Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Your regular reminder that laying the favourite in the next To

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited December 3 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Your regular reminder that laying the favourite in the next Tory leader market is usually very profitable

The picture above is from ConHome’s regular polling on the next Tory leader from October 2015, Osborne would lead for five months in a row, yet he failed to become David Cameron’s successor.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,386
    Hello?....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976
    Lay the favourite.
    And the second favourite, and the third favourite...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056
    Sandpit said:

    Lay the favourite.
    And the second favourite, and the third favourite...

    Boris seems to have a successful strategy that ensures he keeps getting laid....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976

    Sandpit said:

    Lay the favourite.
    And the second favourite, and the third favourite...

    Boris seems to have a successful strategy that ensures he keeps getting laid....
    Maybe if he hadn’t spent so much effort getting laid over the years, he’d be in a better position to be leader.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976
    Wickets in Adelaide! 333/7 now, looking better for England.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,540
    Sandpit said:

    Wickets in Adelaide! 333/7 now, looking better for England.

    20 minutes or so later they have got another 22-0!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,874
    Sandpit said:

    Wickets in Adelaide! 333/7 now, looking better for England.

    Given how brittle England’s batting is an innings defeat would not be much of a surprise from here. This series has 5-0 to the Australians written all over it.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729
    That list of failed favourites is missing the following:

    Maudling 1965
    Butler (twice) 1957 and 1963
    Hailsham 1963 (arguably)
    Halifax (arguably) 1940
    Curzon 1923
    Austen Chamberlain (although he was successful later) 1911
    Stafford Northcote 1881-85

    The favourite has succeeded on the following occasions since Derby in 1846:

    Disraeli 1868
    Balfour 1902
    Austen Chamberlain at the second attempt in 1921
    Neville Chamberlain in 1937
    Antony Eden in 1955

    The latter list have in common that with the partial exception of the first they were all disastrous failures.

    In Tory terms, electing the favourite doesn't work.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,546

    Sandpit said:

    Wickets in Adelaide! 333/7 now, looking better for England.

    Given how brittle England’s batting is an innings defeat would not be much of a surprise from here. This series has 5-0 to the Australians written all over it.

    England look done. Absent a double century from Root (I think Cook might be past it, and his record in Australia is mediocre anyway), the Ashes look to be over.
    We simply don't have a strike bowler. Broad and Anderson have bowled tidily, but often a foot too short; Overton is a decent third seamer; Ali is a wicket taking threat when on form, but in this test, like the last, is nowhere near that - Root has bowled better.
    Australia have correctly worked out that if they are patient, they can grind out substantial scores - and accelerate when England's heads drop.
    And they have a half way decent set of bowlers. They are also probably a bowler short, and if our openers could stick around long enough to tire them, we too could grind out some decent totals (though Lyon has looked a far better spinner than Ali)... but see above comment about Cook.

  • Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Wickets in Adelaide! 333/7 now, looking better for England.

    Given how brittle England’s batting is an innings defeat would not be much of a surprise from here. This series has 5-0 to the Australians written all over it.

    England look done. Absent a double century from Root (I think Cook might be past it, and his record in Australia is mediocre anyway), the Ashes look to be over.
    We simply don't have a strike bowler. Broad and Anderson have bowled tidily, but often a foot too short; Overton is a decent third seamer; Ali is a wicket taking threat when on form, but in this test, like the last, is nowhere near that - Root has bowled better.
    Australia have correctly worked out that if they are patient, they can grind out substantial scores - and accelerate when England's heads drop.
    And they have a half way decent set of bowlers. They are also probably a bowler short, and if our openers could stick around long enough to tire them, we too could grind out some decent totals (though Lyon has looked a far better spinner than Ali)... but see above comment about Cook.

    The sins of the selectors are becoming painfully obvious. You could make a decent team out of the players left at home who should be there.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 294
    IanB2 said:

    We are likely to get a free trade agreement on goods, with some concessions around free movement, as our fruit and vegetables won't pick themselves. We are very unlikely to get a free trade agreement on services, and will have to buy any concessions on services with commitments to make ongoing payments to the EU badged as contributions to east Europe reconstruction.

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:


    My guess is that the EU will be happy for tarrif free access for goods as long as we follow their rules.

    Manufactured goods and maybe agriculture, not most services nor freedom of movement as is the case with the EU's FTA with Canada.
    This is the whole point. FTAs do not involve following the other person's rules. That is part of the SM. FTAs involve accepting that the other nation's rules are acceptable (eg equivalent) to your own.

