Disagree 100% with the Header. Deal is certain. Always has been. Eat my shorts if I'm wrong.
I hope you are wrong on this. But fear you are right.
My hunch is that Cummings was prepared to play hard-ball more than Johnson is - and the PM is now freer to sign up to a poor deal for the UK. Cummings couldn`t stomach this, so has gone. Johnson will herald a pile of crap as a great victory.
I have never been convinced that a deal with EU was possible ( one that would be good for UK), so for me the order of preference was: 1) stay in EU and agitate from within, 2) leave with no deal, 3) a deal but a bad one.
We`re heading towards 3).
Of course he WILL be branding a crap deal as a great one. It worked last time so perhaps it will again.
As for No Deal, moving from SM to WTO, I just have never seen that as a realistic possibility unless we'd had an absolute hard core, ideologically pure, Brexit Headbanger as PM. Which Johnson is not, of course. Not even close.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
Nonsense. May's deal was never a compromise and it was entirely reasonable to reject it.
May's deal kept us on Single Market and Customs Union terms while we were in the backstop. It was as soft as you could get.
It was reasonable for hard Brexiteers to reject it. Soft Brexiteers got a harder Brexit from rejecting it. Oh well what a shame.
What are the hard Brexiteers going to feel and say when Johnson caves, PT? (In fact, scrub out "hard" in the previous sentence.)
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
Nonsense. May's deal was never a compromise and it was entirely reasonable to reject it.
The point about May’s deal was it left room for compromise. It could easily have been used for a Norway solution later on, or a pivot to Canada later.
Johnson’s deal by contrast is so bad that even he has admitted it’s unworkable and he has no time to come up with a solution.
The missed opportunity wasn't May's deal, for the reasons others have said. It was not backing the various soft Brexit options in the Letwin process.
If I had been an MP at the time I would have found it hard to out my name to either Brexit deal because they would make the lives of my constituents worse and you would know down the line that the fact you had voted for it would have been used by your opponents as validation and ultimately used against you.
However much i do not like personal rudeness or malice the sign of a genius is someone who can be very malicious and rude but stay at the top of their chosen fields such as Michael O'Leary,Van Morrison,and despite him losing in 2020 Trump ,the late Steve Jobs ,the late Cassius Clay etc. Cummings is a campaigner .He did not last long as Gove's adviser at education and now he has gone as the PMs adviser.Remains to be seen if he is a 'genius campaigner' or whether he got lucky with his opponents in the 2019 election and Brexit referendum.
May's deal is better than no deal in the same way that having one leg amputated is better than having both legs amputated when you don't actually need any legs amputated.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
Yes, Under their rules they should have settled on the PA call at which point there was a winner who had "a majority of the projected votes in the electoral college". Having failed to do that, they are now in a no man's land with no clear and obvious future event to hang the settlement on. But they won't care for the reasons you say. And I don't care either. I'm content to wait a little longer for my money.
It’s really simple. They’re waiting for the official election results to be announced in each State. They’re not settling purely because CNN say Biden won.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
Where we are at is that many Remainers here are still at the anger stage of grief, having just about moved on from denial. Acceptance is still a long way away.
Yes. That scale is about how people process disaster, which possibly undermines your point. The brighter Leavers have grasped that the days of trying to be clever and funny about this are long, long gone.
To be fair I hadn't noticed any Leavers being clever or funny at any point.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
May's deal is better than no deal in the same way that having one leg amputated is better than having both legs amputated when you don't actually need any legs amputated.
Quite. Why would you put your name to that? When the shit hits the fan, they would say the plan had full support.
No, if people were insistent on this route on their heads be it.
The missed opportunity from which all others flowed occurred at the end of 2016, when a soft Brexit including free movement was specifically excluded. *Everything* from then on became more difficult, opinions on all sides splintered into almost infinitely smaller pieces, and some form of chaos was inevitable - the centre could not hold, as the original product was mis-sold. This was nothing at all to do with any remainer forces, was not at all what was advertised in the referendum, and was purely the result of internal tory party management and incoherence.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
Yes, Under their rules they should have settled on the PA call at which point there was a winner who had "a majority of the projected votes in the electoral college". Having failed to do that, they are now in a no man's land with no clear and obvious future event to hang the settlement on. But they won't care for the reasons you say. And I don't care either. I'm content to wait a little longer for my money.
It’s really simple. They’re waiting for the official election results to be announced in each State. They’re not settling purely because CNN say Biden won.
Just maybe there's the additional factor that they are doing very nicely out of the large amounts still being bet on the market?
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
As a further point, you Brexiteers seem to think that "Remainers" would bite your hand off for May's deal right now. The fact is that isn't true.
I couldn't care less if we have May's deal or if we have no deal. They are both a hard Brexit, and I want a soft Brexit with close EU alignment. I want Britain to be part of the single market.
So we are where we are. I'm looking forward to these promised sunlit uplands.
May's deal would have meant effectively Single Market and Customs Union terms until the next election. If you consider that hard then what is soft?
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
If Brexit teaches us anything nothing is forever. Keep chipping away and ultimately you are rewarded. Brexit provides a model to bring Brexit down.
Disagree 100% with the Header. Deal is certain. Always has been. Eat my shorts if I'm wrong.
I hope you are wrong on this. But fear you are right.
My hunch is that Cummings was prepared to play hard-ball more than Johnson is - and the PM is now freer to sign up to a poor deal for the UK. Cummings couldn`t stomach this, so has gone. Johnson will herald a pile of crap as a great victory.
I have never been convinced that a deal with EU was possible ( one that would be good for UK), so for me the order of preference was: 1) stay in EU and agitate from within, 2) leave with no deal, 3) a deal but a bad one.
We`re heading towards 3).
Of course he WILL be branding a crap deal as a great one. It worked last time so perhaps it will again.
As for No Deal, moving from SM to WTO, I just have never seen that as a realistic possibility unless we'd had an absolute hard core, ideologically pure, Brexit Headbanger as PM. Which Johnson is not, of course. Not even close.
