Luckyguy1983 said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Gabs2 said:

This is a good, thought-provoking article. Zeroing in on the question, if Britain should look West to the US or to Europe or China, the missing bloc is the CPTPP one (led by Australia, Canada and Japan). My preference would be the European bloc first, then CPTPP, then the US a distant third and China a very distant fourth. I suspect the British public would be the same. They might tolerate, just about, a bit more Thatcherism, but I don't think they would take the complete sell-out to corporate interest that exists in the USA. If the Tories tried, they would get decimated at the next election.

The US is our biggest single export destination, realistically we want trade deals with them first after the EU

Why? If we’ve managed to export so successfully to them without a trade deal what’s in it for us? You surely don’t think the US wants a trade deal in order for us to sell even more to them?

Agree 100%

Cyclefree said:

stodge said:

Evening all

An interesting piece - I'm not quite sure why the negative jibes against Jo Swinson. The LD policy is Revoke if a majority is won or support a second vote if not.

I do think the opposition need to be clever here - as the article suggests, the WA is only the start of the journey out of the EU yet it has been billed as being the end of the journey.

Boris can wield No Deal as a weapon and clearly some of his candidates are happy to countenance that but we still don't know whether the next Parliament would, if confronted with No Deal on 31/1/20, vote for it.

Are we then to assume the WA has just been obfuscation and leaving without a WA on 31/1/20 remains the option? I doubt that but I do think leaving without an agreed FTA on 31/12/20 remains very much on the table.

So what could or would the Opposition do IF they were able to outvote the Conservatives in the next Parliament? I think the WA should be passed so we go into transition and then ensure the trade and political arrangements with the EU are as close to BINO as possible before we finally leave. That may take some time but no one would be in any rush would they?

We are continually told the 2016 Referendum result must be "respected" - fine but leaving and maintaining a close political and economic relationship with the EU achieves that as much as crashing out with no agreement at all.

The slight jibes at Ms Swinson are because I feel that the Lib Dems are missing an opportunity to shape the debate on what happens post-Brexit. Someone should be asking these questions and forcing the Tories to say whether they will reduce food, environmental, agricultural, employment standards in order to compete with the EU and/or get other trade deals.

Someone needs to ask about the transition period and spell out what it will mean to turn into a third country overnight.

If the Lib Dems don’t do it who will?

Cyclefree said:

The slight jibes at Ms Swinson are because I feel that the Lib Dems are missing an opportunity to shape the debate on what happens post-Brexit. Someone should be asking these questions and forcing the Tories to say whether they will reduce food, environmental, agricultural, employment standards in order to compete with the EU and/or get other trade deals.

Someone needs to ask about the transition period and spell out what it will mean to turn into a third country overnight.

If the Lib Dems don’t do it who will?

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

nichomar said:

HYUFD said:

nichomar said:

HYUFD said:

If the Withdrawal Agreement is passed then there will not be No Deal as the Deal will have been delivered. The fact Boris may not agree to extend the transition period and keep the UK in the Single Market and Customs Union indefinitely is not No Deal it is continuing FTA talks with the EU as an Independent nation.

No Deal would have meant no Withdrawal Agreement agreed and passed and no FTA talks with the EU.

You keep peddling this but if there is no agreement on the future relationship then without extension it is back to WTO rules, now if WTO rules is not no deal then fair enough I think you are being deceitful by claiming their can’t be a no deal brexit but the reality is that there is no agreement and no extension it is no deal.

There is not, the Withdrawal Agreement is the Deal, a delay in completion of FTA talks and no extended transition period is not No Deal. That is only failing to agree and pass the Withdrawal Agreement leading to the EU refusing to start FTA talks too

Come on that’s complete crap, if the future relationship (note I don’t call it a FTA) isn’t extended if not agreed it is WTO rules

Temporally until a FTA is agreed but that is not No Deal as the Withdrawal Agreement has been passed so WTO terms are not permanent as they would have been with No Deal and no Withdrawal Agreement agreed and passed

You really have no

None of which med

But with no extension to the transition you have no deal governing trade until the FTA is signed, which will be years. A lot of firms will go bust in the meantime. It's exactly the same as no deal, except you have given the EU £39bn.