    If we agree an FTA where we follow the EUs rules, then we simply give away all the benefits of leaving the SM and the EU. Which is exactly what the EU aim to do.

    The UK HAS NO NEED of an FTA to cover goods. There is no mutual benefit in this case. Unless the FTA covers services, there is absolutely no benefit to the UK in signing it.
    And what will the British regulatory standards be in future?
    The EU does not know (and probably neither do we). Given the likes of Hammond have talked openly about undercutting them...
    As the Commission have said - we are looking at how to manage a divergence of rules - which is a different challenge.

    The Dan Hannan talk of a bonfire of red tape is I suspect very unhelpful.
    What Gove is doing to maintain standards is probably much better to reassure our trading partners.
    It is frankly none of the EUs business what our regulatory standards are going to be in the future. The way an FTA works is that where there is regulatory equivalence, both side accept each others standards. Where there is not, you have to comply with the standards of the country to whom you export. But our internal standards and regulations are our business.

    The challenge is not difficult - it is just that the EU are rightly scared to death that the moment we leave we will become far more efficient by ditching all the pointless regulation on which the EU is so obsessed. So they will try and force us to comply with their regulations even though that is not appropriate for an FTA. If they want to offer us quasi-SM membership it is reasonable to insist that we follow common standards. But if a CETA FTA is all that is on offer, their demands should be refused. Shame our Government has not got the courage to say no.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    Good morning, everyone.

    A 50/1 leadership tip coming off? That's not very likely.

    F1: my post-season review, complete with lovely graphs, is up here:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/2017-post-season-review.html

    Although I think I was unlucky multiple times this season (more than average. Maybe that's just because I finished behind, but still), the extra stats I collected did seem useful.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,540

    Good morning, everyone.

    A 50/1 leadership tip coming off? That's not very likely.

    F1: my post-season review, complete with lovely graphs, is up here:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/2017-post-season-review.html

    Although I think I was unlucky multiple times this season (more than average. Maybe that's just because I finished behind, but still), the extra stats I collected did seem useful.

    Mr D, have you had a look at https://f1esports.com? Possibly as big as FI itself before long.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,623



    It is frankly none of the EUs business what our regulatory standards are going to be in the future. The way an FTA works is that where there is regulatory equivalence, both side accept each others standards. Where there is not, you have to comply with the standards of the country to whom you export. But our internal standards and regulations are our business.

    The challenge is not difficult - it is just that the EU are rightly scared to death that the moment we leave we will become far more efficient by ditching all the pointless regulation on which the EU is so obsessed. So they will try and force us to comply with their regulations even though that is not appropriate for an FTA. If they want to offer us quasi-SM membership it is reasonable to insist that we follow common standards. But if a CETA FTA is all that is on offer, their demands should be refused. Shame our Government has not got the courage to say no.

    The political will in the EU to accept any old standards that we choose to have for our exports to them is not there, and is IMO clearly unreasonable ("Here, have our old sardine tins that we once bought from Peru"). Naturally we can waive standards for imports if we don't care what crap people sell us, but one sided-waiving of standards will do interesting things to the balance of payments.

    But there's very little interest in any significant group in diverging standards. Industry think they're a nuisance ("all our products now have to satisfy two different sets of regs? Ugh."). Ministers don't AFAIK have many particular differences in mind that they are longing to achieve. And voters think this is technical stuff. The only political element to it is who determines that the standards are still the same, and a political deal is needed to satisfy Brexiteers that the answer to that is not the European Court of Justice.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    King Cole, no. I'm vaguely aware of it (I think Alonso has announced his own team), but for something like that I think it has scope to grow but not outgrow F1.

    Mind you, PBUG (PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds) isn't even finished yet and has millions, if not tens of millions, of regular players.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,485
    Almost all the pre Referendum Tory leadership look like class acts against the pitiful team built by Theresa. Osborne is certainly head and shoulderrs above all of this lot but even Cameron-despite his colossal error-would give us a quiet sense of security.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    Mr. Roger, it's not a team. It's a weak and isolated PM with assorted factions.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,540

    King Cole, no. I'm vaguely aware of it (I think Alonso has announced his own team), but for something like that I think it has scope to grow but not outgrow F1.

    Mind you, PBUG (PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds) isn't even finished yet and has millions, if not tens of millions, of regular players.