I suspect that it won`t work this time. Johnson is heading towards an end-point which will please no-one.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
As a further point, you Brexiteers seem to think that "Remainers" would bite your hand off for May's deal right now. The fact is that isn't true.
I couldn't care less if we have May's deal or if we have no deal. They are both a hard Brexit, and I want a soft Brexit with close EU alignment. I want Britain to be part of the single market.
So we are where we are. I'm looking forward to these promised sunlit uplands.
May's deal would have meant effectively Single Market and Customs Union terms until the next election. If you consider that hard then what is soft?
The "backstop" was simply an endless transition. We're not talking about transitions, we're talking about final destinations.
Johnson's deal kept us in the Single Market and Customs Union for a year (at least). That doesn't mean it's a "soft Brexit".
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
Nonsense. May's deal was never a compromise and it was entirely reasonable to reject it.
The point about May’s deal was it left room for compromise. It could easily have been used for a Norway solution later on, or a pivot to Canada later.
Johnson’s deal by contrast is so bad that even he has admitted it’s unworkable and he has no time to come up with a solution.
The missed opportunity wasn't May's deal, for the reasons others have said. It was not backing the various soft Brexit options in the Letwin process.
I have to say that is probably one of the funniest moments the remainers came up with. Force the government to concede votes on various options, then don't back any of them.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
Some of us were saying at the time the smart move was for Labour to abstain. The deal would then have been the outcome of Tory infighting.
We would not be looking at four more years of a Tory majority of 80.
Corbyn and Starmer between them managed to bollocks up the politics of Brexit every bit as badly as Cameron and Osborne.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
Yes, Under their rules they should have settled on the PA call at which point there was a winner who had "a majority of the projected votes in the electoral college". Having failed to do that, they are now in a no man's land with no clear and obvious future event to hang the settlement on. But they won't care for the reasons you say. And I don't care either. I'm content to wait a little longer for my money.
It’s really simple. They’re waiting for the official election results to be announced in each State. They’re not settling purely because CNN say Biden won.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
The EU being a good result for the country didn’t stop Leavers. Nothing is permanent.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
I'm not sure what your point is. You will always get headbangers and frothers. You're not going to get 48% of the population complaining if everything turns out well.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
As a further point, you Brexiteers seem to think that "Remainers" would bite your hand off for May's deal right now. The fact is that isn't true.
I couldn't care less if we have May's deal or if we have no deal. They are both a hard Brexit, and I want a soft Brexit with close EU alignment. I want Britain to be part of the single market.
So we are where we are. I'm looking forward to these promised sunlit uplands.
May's deal would have meant effectively Single Market and Customs Union terms until the next election. If you consider that hard then what is soft?
The "backstop" was simply an endless transition. We're not talking about transitions, we're talking about final destinations.
Johnson's deal kept us in the Single Market and Customs Union for a year (at least). That doesn't mean it's a "soft Brexit".
Key word being endless.
Nothing is final. Why would you talk about final? The difference is that Johnson's deal provided a way out within a year, May's did not. That is why Leavers opposed May's.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
The EU being a good result for the country didn’t stop Leavers. Nothing is permanent.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
Nonsense. May's deal was never a compromise and it was entirely reasonable to reject it.
The point about May’s deal was it left room for compromise. It could easily have been used for a Norway solution later on, or a pivot to Canada later.
Johnson’s deal by contrast is so bad that even he has admitted it’s unworkable and he has no time to come up with a solution.
The missed opportunity wasn't May's deal, for the reasons others have said. It was not backing the various soft Brexit options in the Letwin process.
I have to say that is probably one of the funniest moments the remainers came up with. Force the government to concede votes on various options, then don't back any of them.
Again its offering a man with two healthy legs a menu of different amputation options. The idea that this shambles is the fault of remainers is laughable. The problem is that nobody could agree on what "leave" and "European Union" actually meant. And therefore what we would do afterwards.
Morning all. You already know what I think will happen so I won't post it again. What is worth remembering is that Shagger is an expert liar. He said that no Tory PM would put a border down the Irish Sea, then put a border down the Irish Sea, then lied that he hadn't, then got on with instructing the civil service to get setting one up then repeated that there would be no border.
So his capitulation to Europe will be masked by him proclaiming victory - and by much of the party going along with it. That's his other advantage - so many of the 2019 Tory intake have demonstrated their moral cowardice by going along with whatever he says even if that changes from week to week.
It will be his greatest triumph when we agree a continuation deal, and how unpatriotic of anyone to question it.
And to think some people still struggle with the suggestion that he has much in common with Trump....
It's not that there are no similarities its that people lazily overegg the similarities ignoring Boris' greater flexibility and deviousness. The Trump thing gets overplayed as a comfort blanket.
Focusing too much on the superficial similarities enables Boris to get away with stuff when he doesn't then act just like Trump, for example whilst we've had plenty of covid problems and debates behind the scenes, Boris hasn't been virtually war with top scientists so when people say hes trump like on that issue it doesn't land and makes a bad situation seem less bad.
That's the point. It doesn't help to get a good chuckle on pretending they are just the same, it makes it harder to take him on because he can easily show a way he is different and suggest other claims against are bollocks, even when it's not.
But no, let's keep acting like the superficial stuff is more important. He has a similar visual look too hurr hurr Trump clone.
Other way round imo. People overlook the similarities between Trump and Boris so they can sneer at the yanks without cognitive dissonance. It really does go beyond them both being charismatic blokes off the telly with complicated family lives, who caught Covid-19. They lie, habitually. They evade scrutiny. They have no clear political goals. They rely on an inner coterie of unelected cronies and family members suckling on the public teat. They don't care about the financial prudence their parties insisted on when the other lot were in control. They bypass normal democratic conventions in their country. They purge dissentors, real or imagined. But we laugh at the foreigner and indulge our version.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
As a further point, you Brexiteers seem to think that "Remainers" would bite your hand off for May's deal right now. The fact is that isn't true.
I couldn't care less if we have May's deal or if we have no deal. They are both a hard Brexit, and I want a soft Brexit with close EU alignment. I want Britain to be part of the single market.