They may or may not but as you say a FTA will still be done so it is not No Deal while we leave the SM and CU and regain control over our borders and start trade talks with other nations in the meantime

It is no deal until you have the FTA. And that might take 5 years. Or it might prove impossible to negotiate. And might not cover all sectors for goods. And will probably exclude services. So it is basically no deal. The WA only covers the money, citizens' rights and NI, and provides for an 11 month transition period. It is not a trade deal.

Cyclefree said:

No it doesn’t, however much you may like to define it in the way you would like it to be true. Leaving at the end of the transition period without any FTA (or agreements covering any of the other areas listed in the Political Declaration) means turning into a third country overnight. The effect is exactly the same as us leaving on 31/1/2020 without a Withdrawal Agreement.

It means we have No Deal about what our future relationship with EU across a wide range of matters will be.

All the WA does is give us a transition period. At the end of it we crash out. You’d have to be a hell of an optimist to think that by 31/12/2020 we will have agreed an FTA and put in place all the other agreements necessary to avoid such a crash out.

An October 2019 crash out has been avoided. A December 2020 one has not been. The Tories are completely unable to tell us what their negotiating priorities or aims are. Hell, their Immigration Minister couldn’t even answer a simple question this morning about whether the government would like to increase or reduce immigration.

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

nichomar said:

HYUFD said:

nichomar said:

HYUFD said:

There io

Temped

You really have no ucliff edge in June to decide whether or mot we want to extend the transition.

None of which means No Deal.

The Deal is the Withdrawal Agreement which enables FTA talks which will ultimately produce a FTA, even Canada got one with the EU after 7 years and we already have closer links with the EU than them.

No Deal means no Withdrawal Agreement and no FTA talks with the EU until a Deal is agreed and pased

No it doesn’t, however much you may like to define it in the way you would like it to be true. Leaving at the end of the transition period without any FTA (or agreements covering any of the other areas listed in the Political Declaration) means turning into a third country overnight. The effect is exactly the same as us leaving on 31/1/2020 without a Withdrawal Agreement.

It means we have No Deal about what our future relationship with EU across a wide range of matters will be.

All the WA does is give us a transition period. At the end of it we crash out. You’d have to be a hell of an optimist to think that by 31/12/2020 we will have agreed an FTA and put in place all the other agreements necessary to avoid such a crash out.

An October 2019 crash out has been avoided. A December 2020 one has not been. The Tories are completely unable to tell us what their negotiating priorities or aims are. Hell, their Immigration Minister couldn’t even answer a simple question this morning about whether the government would like to increase or reduce immigration.

MikeSmithson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

stodge said:

Evening all

An interesting piece - I'm not quite sure why the negative jibes against Jo Swinson. The LD policy is Revoke if a majority is won or support a second vote if not.

I do think the opposition need to be clever here - as the article suggests, the WA is only the start of the journey out of the EU yet it has been billed as being the end of the journey.

Boris can wield No Deal as a weapon and clearly some of his candidates are happy to countenance that but we still don't know whether the next Parliament would, if confronted with No Deal on 31/1/20, vote for it.

Are we then to assume the WA has just been obfuscation and leaving without a WA on 31/1/20 remains the option? I doubt that but I do think leaving without an agreed FTA on 31/12/20 remains very much on the table.

So what could or would the Opposition do IF they were able to outvote the Conservatives in the next Parliament? I think the WA should be passed so we go into transition and then ensure the trade and political arrangements with the EU are as close to BINO as possible before we finally leave. That may take some time but no one would be in any rush would they?

We are continually told the 2016 Referendum result must be "respected" - fine but leaving and maintaining a close political and economic relationship with the EU achieves that as much as crashing out with no agreement at all.

Indeed maintaining a close relationship from outside does respect the result. Staying inside does not.

But until we see the report on Russian interference you cannot claim that the outcome was legitimate.

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

nichomar said:

HYUFD said:

nichomar said:

HYUFD said:

If the Withdrawal Agreement is passed then there will not be No Deal as the Deal will have been delivered. The fact Boris may not agree to extend the transition period and keep the UK in the Single Market and Customs Union indefinitely is not No Deal it is continuing FTA talks with the EU as an Independent nation.

No Deal would have meant no Withdrawal Agreement agreed and passed and no FTA talks with the EU.

You keep peddling this but if there is no agreementity is that there is no agreement and no extension it is no deal.