    My source in FI is very enthusiastic about it. Significant technical development.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    King Cole, really? Any more details you can share?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 8,880
    50/1

    What price was Jezza in 2015??
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,540
    Thank God for that; a wicket at last!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    Mr. Owls, three figures. Not that I remember not backing him...
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,294
    "The most accurate pollster at the GE"... one is reminded of the investment reminder that "past performance is no guide to future success."
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976

    50/1

    What price was Jezza in 2015??

    100/1 as the nominations closed. A good betting day on PB ;)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,540

    King Cole, really? Any more details you can share?

    Not at the moment. Sorry. Will when can. Was at the other end of the table when it was being discussed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976

    Thank God for that; a wicket at last!

    Too little too late for the bowlers though. 400 was a good score, if they get close to 500 it’s going to be all over.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    King Cole, no problem :)

    Games and esports can be useful in some surprising ways. A bug with World of Warcraft that effectively created a plague led to a wide variety of player behaviour that was actually useful to scientists. Some players isolated themselves to avoid infecting others, whilst some deliberately tried to spread the disease.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,896

    IanB2 said:

    We are likely to get a free trade agreement on goods, with some concessions around free movement, as our fruit and vegetables won't pick themselves. We are very unlikely to get a free trade agreement on services, and will have to buy any concessions on services with commitments to make ongoing payments to the EU badged as contributions to east Europe

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:


    My guess is that the EU will be happy for tarrif free access for goods as long as we follow their rules.

    Manufactured goods and maybe agriculture, not most services nor freedom of movement as is the case with the EU's FTA with Canada.
    This is the whole point. FTAs do not involve following the other person's rules. That is part of the SM. FTAs involve accepting that the other nation's rules are acceptable (eg equivalent) to your own.

    If we agree an FTA where we follow the EUs rules, then we simply give away all the benefits of leaving the SM and the EU. Which is exactly what the EU aim to do.

    The UK HAS NO NEED of an FTA to cover goods. There is no mutual benefit in this case. Unless the FTA covers services, there is absolutely no benefit to the UK in signing it.
    And what will the British regulatory standards be in future?
    The EU does not know (and probably neither do we). Given the likes of Hammond have talked openly about undercutting them...
    As the Commission have said - we are looking at how to manage a divergence of rules - which is a different challenge.

    The Dan Hannan talk of a bonfire of red tape is I suspect very unhelpful.
    What Gove is doing to maintain standards is probably much better to reassure our trading partners.
    It is frankly none of the EUs business what our regulatory standards are going to be in the future. The way an FTA works is that where there is regulatory equivalence, both side accept each others standards. Where there is not, you have to comply with the standards of the country to whom you export. But our internal standards and regulations are our business.

    The challenge is not difficult - it is just that the EU are rightly scared to death that the moment we leave we will become far more efficient by ditching all the pointless regulation on which the EU is so obsessed. So they will try and force us to comply with their regulations even though that is not appropriate for an FTA. If they want to offer us quasi-SM membership it is reasonable to insist that we follow common standards. But if a CETA FTA is all that is on offer, their demands should be refused. Shame our Government has not got the courage to say no.
    You seem to use a lot of possessive pronouns, for someone living on the other side of the world.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,485

    50/1

    What price was Jezza in 2015??

    JNWBPM
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976
    edited December 3

    King Cole, really? Any more details you can share?

    Not at the moment. Sorry. Will when can. Was at the other end of the table when it was being discussed.
    Interesting. My assumption was that it was mainly for marketing purposes, to tap in to the massive new market for professional-level gaming among a young demographic that don’t usually follow F1. The gaming market has taken off massively in the past 2-3 years, with hundreds of people getting involved, especially in the US market which F1 is desperate to crack. Video game tournaments now offer five-figure prizes and are genuinely professional.

    I recall a few years ago, Nissan ran a similar competition with the first prize a season’s contract to race their real GT car. That winner was Jann Mardenborough, who a decade later is still a top GT racer.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,540
    Roger said:

    50/1

    What price was Jezza in 2015??

    JNWBPM
    JWNBPM, surely?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,340
    Farage on Marr. I think he should mention the fact that the BBC allowed someone in Harlow to say that Farage had blood on his hands over the murder of the Polish man there.
  • franklynfranklyn Posts: 111
    I backed Corbyn at 25-1 and Macron at 20-1. I backed Jacob Rees Mogg at 25-1 and remain optiistic
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,485
    edited December 3

    Roger said:

    50/1

    What price was Jezza in 2015??