So we are where we are. I'm looking forward to these promised sunlit uplands.
May's deal would have meant effectively Single Market and Customs Union terms until the next election. If you consider that hard then what is soft?
The "backstop" was simply an endless transition. We're not talking about transitions, we're talking about final destinations.
Johnson's deal kept us in the Single Market and Customs Union for a year (at least). That doesn't mean it's a "soft Brexit".
Key word being endless.
Nothing is final. Why would you talk about final? The difference is that Johnson's deal provided a way out within a year, May's did not. That is why Leavers opposed May's.
Why are you trying to convince me that May's deal was what I wanted? It wasn't.
The current situation is much preferable to me because we get a "pure" Brexit. There's no stab in the back myth and no enduring legacy. We get to see the reality of what was promised.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
Where we are at is that many Remainers here are still at the anger stage of grief, having just about moved on from denial. Acceptance is still a long way away.
Yes. That scale is about how people process disaster, which possibly undermines your point. The brighter Leavers have grasped that the days of trying to be clever and funny about this are long, long gone.
To be fair I hadn't noticed any Leavers being clever or funny at any point.
As I said in all seriousness, we're not past anger, which is why the insults are still flying.
Leavers need to stop being such snowflakes, it was only bantz. The trouble with the whole "moving on" narrative is that Brexit is an ongoing process not a past event. I'm not angry about the 2016 vote and the campaign of xenophobic lies that won it anymore - it was four years ago after all. But I am angry about the people who are losing their jobs right now because of the government's refusal to compromise on a soft Brexit deal and their inability to negotiate anything sensible even at the eleventh hour. I don't think it is irrational to be angry about stuff happening right now.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
As a further point, you Brexiteers seem to think that "Remainers" would bite your hand off for May's deal right now. The fact is that isn't true.
I couldn't care less if we have May's deal or if we have no deal. They are both a hard Brexit, and I want a soft Brexit with close EU alignment. I want Britain to be part of the single market.
So we are where we are. I'm looking forward to these promised sunlit uplands.
May's deal would have meant effectively Single Market and Customs Union terms until the next election. If you consider that hard then what is soft?
The "backstop" was simply an endless transition. We're not talking about transitions, we're talking about final destinations.
Johnson's deal kept us in the Single Market and Customs Union for a year (at least). That doesn't mean it's a "soft Brexit".
Key word being endless.
Nothing is final. Why would you talk about final? The difference is that Johnson's deal provided a way out within a year, May's did not. That is why Leavers opposed May's.
Why are you trying to convince me that May's deal was what I wanted? It wasn't.
The current situation is much preferable to me because we get a "pure" Brexit. There's no stab in the back myth and no enduring legacy. We get to see the reality of what was promised.
May's deal bore virtually no resemblance to what was promised in the referendum, and was constructed purely to hold her party together and so save her leadership ; just as waving around the threat of no deal with no proper procedure was - which is where Grieve came in.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
As a further point, you Brexiteers seem to think that "Remainers" would bite your hand off for May's deal right now. The fact is that isn't true.
I couldn't care less if we have May's deal or if we have no deal. They are both a hard Brexit, and I want a soft Brexit with close EU alignment. I want Britain to be part of the single market.
So we are where we are. I'm looking forward to these promised sunlit uplands.
May's deal would have meant effectively Single Market and Customs Union terms until the next election. If you consider that hard then what is soft?
The "backstop" was simply an endless transition. We're not talking about transitions, we're talking about final destinations.
Johnson's deal kept us in the Single Market and Customs Union for a year (at least). That doesn't mean it's a "soft Brexit".
Key word being endless.
Nothing is final. Why would you talk about final? The difference is that Johnson's deal provided a way out within a year, May's did not. That is why Leavers opposed May's.
Why are you trying to convince me that May's deal was what I wanted? It wasn't.
The current situation is much preferable to me because we get a "pure" Brexit. There's no stab in the back myth and no enduring legacy. We get to see the reality of what was promised.
I'm glad May's deal was defeated.
But May's deal was undeniably far softer than what we have got. If people wanted a softer Brexit not a purer Brexit then May's deal was the one to go for.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
As a further point, you Brexiteers seem to think that "Remainers" would bite your hand off for May's deal right now. The fact is that isn't true.
I couldn't care less if we have May's deal or if we have no deal. They are both a hard Brexit, and I want a soft Brexit with close EU alignment. I want Britain to be part of the single market.
So we are where we are. I'm looking forward to these promised sunlit uplands.
May's deal would have meant effectively Single Market and Customs Union terms until the next election. If you consider that hard then what is soft?
The "backstop" was simply an endless transition. We're not talking about transitions, we're talking about final destinations.
Johnson's deal kept us in the Single Market and Customs Union for a year (at least). That doesn't mean it's a "soft Brexit".
Key word being endless.
Nothing is final. Why would you talk about final? The difference is that Johnson's deal provided a way out within a year, May's did not. That is why Leavers opposed May's.
Why are you trying to convince me that May's deal was what I wanted? It wasn't.
The current situation is much preferable to me because we get a "pure" Brexit. There's no stab in the back myth and no enduring legacy. We get to see the reality of what was promised.
I'm glad May's deal was defeated.
But May's deal was undeniably far softer than what we have got. If people wanted a softer Brexit not a purer Brexit then May's deal was the one to go for.
Thank goodness they didn't.
Exactly - thank goodness they didn't.
Like I said, the current situation is much preferable.
However much i do not like personal rudeness or malice the sign of a genius is someone who can be very malicious and rude but stay at the top of their chosen fields such as Michael O'Leary,Van Morrison,and despite him losing in 2020 Trump ,the late Steve Jobs ,the late Cassius Clay etc. Cummings is a campaigner .He did not last long as Gove's adviser at education and now he has gone as the PMs adviser.Remains to be seen if he is a 'genius campaigner' or whether he got lucky with his opponents in the 2019 election and Brexit referendum.