There is not, the Withdrawal Agreement is the Deal, a delay in completion of FTA talks and no extended transition period is not No Deal. That is only failing to agree and pass the Withdrawal Agreement leading to the EU refusing to start FTA talks too

Come on that’s complWTO rules

Temporally until a FTA is agreed but that is not No Deal as the Withdrawal Agreement has been passed so WTO terms are not permanent as they would have been with No Deal and no Withdrawal Agreement agreed and passed

You really have no

None of which med

But with no extension to the transition you have no deal governing trade until the FTA is signed, which will be years. A lot of firms will go bust in the meantime. It's exactly the same as no deal, except you have given the EU £39bn.

They may or may not but as you say a FTA will still be done so it is not No Deal while we leave the SM and CU and regain control over our borders and start trade talks with other nations in the meantime

It is no deal until you have the FTA. And that might take 5 years. Or it might prove impossible to negotiate. And might not cover all sectors for gooly no deal. The WA only covers the money, citizens' rights and NI, and provides for trade deal.

Wrong, it is not No Deal by definition as soon as the WA is passed, that is the Deal.

The fact from an ideological perspective you consider only staying in the CU and SM for ever ie BINO, a Deal does not mean it is No Deal

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/1192911730608943105?s=21

TudorRose said:

Casino_Royale said:

theakes said:

Surely the easiest way to get Brexit DONE is to Revoke Article 50, then it is done. Any other action just drags things on for transistion periods and endless trade negotiations. Years

Revoke doesn't end it either.

The fact of a reneged vote will hang over British politics for decades polluting it and, with 45% of the electorate favouring it, they will win a GE sooner or later and go full on hard Leave.

I think this is right. They (probably in the form of a party led by Nigel Farage) will argue that Brexit wasn't clearly specified (as argued by remainers) and so only a 'clean break' Brexit offers clarity and a 'quick' 'solution' (each of those words is contestable of course).

Beibheirli_C said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/1192911730608943105?s=21

I cannot believe that the choices for the country are that bumbling a*se Boris and Magic Grandpa and his Pogrom for govt.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Foxy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Hmmm....

Pub landlord orders staff they can ONLY serve people this Remembrance Sunday if they're wearing a poppy

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7664893/Pub-landlord-bans-non-poppy-wearers-pub.html

OK, that makes sense. It's Remembrance Sunday after all.

I don't see the point of people, particularly celebs on TV, wearing poppies three weeks before the event!

I think only in the fortnight after the appeal is launched.

I decided last year to only wear one Remembrance weekend and day, not before. 100 years is long enough. I think that a solemn event has transformed into un-British mawkishness and competitive display.

I do worry about the outrage if someone is seen NOT wearing one.

Partly, I think that's a wider problem of the gleeful "calling out" that is so common now.

But it's also the case that, not so long ago there were quite a few folk who served in WW1 and WW2 about. When I was at primary school, say, quite a few WW2 veterans hadn't even retired. It was a visible indication, to people who'd served and who'd lost friends, that their sacrifice mattered to younger people. It was a matter of respect.

Those days are slipping away very fast - you'd need to be into your 90s to have had any chance at all of having served in WW2 and the WW1 veterans have now all re-joined their fallen comrades.

So who are we now wearing poppies for? Partly, it's a reminder to ourselves, and to make sure we don't forget in our hearts - which is good. Partly, it's increase we do stumble across a chap in his mid to late 90s - again, good. But to an increasing extent, it's virtue signalling. And if an MP or TV presenter neglects to do it, it doesn't actually mean they don't care - it probably means they are wearing a different jacket from yesterday.

stodge said:

As an aside, nearly 30 years since the Berlin Wall fell - one of the seminal events of the 20th Century.

I think the ramifications of that event still permeate European politics to this day.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Seems Boris is getting some practice in, in case the GE goes tits up...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7663721/Trapped-shoppers-spend-night-Sheffields-Meadowhall-shopping-centre.html

Time_to_Leave said:

To state the obvious, that Boris line isn’t an accident any more. Feels like focus groups suggest they can claw back Tory remainers. They Can say they have a deal after all. Also chimes with “get Brexit done”.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Recidivist said:

kle4 said:

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/DominicRaab/status/1192835674665299969?s=20

No women allowed

Yes, one photo means that. I suppose if someone puts up a photo of such a team where there is a woman you'll apologise?