    JNWBPM
    JWNBPM, surely?
    Correct and thank you! (Can you split an infinitive with an acronym?)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729
    edited December 3

    Roger said:

    50/1

    What price was Jezza in 2015??

    JNWBPM
    JWNBPM, surely?
    Roger may have decided Jeremy Now Will Be PM.

    It's hardly perfect grammar and I think it's wrong but it would make sense :smiley:

    More seriously I think any current price for Corbyn as next PM is too long. There has to be (a) an unexpected election that the Tories cannot install a replacement for - which would in a real emergency take one week - and (b) he has to win. The odds of the first happening cannot be more than 1 in 10 and the second is a fifty/fifty shot at best.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    We are likely to get a free trade agreement on goods, with some concessions around free movement, as our fruit and vegetables won't pick themselves. We are very unlikely to get a free trade agreement on services, and will have to buy any concessions on services with commitments to make ongoing payments to the EU badged as contributions to east Europe

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:


    My guess is that the EU will be happy for tarrif free access for goods as long as we follow their rules.

    Manufactured goods and maybe agriculture, not most services nor freedom of movement as is the case with the EU's FTA with Canada.
    This is the whole point. FTAs do not involve following the other person's rules. That is part of the SM. FTAs involve accepting that the other nation's rules are acceptable (eg equivalent) to your own.

    If we agree an FTA where we follow the EUs rules, then we simply give away all the benefits of leaving the SM and the EU. Which is exactly what the EU aim to do.

    The Dan Hannan talk of a bonfire of red tape is I suspect very unhelpful.
    What Gove is doing to maintain standards is probably much better to reassure our trading partners.
    It is frankly none of the EUs business what our regulatory standards are going to be in the future. The way an FTA works is that where there is regulatory equivalence, both side accept each others standards. Where there is not, you have to comply with the standards of the country to whom you export. But our internal standards and regulations are our business.

    The challenge is not difficult - it is just that the EU are rightly scared to death that the moment we leave we will become far more efficient by ditching all the pointless regulation on which the EU is so obsessed. So they will try and force us to comply with their regulations even though that is not appropriate for an FTA. If they want to offer us quasi-SM membership it is reasonable to insist that we follow common standards. But if a CETA FTA is all that is on offer, their demands should be refused. Shame our Government has not got the courage to say no.
    You seem to use a lot of possessive pronouns, for someone living on the other side of the world.
    Does @archer101au pass Norman Tebbitt's cricket test?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited December 3
    Of course in 1975 Thatcher only ran because Joseph did not and so with Joseph at 7-2 already in the betting then there was clearly awareness the Tory Party may pick a leader with a more right-wing take on economics. The involvement of the membership since 2001 also has influenced things.

    That October 2015 poll of Tory members proved to be pretty accurate given May was already the leading candidate of those who actually stood for the leadership in June 2016.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976
    They bloody declared! This is not going to be a very nice hour and a half in the dark for England’s openers...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    ydoethur said:

    That list of failed favourites is missing the following:

    Maudling 1965
    Butler (twice) 1957 and 1963
    Hailsham 1963 (arguably)
    Halifax (arguably) 1940
    Curzon 1923
    Austen Chamberlain (although he was successful later) 1911
    Stafford Northcote 1881-85

    The favourite has succeeded on the following occasions since Derby in 1846:

    Disraeli 1868
    Balfour 1902
    Austen Chamberlain at the second attempt in 1921
    Neville Chamberlain in 1937
    Antony Eden in 1955

    The latter list have in common that with the partial exception of the first they were all disastrous failures.

    In Tory terms, electing the favourite doesn't work.

    Macmillan was probably favourite in 1957 though Butler was favourite in 1963, Howard favourite in 2003 (albeit elected unopposed), Maudling may well have done better than Heath.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,925
    Sandpit said:

    They bloody declared! This is not going to be a very nice hour and a half in the dark for England’s openers...

    Very aggresive captaincy by Smith (Now looking vindicated with Stoneman gone). Not sure Root will be bowling first again if he wins the toss.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,318
    edited December 3
    So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 1,835
    TOPPING said:

    So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.

    Quite the reverse. London will be in a much better position to weather the impact than Stoke or Sunderland.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,540
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    50/1

    What price was Jezza in 2015??