He lasted over two years at education (three, if you include the period he was working for Gove unofficially despite Coulson’s veto of his formal appointment). That’s a long time for a SPAD, especially one about whom multiple official complaints were made following his persistent libelling of critics through an unauthorised twitter account.
He officially left to set up a free school, although it’s worth noting that never happened either. Probably just as well given his temperament. He wouldn’t have lasted long.
One thing I didn’t realise until recently is he’s always been a critic of the idea of free school meals. That was, indeed, at the root of his row with a Nick Clegg, who was trying to roll them out wider while he was trying to abolish them. That may go some way towards explaining the totally unnecessary fiascos over Rashford’s campaign.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
Yes, Under their rules they should have settled on the PA call at which point there was a winner who had "a majority of the projected votes in the electoral college". Having failed to do that, they are now in a no man's land with no clear and obvious future event to hang the settlement on. But they won't care for the reasons you say. And I don't care either. I'm content to wait a little longer for my money.
It’s really simple. They’re waiting for the official election results to be announced in each State. They’re not settling purely because CNN say Biden won.
But that isn't the case. They've settled a whole bunch of state markets that have not been officially verified/settled.
I agree that once 270 ECVs worth of Biden votes have been officially verified they will settle the Next President/Winning Party market. But that is not how they would have settled the market if it had been a 400ECV blow out. They would have settled it the next day.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
As a further point, you Brexiteers seem to think that "Remainers" would bite your hand off for May's deal right now. The fact is that isn't true.
I couldn't care less if we have May's deal or if we have no deal. They are both a hard Brexit, and I want a soft Brexit with close EU alignment. I want Britain to be part of the single market.
So we are where we are. I'm looking forward to these promised sunlit uplands.
May's deal would have meant effectively Single Market and Customs Union terms until the next election. If you consider that hard then what is soft?
EEA/CU is soft Brexit. May's deal was a hard Brexit with a soft coating. Like an inverted Ferrero Rochet. Remainers didn't feel like she was really spoiling us with that.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
With regards to the first point, that was without TM getting her plan though on the back of Labour votes. Do you really think the Conservative party would have let that happen? Really?
As for the second point. If you're right, and Brexit turns out great even without a long term trade deal, fine. You and your allies are right, and I'm wrong. I can live with that. Heaven knows I've been wrong about plenty of stuff before.
If the UK ends up doing more, and more advantageous trade with the rest of the world outside the European umbrella, splendid.
If supply chains still work, and manufactured objects can continue to zip from factory to factory if that's how companies prefer to do it, great.
If Brexit is really no downside and considerable upside, I've got it wrong and that's fab.
But when I listen to people who live and breathe this stuff for a career, it doesn't seem likely. But maybe they're wrong as well.
Is there a scenario where you will think you got it wrong about all this?
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
Not ideal, but you can’t control the weather. If others are determined to do harm, there is not a lot you can do to stop them. Joining in and doing a little bit less harm is no answer.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
Some of us were saying at the time the smart move was for Labour to abstain. The deal would then have been the outcome of Tory infighting.
We would not be looking at four more years of a Tory majority of 80.
Corbyn and Starmer between them managed to bollocks up the politics of Brexit every bit as badly as Cameron and Osborne.
Worse. Cameron at least was confident that he could win a referendum (although Osborne clearly had doubts). And they nearly did, despite Corbyn's supposed "help". This was a no brainer and their party paid the price.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
They were looking at it through the prism of "I`m having nothing to do with dirty Brexit" rather than "We`re leaving the EU, what`s the best outcome for Britain".
This really is not the flu, irrespective of death rates.
Multi-organ impairment in low-risk individuals with long COVID https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.14.20212555v1.full.pdf ... Between April and September 2020, 201 individuals (mean age 44 (SD 11.0) years, 70% female, 87% white, 31% healthcare workers) completed assessments following SARS-CoV-2 infection (median 140, IQR 105-160 days after initial symptoms). The prevalence of pre-existing conditions (obesity: 20%, hypertension: 6%; diabetes: 2%; heart disease: 4%) was low, and only 18% of individuals had been hospitalised with COVID-19. Fatigue (98%), muscle aches (88%), breathlessness (87%), and headaches (83%) were the most frequently reported symptoms. Ongoing cardiorespiratory (92%) and gastrointestinal (73%) symptoms were common, and 42% of individuals had ten or more symptoms. There was evidence of mild organ impairment in heart (32%), lungs (33%), kidneys (12%), 63 liver (10%), pancreas (17%), and spleen (6%). Single (66%) and multi-organ (25%) impairment was observed, and was significantly associated with risk of prior COVID-19 hospitalisation (p<0.05).
Interpretation: In a young, low-risk population with ongoing symptoms, almost 70% of individuals have impairment in one or more organs four months after initial symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. There are implications not only for burden of long COVID but also public health approaches which have assumed low risk in young people with no comorbidities...</i>
Has this study taken a group of confirmed Long Covid sufferers, and then analysed what exactly ails them, four months later? Or has it taken a random bunch of low risk people who tested positive for Covid, and then seen if they have any long term damage, and if so, what it is?
The difference is hugely significant, and if we looking at the latter interpretation, then it is quite alarming
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
They were looking at it through the prism of "I`m having nothing to do with dirty Brexit" rather than "We`re leaving the EU, what`s the best outcome for Britain".
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
It was only "a disgrace of a Parliament" because it didn't give Leavers the results they desired.
Now you have your 80 strong majority, you have no excuses, so get on with whatever it is you want to get on with.
The missed opportunity from which all others flowed occurred at the end of 2016, when a soft Brexit including free movement was specifically excluded. *Everything* from then on became more difficult, opinions on all sides splintered into almost infinitely smaller pieces, and some form of chaos was inevitable - the centre could not hold, as the original product was mis-sold. This was nothing at all to do with any remainer forces, was not at all what was advertised in the referendum, and was purely the result of internal tory party management and incoherence.