If

I see six female of the species.

https://twitter.com/peterszanto/status/1192875485941903362

Time_to_Leave said:

To state the obvious, that Boris line isn’t an accident any more. Feels like focus groups suggest they can claw back Tory remainers. They Can say they have a deal after all. Also chimes with “get Brexit done”.

Cyclefree said:

Try, just try, and understand the difference between a Withdrawal Agreement - covering the terms of departure - and a Deal - which deals with the future relationship with the EU.

If we do not have the latter by the end of the transition we have no deal. Or even No Deal. We leave the transition with No Deal. A No Deal departure.

It’s not hard to understand.

Imagine being a tenant in a flat: you give notice to your landlord. You come to an agreement about repairs, cleaning, payment if rent, return of the deposit etc and the date of departure. Very nicely the landlord says that you can stay until you have found another flat to move to and offers you the opportunity to choose between other properties he owns.

Then you decide that you want to leave on a set date regardless and look at a wide range of properties, not just ones owned by him. Fine.

The date arrives. You move out. Unfortunately you have not agreed an alternative flat to move into though you are talking to lots of people. You are now sleeping on the streets. You are homeless. You are not a tenant just because you entered into an agreement with your ex-landlord about how to terminate your rental agreement.

TheJezziah said:

I don't usually put multiple tweets in a post but I thought this was a useful counter to Charles comments on a previous thread and seen as one community concerns got a whole article I figure I could give another at least a long post, especially considering the denial around them..

https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908826145673223
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908827697537024
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908828888711169
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908830268637184
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908831627591686
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908832911056896
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908834223861760
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908835788378113
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192910808105312256
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192911635255615490
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192911635255615490
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192914835912175616
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192917738425073665

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

TudorRose said:

AndyJS said:

FPT:

HYUFD said:

AndyJS said:

HYUFD said:

Biggest swing from Labour to the Tories in the North East, the West Midlands and Wales

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1192838122838614022?s=20

Have you seen the spreadsheet I've put together which plugs this data into the Flavible regional seat forecasts?

Will have a look

Seat totals are at the bottom of the document.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oKkOq3OQFkSd1v4Gd3AoDN-RkfCHa99d58L0cBCWRfs/edit#gid=0

This might explain why Tom Watson went.

That also predicts Pidcock losing, I think it might be too much to hope for.

Time_to_Leave said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

nichomar said:

HYUFD said:

nichomar said:

HYUFD said:

It is no deal until you have the FTA. And that might take 5 years. Or it might prove impossibe money, citizens' rights and NI, and provides for an 11 month transition period. It is not a trade deal.

Wrong, it is not No Deal by definition as soon as the WA is passed, that is the Deal.

The fact from an ideological perspective you consider only staying in the CU and SM for ever ie BINO, a Deal does not mean it is No Deal

Try, just try, and understand the difference between a Withdrawal Agreement - covering the terms of departure - and a Deal - which deals with the future relationship with the EU.

If we do not have the latter by the end of the transition we have no deal. Or even No Deal. We leave the transition with No Deal. A No Deal departure.

It’s not hard to understand.

Imagine being a tenant in a flat: you give notice to your

Then you decide that you want to leave on a set date regardless and look at a wide range of properties, not just ones owned by him. Fine.

The date arrives. You move out. Unfortunately you have not agreed an alternative flat to move into though you are talking to lots of people. You are now sleeping on the streets. You are homeless. You are not a tenant just because you entered into an agreement with your ex-landlord about how to terminate your rental agreement.

It isn’t quite like that. With a withdrawal agreement in place I suspect there’d be the goodwill necessary at the end of 2020 such that the worst case is a bunch of mini-agreements to avoid disruption; or possibly even something the WTO could recognise as a bare bones FTA. The scenario is different, and it’s in no one’s to do anything otherwise.

I think there might even be scope late next year to win the argument for “let’s park ourselves in EFTA and join the EEA; at least for now”.

Recidivist said:

kle4 said:

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/DominicRaab/status/1192835674665299969?s=20

No women allowed

Yes, one photo means that. I suppose if someone puts up a photo of such a team where there is a woman you'll apologise?