    JNWBPM
    JWNBPM, surely?
    Correct and thank you! (Can you split an infinitive with an acronym?)
    No, I think you need a synonym!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    New ICM poll for the Sun gives Labour a 1% lead, while 71% think Prince Harry marrying Meghan Markle will boost the image of the royal family.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5053804/meghan-markle-will-make-royal-family-modern-say-brits/
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,540
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    That list of failed favourites is missing the following:

    Maudling 1965
    Butler (twice) 1957 and 1963
    Hailsham 1963 (arguably)
    Halifax (arguably) 1940
    Curzon 1923
    Austen Chamberlain (although he was successful later) 1911
    Stafford Northcote 1881-85

    The favourite has succeeded on the following occasions since Derby in 1846:

    Disraeli 1868
    Balfour 1902
    Austen Chamberlain at the second attempt in 1921
    Neville Chamberlain in 1937
    Antony Eden in 1955

    The latter list have in common that with the partial exception of the first they were all disastrous failures.

    In Tory terms, electing the favourite doesn't work.

    Macmillan was probably favourite in 1957 though Butler was favourite in 1963, Howard favourite in 2003 (albeit elected unopposed), Maudling may well have done better than Heath.
    Agree about Macmilland and Butler. Don’t think Maudling was ever that likely. IIRC there was some sort of scandal......development in the North East/Yorkshire. Paulson. (witrhout checking!)
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 294



    The political will in the EU to accept any old standards that we choose to have for our exports to them is not there, and is IMO clearly unreasonable ("Here, have our old sardine tins that we once bought from Peru"). Naturally we can waive standards for imports if we don't care what crap people sell us, but one sided-waiving of standards will do interesting things to the balance of payments.

    But there's very little interest in any significant group in diverging standards. Industry think they're a nuisance ("all our products now have to satisfy two different sets of regs? Ugh."). Ministers don't AFAIK have many particular differences in mind that they are longing to achieve. And voters think this is technical stuff. The only political element to it is who determines that the standards are still the same, and a political deal is needed to satisfy Brexiteers that the answer to that is not the European Court of Justice.

    I think that this is missing the point. Product standards are usually set (or at least strongly influenced) globally, which is why it is now much easier for countries to sign FTAs. The advantage of leaving the EU is not in product standards, for which I agree that very few changes are required, but in the myriad of other regulation that the EU imposes which go far beyond any needed for trade. The EU are clearly terrified that the UK will reduce these regulations and undercut them on cost, flexibility and, yes, taxes.

    The reason that FTAs never have any trouble with disputes is that they are always referred to an independent arbitrator but as they largely relate to product standards they are not that hard to resolve. But the EU are planning to try and hold the UK within their overall regulatory framework, not just product standards, and that will require them to involve the ECJ. The fight over ECJ for citizens is just a precursor for the real fight over regulatory control. If you follow what Barnier is saying, it is quite clear.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,318

    TOPPING said:

    So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.

    Quite the reverse. London will be in a much better position to weather the impact than Stoke or Sunderland.
    Huh? Is that complicated irony? London voted remain and London average income > Stoke/Sunderland average income and the headlines are noting how the good Leave-voting folk of Stoke/Sunderland are not set to benefit from Brexit so not sure what is contradictory about my statement.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,540
    Raining in Adelaide again.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,049
    Roger said:

    Almost all the pre Referendum Tory leadership look like class acts against the pitiful team built by Theresa. Osborne is certainly head and shoulderrs above all of this lot but even Cameron-despite his colossal error-would give us a quiet sense of security.

    We'll make a Cameroon of you yet, Roger.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,049
    HYUFD said:

    Of course in 1975 Thatcher only ran because Joseph did not and so with Joseph at 7-2 already in the betting then there was clearly awareness the Tory Party may pick a leader with a more right-wing take on economics. The involvement of the membership since 2001 also has influenced things.

    That October 2015 poll of Tory members proved to be pretty accurate given May was already the leading candidate of those who actually stood for the leadership in June 2016.

    The 50/1 was incredible. She should have been no longer than 20/1.

    Is Hunt today the betting Thatcher of 1975?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,540
    edited December 3
    Are we likely to do deals with Thailand on food? (Other than prawns. I’m looking forward to my king prawn starter from Thailand on Christmas Day.)