Yes. Teresa May's insane red lines, announced in her awful Conference Speech. That's when she boxed Britain in. Idiot woman,
Still think he's thinking of the Cumberbatch scene walking over Westminster bridge with an identical box. It must be weird watching someone play your own life.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
Yes, Under their rules they should have settled on the PA call at which point there was a winner who had "a majority of the projected votes in the electoral college". Having failed to do that, they are now in a no man's land with no clear and obvious future event to hang the settlement on. But they won't care for the reasons you say. And I don't care either. I'm content to wait a little longer for my money.
It’s really simple. They’re waiting for the official election results to be announced in each State. They’re not settling purely because CNN say Biden won.
Just maybe there's the additional factor that they are doing very nicely out of the large amounts still being bet on the market?
Perhaps but remember Betfair's commission is on net winnings so people trading in and out does not increase that, and it ties up money punters might reinvest in other markets where Betfair can charge more commission.
My suspicion is cock-up rather than conspiracy. We have seen this sort of thing previously with Betfair, most recently when Theresa May resigned. Betfair does not really understand politics, did not understand the process, so created many markets that are loosely interlinked and not susceptible of settlement at the same time by the same criteria. There may be pressure from large players who have hedged positions across the markets who will be exposed if, say, Biden is called the winner but the PV and ECV markets are left open.
Betfair needs to recruit someone like Shadsy to run politics and not leave it to the teaboy or rugby expert.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
They were looking at it through the prism of "I`m having nothing to do with dirty Brexit" rather than "We`re leaving the EU, what`s the best outcome for Britain".
If you stumble into a murder scene the last thing you want is your fingerprints on the knife. Anyway, there was never a compromise on offer.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
Where we are at is that many Remainers here are still at the anger stage of grief, having just about moved on from denial. Acceptance is still a long way away.
Yes. That scale is about how people process disaster, which possibly undermines your point. The brighter Leavers have grasped that the days of trying to be clever and funny about this are long, long gone.
To be fair I hadn't noticed any Leavers being clever or funny at any point.
As I said in all seriousness, we're not past anger, which is why the insults are still flying.
Leavers need to stop being such snowflakes, it was only bantz. The trouble with the whole "moving on" narrative is that Brexit is an ongoing process not a past event. I'm not angry about the 2016 vote and the campaign of xenophobic lies that won it anymore - it was four years ago after all. But I am angry about the people who are losing their jobs right now because of the government's refusal to compromise on a soft Brexit deal and their inability to negotiate anything sensible even at the eleventh hour. I don't think it is irrational to be angry about stuff happening right now.
There will be reminders forever. Even if it's just watching the fashionable Italians wafting through customs at Nice airport while the blue passport mob get stuck in a line with the 747's from Dallas
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
Nonsense. May's deal was never a compromise and it was entirely reasonable to reject it.
The point about May’s deal was it left room for compromise. It could easily have been used for a Norway solution later on, or a pivot to Canada later.
Johnson’s deal by contrast is so bad that even he has admitted it’s unworkable and he has no time to come up with a solution.
The missed opportunity wasn't May's deal, for the reasons others have said. It was not backing the various soft Brexit options in the Letwin process.
I have to say that is probably one of the funniest moments the remainers came up with. Force the government to concede votes on various options, then don't back any of them.
Those headlines were the moment all alternatives to the government plan simply died. Those MPs who didn't back the softer options at least through to the next stage have a lot to answer for. As does the then PM for not seizing the opportunities presented to her to change tack.
With bits and bobs, some CA and a big chunk of NY to report it looks like overall turnout will be around 158M. So just shy of my projection of 160M. Not too shaby.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
Not ideal, but you can’t control the weather. If others are determined to do harm, there is not a lot you can do to stop them. Joining in and doing a little bit less harm is no answer.
It absolutely is. Never let the best be the enemy of the good. Its the same sort of idiocy which prevented us from rolling out test and trace on the basis of tests that were "only" 80% accurate. It completely misses the point of what you are trying to achieve which is the best for Britain in light of the choices that Britain has made.
With bits and bobs, some CA and a big chunk of NY to report it looks like overall turnout will be around 158M. So just shy of my projection of 160M. Not too shaby.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
As a further point, you Brexiteers seem to think that "Remainers" would bite your hand off for May's deal right now. The fact is that isn't true.
I couldn't care less if we have May's deal or if we have no deal. They are both a hard Brexit, and I want a soft Brexit with close EU alignment. I want Britain to be part of the single market.
So we are where we are. I'm looking forward to these promised sunlit uplands.
May's deal would have meant effectively Single Market and Customs Union terms until the next election. If you consider that hard then what is soft?
The "backstop" was simply an endless transition. We're not talking about transitions, we're talking about final destinations.
Johnson's deal kept us in the Single Market and Customs Union for a year (at least). That doesn't mean it's a "soft Brexit".
Key word being endless.
Nothing is final. Why would you talk about final? The difference is that Johnson's deal provided a way out within a year, May's did not. That is why Leavers opposed May's.
Why are you trying to convince me that May's deal was what I wanted? It wasn't.
The current situation is much preferable to me because we get a "pure" Brexit. There's no stab in the back myth and no enduring legacy. We get to see the reality of what was promised.
I'm glad May's deal was defeated.
But May's deal was undeniably far softer than what we have got. If people wanted a softer Brexit not a purer Brexit then May's deal was the one to go for.
Thank goodness they didn't.
Well we don't know yet what we've got. I sense a win on Fish but other than that, quasi In with more friction and less say. We'll see.
But how will Johnson spin it? This is what interests me. Will there be an award winning poem?
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
With regards to the first point, that was without TM getting her plan though on the back of Labour votes. Do you really think the Conservative party would have let that happen? Really?
As for the second point. If you're right, and Brexit turns out great even without a long term trade deal, fine. You and your allies are right, and I'm wrong. I can live with that. Heaven knows I've been wrong about plenty of stuff before.
If the UK ends up doing more, and more advantageous trade with the rest of the world outside the European umbrella, splendid.
If supply chains still work, and manufactured objects can continue to zip from factory to factory if that's how companies prefer to do it, great.
If Brexit is really no downside and considerable upside, I've got it wrong and that's fab.
But when I listen to people who live and breathe this stuff for a career, it doesn't seem likely. But maybe they're wrong as well.