If

CatMan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Recidivist said:

kle4 said:

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/DominicRaab/status/1192835674665299969?s=20

No women allowed

Yes, one photo means that. I suppose if someone puts up a photo of such a team where there is a woman you'll apologise?

If

I see six female of the species.

https://twitter.com/peterszanto/status/1192875485941903362

Probably all "Girly Swots"

TheJezziah said:

I don't usually put multiple tweets in a post but I thought this was a useful counter to Charles comments on a previous thread and seen as one community concerns got a whole article I figure I could give another at least a long post, especially considering the denial around them..

https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908826145673223
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908827697537024
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908828888711169
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908830268637184
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908831627591686
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908832911056896
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908834223861760
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192908835788378113
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192910808105312256
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192911635255615490
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192911635255615490
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192914835912175616
https://twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192917738425073665

ydoethur said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

TudorRose said:

AndyJS said:

FPT:

HYUFD said:

AndyJS said:

HYUFD said:

Biggest swing from Labour to the Tories in the North East, the West Midlands and Wales

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1192838122838614022?s=20

Have you seen the spreadsheet I've put together which plugs this data into the Flavible regional seat forecasts?

Will have a look

Seat totals are at the bottom of the document.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oKkOq3OQFkSd1v4Gd3AoDN-RkfCHa99d58L0cBCWRfs/edit#gid=0

This might explain why Tom Watson went.

That also predicts Pidcock losing, I think it might be too much to hope for.

It also predicts Stoke on Trent South as a Tory gain, which they would find a trifle difficult as they already hold it.

Beibheirli_C said:

Cyclefree said:

Beibheirli_C said:

@Cyclefree - you are wasting your breath. None of the Leavers seem to believe anything other than a glorious paradise awaits.

It is why I have resigned myself to No Deal Brexit - the Leavers detachment from practical politics, never mind reality, guarantee it.

When I was preparing this I did a rough calculation of how many topics there are in the PD, how many agreements we currently have which will need to be replaced (circa 700) and how much time we will have to replace them all. About 4 and a half hours per agreement, I reckon. If it has to be done by June, halve that figure. (Then take off Parliamentary holidays.) It’s probably about 15 mins each.

This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!

The whole thing is going to be an utter shambles. As you have demonstrated without too much bother, the schedules are impractical (impossible might be a better word).

The sheer entertainment value of watching these berks deal with reality is the only benefit of Brexit. Maybe if they made Rowan Atkinson PM it could be Blackadder V. Dominic Cummings could stay on as Baldrick since he looks the part....

Cyclefree said:

Time_to_Leave said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

nichomar said:

HYUFD said:

nichomar said:

HYUFD said:

It is no deal until you have the FTA. And that might take 5 years. Or it might prove impossibe money, citizens' rights and NI, and provides for an 11 month transition period. It is not a trade deal.

Wrong, it is not No Deal by definition as soon as the WA is passed, that is the Deal.

The fact from an ideological perspective you consider only staying in the CU and SM for ever ie BINO, a Deal does not mean it is No Deal

Try, just try, and understand the difference between a Withdrawal Agreement - covering the terms of departure - and a Deal - which deals with the future relationship with the EU.

If we do not have the latter by the end of the transition we have no deal. Or even No Deal. We leave the transition with No Deal. A No Deal departure.

It’s not hard to understand.

Imagine being a tenant in a flat: you give notice to your

Then you decide that you want to leave on a set date regardless and look at a wide range of properties, not just ones owned by him. Fine.

The date arrives. You move out. Unfortunately you have not agreed an alternative flat to move into though you are talking to lots of people. You are now sleeping on the streets. You are homeless. You are not a tenant just because you entered into an agreement with your ex-landlord about how to terminate your rental agreement.

e late next year to win the argument for “let’s park ourselves in EFTA and join the EEA; at least for now”.

I’m not at all convinced we have much goodwill left with the EU.

Frankly, (in response to @Stuartinromford) we look now like a bunch of incompetent, easily pushed around, untrustworthy chancers - and ones whose PM doesn’t even understand his own WA. Or lies about it.

Even trying to do some bare bones mini-deals is going to be bloody hard and puts us entirely at the EU’s mercy.

geoffw said:

Thanks for a great header Cyclefree. But the last paragraph's call for a debate now on the post-WA deal is, I am afraid, not likely in the maelstrom of an election.