Is there a scenario where you will think you got it wrong about all this?
On the first point yes. Just like Labour starting the Iraq War with Tory votes. It happens. The ERG would have had no say, they'd have lost. Anyway it didn't need Labour votes it just needed Labour to abstain.
On the second yes I could be wrong. But it hasn't happened yet so why would I change my mind yet?
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
Not ideal, but you can’t control the weather. If others are determined to do harm, there is not a lot you can do to stop them. Joining in and doing a little bit less harm is no answer.
It absolutely is. Never let the best be the enemy of the good. Its the same sort of idiocy which prevented us from rolling out test and trace on the basis of tests that were "only" 80% accurate. It completely misses the point of what you are trying to achieve which is the best for Britain in light of the choices that Britain has made.
Your analogy only works if you consider May's deal to be "good". Otherwise it's "don't make awful the enemy of bad".
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
It was only "a disgrace of a Parliament" because it didn't give Leavers the results they desired.
Now you have your 80 strong majority, you have no excuses, so get on with whatever it is you want to get on with.
That's completely the wrong way around. In 2015 they lied and said that they would implement Brexit. It cost many of them (not just in the Labour party in fairness) their seats. They deserved nothing less.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
Not ideal, but you can’t control the weather. If others are determined to do harm, there is not a lot you can do to stop them. Joining in and doing a little bit less harm is no answer.
It absolutely is. Never let the best be the enemy of the good. Its the same sort of idiocy which prevented us from rolling out test and trace on the basis of tests that were "only" 80% accurate. It completely misses the point of what you are trying to achieve which is the best for Britain in light of the choices that Britain has made.
EFTA/EEA was always possible and completely compatible with Brexit. That was never on the table.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
With regards to the first point, that was without TM getting her plan though on the back of Labour votes. Do you really think the Conservative party would have let that happen? Really?
As for the second point. If you're right, and Brexit turns out great even without a long term trade deal, fine. You and your allies are right, and I'm wrong. I can live with that. Heaven knows I've been wrong about plenty of stuff before.
If the UK ends up doing more, and more advantageous trade with the rest of the world outside the European umbrella, splendid.
If supply chains still work, and manufactured objects can continue to zip from factory to factory if that's how companies prefer to do it, great.
If Brexit is really no downside and considerable upside, I've got it wrong and that's fab.
But when I listen to people who live and breathe this stuff for a career, it doesn't seem likely. But maybe they're wrong as well.
Is there a scenario where you will think you got it wrong about all this?
Well, of course it hasn’t. You have to have a fecking strategy before you can change it.
As a teacher I am more surprised that you haven't hurled Hodges' homework back at him for spelling "sight" as "site". He is indeed the idiot claimed by his mother
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
There is a paradox Betfair should be mindful of. Their rules say (at least in some markets) that settlement will be on the basis of projections from the election results, notwithstanding later developments. That is fine, and how bookmakers have settled. The trouble is the longer Betfair waits to see what happens, the more they are susceptible to being sued for not acting on a black swan event that happens *before* they settle.
A fair point. I’m not defending their tardiness in settling, just trying to work out what they are doing. Those who are being allowed, some might say encouraged, still to place bets on Trump might feel aggrieved once they lose.
There is a principle in betting that you cant bet after the result is known, or the bet doesnt stand.
Therefore the fact that the market is open and matching millions per day is very important for those who want to understand how it will be settled rather than how they think it should be settled.
Settling on projected EC votes after state certification is certainly within their reasonable discretion and seems to be their plan.
This is plausible.
But remember that Biden has 227 EC votes from states that Betfair have already settled. It would be illogical for settlement of the overall winner to be delayed until those states have now certified. They are done in Betfair world.
They should only wait until a further 43 EC votes have been certified from the 6 states they are still trading - AZ, GA, NV, MI, WI, PA.
Therefore knowing the EC size of each of the above, and also the cert timetable, we can deduce the date on which settlement of the overall market will take place per your theory.
A lot seems to hang on the word "projected".
noneoftheabove writes "projected EC votes after state certification" - but surely once a state has certified the result it is no longer projected.
The EC vote (which happens sometime in December) is projected *by* the state certifications of the results. The ‘projection’ will hold true if there are no faithless electors, which it the situation Betfair are trying to work around.
With bits and bobs, some CA and a big chunk of NY to report it looks like overall turnout will be around 158M. So just shy of my projection of 160M. Not too shaby.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
It was only "a disgrace of a Parliament" because it didn't give Leavers the results they desired.
Now you have your 80 strong majority, you have no excuses, so get on with whatever it is you want to get on with.
That's completely the wrong way around. In 2015 they lied and said that they would implement Brexit. It cost many of them (not just in the Labour party in fairness) their seats. They deserved nothing less.
Oh stop this nonsense. "Remainers" would have reluctantly accepted a soft EEA style Brexit. It was May (and Brexiteers in general)'s failure to reach out to "Remainers" at all which resulted in the situation we found ourselves in.
Why are you so angry? You've got everything you wanted. Sunlit uplands await.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
Nonsense. May's deal was never a compromise and it was entirely reasonable to reject it.
The point about May’s deal was it left room for compromise. It could easily have been used for a Norway solution later on, or a pivot to Canada later.
Johnson’s deal by contrast is so bad that even he has admitted it’s unworkable and he has no time to come up with a solution.
The missed opportunity wasn't May's deal, for the reasons others have said. It was not backing the various soft Brexit options in the Letwin process.
I have to say that is probably one of the funniest moments the remainers came up with. Force the government to concede votes on various options, then don't back any of them.
Those headlines were the moment all alternatives to the government plan simply died. Those MPs who didn't back the softer options at least through to the next stage have a lot to answer for. As does the then PM for not seizing the opportunities presented to her to change tack.
Yep. A Soft Brexit was there for the taking but other agendas were prioritized.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
Not ideal, but you can’t control the weather. If others are determined to do harm, there is not a lot you can do to stop them. Joining in and doing a little bit less harm is no answer.
It absolutely is. Never let the best be the enemy of the good. Its the same sort of idiocy which prevented us from rolling out test and trace on the basis of tests that were "only" 80% accurate. It completely misses the point of what you are trying to achieve which is the best for Britain in light of the choices that Britain has made.
Your analogy only works if you consider May's deal to be "good". Otherwise it's "don't make awful the enemy of bad".
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
Not ideal, but you can’t control the weather. If others are determined to do harm, there is not a lot you can do to stop them. Joining in and doing a little bit less harm is no answer.
It absolutely is. Never let the best be the enemy of the good. Its the same sort of idiocy which prevented us from rolling out test and trace on the basis of tests that were "only" 80% accurate. It completely misses the point of what you are trying to achieve which is the best for Britain in light of the choices that Britain has made.
Your analogy only works if you consider May's deal to be "good". Otherwise it's "don't make awful the enemy of bad".
Well, of course it hasn’t. You have to have a fecking strategy before you can change it.
As a teacher I am more surprised that you haven't hurled Hodges' homework back at him for spelling "sight" as "site". He is indeed the idiot claimed by his mother
I thought I followed politics quite closely, but this news that Carrie Symonds has a really influential role at No 10 did surprise me -Was this such accepted common knowledge over the last year or so that no one bothered talking about it?
Cummings & goings - Is this sacking of an unpopular politico "the kind of division that voters dont like/good for Labour" or is it like the Corbyn suspension/Labour anti semistism split where it "shows strong leadership/absolutely the right thing/bad for Tories etc"
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
Not ideal, but you can’t control the weather. If others are determined to do harm, there is not a lot you can do to stop them. Joining in and doing a little bit less harm is no answer.
It absolutely is. Never let the best be the enemy of the good. Its the same sort of idiocy which prevented us from rolling out test and trace on the basis of tests that were "only" 80% accurate. It completely misses the point of what you are trying to achieve which is the best for Britain in light of the choices that Britain has made.
Your analogy only works if you consider May's deal to be "good". Otherwise it's "don't make awful the enemy of bad".
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
Yes, Under their rules they should have settled on the PA call at which point there was a winner who had "a majority of the projected votes in the electoral college". Having failed to do that, they are now in a no man's land with no clear and obvious future event to hang the settlement on. But they won't care for the reasons you say. And I don't care either. I'm content to wait a little longer for my money.
It’s really simple. They’re waiting for the official election results to be announced in each State. They’re not settling purely because CNN say Biden won.
Just maybe there's the additional factor that they are doing very nicely out of the large amounts still being bet on the market?
Perhaps but remember Betfair's commission is on net winnings so people trading in and out does not increase that, and it ties up money punters might reinvest in other markets where Betfair can charge more commission.
My suspicion is cock-up rather than conspiracy. We have seen this sort of thing previously with Betfair, most recently when Theresa May resigned. Betfair does not really understand politics, did not understand the process, so created many markets that are loosely interlinked and not susceptible of settlement at the same time by the same criteria. There may be pressure from large players who have hedged positions across the markets who will be exposed if, say, Biden is called the winner but the PV and ECV markets are left open.
Betfair needs to recruit someone like Shadsy to run politics and not leave it to the teaboy or rugby expert.
There's half a million unmatched waiting for backers of a Biden win at 1.07 and as I remember similar amounts at 1.06 and so on down. That's a lot of potential winnings for them to earn commission on, if they wait for it to be mopped up by the likes of us?
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
Not ideal, but you can’t control the weather. If others are determined to do harm, there is not a lot you can do to stop them. Joining in and doing a little bit less harm is no answer.
It absolutely is. Never let the best be the enemy of the good. Its the same sort of idiocy which prevented us from rolling out test and trace on the basis of tests that were "only" 80% accurate. It completely misses the point of what you are trying to achieve which is the best for Britain in light of the choices that Britain has made.
Your analogy only works if you consider May's deal to be "good". Otherwise it's "don't make awful the enemy of bad".
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
Yes, Under their rules they should have settled on the PA call at which point there was a winner who had "a majority of the projected votes in the electoral college". Having failed to do that, they are now in a no man's land with no clear and obvious future event to hang the settlement on. But they won't care for the reasons you say. And I don't care either. I'm content to wait a little longer for my money.
It’s really simple. They’re waiting for the official election results to be announced in each State. They’re not settling purely because CNN say Biden won.
Just maybe there's the additional factor that they are doing very nicely out of the large amounts still being bet on the market?
That too! It’s definitely not in their interest to settle any earlier than they have to, especially when there’s still millions in commissions coming into the market.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
Not ideal, but you can’t control the weather. If others are determined to do harm, there is not a lot you can do to stop them. Joining in and doing a little bit less harm is no answer.
It absolutely is. Never let the best be the enemy of the good. Its the same sort of idiocy which prevented us from rolling out test and trace on the basis of tests that were "only" 80% accurate. It completely misses the point of what you are trying to achieve which is the best for Britain in light of the choices that Britain has made.
Your analogy only works if you consider May's deal to be "good". Otherwise it's "don't make awful the enemy of bad".
Lesser of two evils is a part of politics.
...and?
Pick your poison.
The current situation is preferable. I've said that at least 3 times.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
Yes, Under their rules they should have settled on the PA call at which point there was a winner who had "a majority of the projected votes in the electoral college". Having failed to do that, they are now in a no man's land with no clear and obvious future event to hang the settlement on. But they won't care for the reasons you say. And I don't care either. I'm content to wait a little longer for my money.
It’s really simple. They’re waiting for the official election results to be announced in each State. They’re not settling purely because CNN say Biden won.
Just maybe there's the additional factor that they are doing very nicely out of the large amounts still being bet on the market?
Perhaps but remember Betfair's commission is on net winnings so people trading in and out does not increase that, and it ties up money punters might reinvest in other markets where Betfair can charge more commission.
My suspicion is cock-up rather than conspiracy. We have seen this sort of thing previously with Betfair, most recently when Theresa May resigned. Betfair does not really understand politics, did not understand the process, so created many markets that are loosely interlinked and not susceptible of settlement at the same time by the same criteria. There may be pressure from large players who have hedged positions across the markets who will be exposed if, say, Biden is called the winner but the PV and ECV markets are left open.
Betfair needs to recruit someone like Shadsy to run politics and not leave it to the teaboy or rugby expert.
The last point is a particularly good one and is true of many bookies. Ladbrokes are particularly fortunate to have Shadsy but he is an exception. My belief is that he just happened to be very interested in politics so he was a good fit. I don't think Ladbrokes went round looking for a politics expert. In fact I suspect The Magic Sign are not much different to other large bookies in that they regard politics as a bit of an oddball 'sport', don't really understand the subject and are happy to leave it to the tea boy if there isn't a Shadsy readily available.
Sporting Index used to be hopeless but my impression is that they now have a specialist politics man and nobody else touches the subject. If he isn't around when you call, you get stonewalled. I think this accounts for the regularity with which the markets are suspended. If there is any risk he switches them off when he leaves the offices and nobody else has the authority to switch them back on.
This can be a pain sometimes but it's better than having a know-nothing in charge, and they do take some care to make sure the politics rules are clear and properly implemented.
Comments
As for No Deal, moving from SM to WTO, I just have never seen that as a realistic possibility unless we'd had an absolute hard core, ideologically pure, Brexit Headbanger as PM. Which Johnson is not, of course. Not even close.
Cummings is a campaigner .He did not last long as Gove's adviser at education and now he has gone as the PMs adviser.Remains to be seen if he is a 'genius campaigner' or whether he got lucky with his opponents in the 2019 election and Brexit referendum.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
No, if people were insistent on this route on their heads be it.
Johnson's deal kept us in the Single Market and Customs Union for a year (at least). That doesn't mean it's a "soft Brexit".
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
We would not be looking at four more years of a Tory majority of 80.
Corbyn and Starmer between them managed to bollocks up the politics of Brexit every bit as badly as Cameron and Osborne.
Nothing is final. Why would you talk about final? The difference is that Johnson's deal provided a way out within a year, May's did not. That is why Leavers opposed May's.
The current situation is much preferable to me because we get a "pure" Brexit. There's no stab in the back myth and no enduring legacy. We get to see the reality of what was promised.
The trouble with the whole "moving on" narrative is that Brexit is an ongoing process not a past event. I'm not angry about the 2016 vote and the campaign of xenophobic lies that won it anymore - it was four years ago after all. But I am angry about the people who are losing their jobs right now because of the government's refusal to compromise on a soft Brexit deal and their inability to negotiate anything sensible even at the eleventh hour. I don't think it is irrational to be angry about stuff happening right now.
But May's deal was undeniably far softer than what we have got. If people wanted a softer Brexit not a purer Brexit then May's deal was the one to go for.
Thank goodness they didn't.
Like I said, the current situation is much preferable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54942697
He officially left to set up a free school, although it’s worth noting that never happened either. Probably just as well given his temperament. He wouldn’t have lasted long.
One thing I didn’t realise until recently is he’s always been a critic of the idea of free school meals. That was, indeed, at the root of his row with a Nick Clegg, who was trying to roll them out wider while he was trying to abolish them. That may go some way towards explaining the totally unnecessary fiascos over Rashford’s campaign.
For the rest - well, this is an interesting read:
https://wonkhe.com/blogs/the-education-policy-odyssey-of-dominic-cummings/
I agree that once 270 ECVs worth of Biden votes have been officially verified they will settle the Next President/Winning Party market. But that is not how they would have settled the market if it had been a 400ECV blow out. They would have settled it the next day.
As for the second point. If you're right, and Brexit turns out great even without a long term trade deal, fine. You and your allies are right, and I'm wrong. I can live with that. Heaven knows I've been wrong about plenty of stuff before.
If the UK ends up doing more, and more advantageous trade with the rest of the world outside the European umbrella, splendid.
If supply chains still work, and manufactured objects can continue to zip from factory to factory if that's how companies prefer to do it, great.
If Brexit is really no downside and considerable upside, I've got it wrong and that's fab.
But when I listen to people who live and breathe this stuff for a career, it doesn't seem likely. But maybe they're wrong as well.
Is there a scenario where you will think you got it wrong about all this?
The difference is hugely significant, and if we looking at the latter interpretation, then it is quite alarming
Now you have your 80 strong majority, you have no excuses, so get on with whatever it is you want to get on with.
All he wanted was his photo on the wall up the Downing Street staircase. Everything else is just bother.
My suspicion is cock-up rather than conspiracy. We have seen this sort of thing previously with Betfair, most recently when Theresa May resigned. Betfair does not really understand politics, did not understand the process, so created many markets that are loosely interlinked and not susceptible of settlement at the same time by the same criteria. There may be pressure from large players who have hedged positions across the markets who will be exposed if, say, Biden is called the winner but the PV and ECV markets are left open.
Betfair needs to recruit someone like Shadsy to run politics and not leave it to the teaboy or rugby expert.
Anyway, there was never a compromise on offer.
But how will Johnson spin it? This is what interests me. Will there be an award winning poem?
On the second yes I could be wrong. But it hasn't happened yet so why would I change my mind yet?
ETA aesthetically, it is a well-composed photo.
Biden will edge up slightly when all is in.
Why are you so angry? You've got everything you wanted. Sunlit uplands await.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2020/11/turkey-pre-qualifying-2020.html
Cummings & goings - Is this sacking of an unpopular politico "the kind of division that voters dont like/good for Labour" or is it like the Corbyn suspension/Labour anti semistism split where it "shows strong leadership/absolutely the right thing/bad for Tories etc"
Sporting Index used to be hopeless but my impression is that they now have a specialist politics man and nobody else touches the subject. If he isn't around when you call, you get stonewalled. I think this accounts for the regularity with which the markets are suspended. If there is any risk he switches them off when he leaves the offices and nobody else has the authority to switch them back on.
This can be a pain sometimes but it's better than having a know-nothing in charge, and they do take some care to make sure the politics rules are clear and properly implemented.