    The research, from Ecological Alert and Recovery – Thailand (EARTH) and Thailand Pesticide Alert Network (Thai-PAN), found that Samut Sakhon had the highest levels of dioxin contamination. The level of contaminants known as polybrominated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans (PBDD/Fs) was 33 times higher than European Union standards, Meanwhile, 46 per cent and 55 per cent respectively of fruit and vegetables were found to contain pesticides and herbicides.
    Ref https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1014186-study-finds-high-pesticide-levels-in-local-food/?utm_source=newsletter-20171203-0915&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news

    Just saying.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 294

    IanB2 said:



    You seem to use a lot of possessive pronouns, for someone living on the other side of the world.

    Does @archer101au pass Norman Tebbitt's cricket test?
    I am British, so it should not come as a surprise that i refer to Britain as 'we' or 'our'. It is more of a surprise when Remainers do it.

    No, I don't pass the cricket test. I still support England (God knows why) not really because I cannot transfer allegiances, but because the Australian cricket team are so unlikeable, something that most Australians also concede. But, as I am not an Australian citizen, I still get to choose.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited December 3
    Letter to May organised by 'Leave means Leave' and signed by Tory MPs Owen Patterson, John Redwood, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Labour MP Graham Stringer, Lord Lawson, economist Patrick Minford and a number of Leave supporting businessmen including John Mills, Peter Hargreaves and Tim Martin say unless the UK gets a trade deal by March, leaves ECJ jurisdiction and is able to pursue its own trade deals post March 2019, May should walk away and go to WTO terms and not pay the EU anything.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5054361/top-tories-tell-theresa-may-to-give-brexit-divorce-bill-ultimatum/
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,925

    Raining in Adelaide again.

    Live to the England dressing room:

  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 1,835
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.

    Quite the reverse. London will be in a much better position to weather the impact than Stoke or Sunderland.
    Huh? Is that complicated irony? London voted remain and London average income > Stoke/Sunderland average income and the headlines are noting how the good Leave-voting folk of Stoke/Sunderland are not set to benefit from Brexit so not sure what is contradictory about my statement.
    I was agreeing with you! Not only will it not help - life will be worse for them.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,049
    HYUFD said:

    New ICM poll for the Sun gives Labour a 1% lead, while 71% think Prince Harry marrying Meghan Markle will boost the image of the royal family.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5053804/meghan-markle-will-make-royal-family-modern-say-brits/

    I think they'll both do wonders for the Commonwealth.

    It's hard not to feel quite a bit of respect for Harry. He's already clocked up one big achievement, with his Invictus Games, and he's probably doing more than any other Royal to support and promote the Commonwealth overseas.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 449
    And this is right next to a thread predicting Jeremy Corbyn will have a majority of 10 in 2022.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,540
    edited December 3

    IanB2 said:



    You seem to use a lot of possessive pronouns, for someone living on the other side of the world.

    Does @archer101au pass Norman Tebbitt's cricket test?
    I am British, so it should not come as a surprise that i refer to Britain as 'we' or 'our'. It is more of a surprise when Remainers do it.

    No, I don't pass the cricket test. I still support England (God knows why) not really because I cannot transfer allegiances, but because the Australian cricket team are so unlikeable, something that most Australians also concede. But, as I am not an Australian citizen, I still get to choose.
    I find your first para slightly offensive. I’m British and European. Wales for Rugby, England for cricket and Europe for the Ryder Cup!
    Oh, and Essex for county cricket.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,318

    IanB2 said:



    You seem to use a lot of possessive pronouns, for someone living on the other side of the world.

    Does @archer101au pass Norman Tebbitt's cricket test?
    I am British, so it should not come as a surprise that i refer to Britain as 'we' or 'our'. It is more of a surprise when Remainers do it.

    No, I don't pass the cricket test. I still support England (God knows why) not really because I cannot transfer allegiances, but because the Australian cricket team are so unlikeable, something that most Australians also concede. But, as I am not an Australian citizen, I still get to choose.
    Yes it's much more surprising that Remainers who live and pay their taxes here refer to Britain as "we" or "our" than Leave voters who have f**cked off abroad to live.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,318
    edited December 3

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.

    Quite the reverse. London will be in a much better position to weather the impact than Stoke or Sunderland.
    Huh? Is that complicated irony? London voted remain and London average income > Stoke/Sunderland average income and the headlines are noting how the good Leave-voting folk of Stoke/Sunderland are not set to benefit from Brexit so not sure what is contradictory about my statement.
    I was agreeing with you! Not only will it not help - life will be worse for them.
    Aaarrgh!

    Early + last night x (too much gin + a bottle of barolo I found in the cupboard) = not getting it this morning.

    Apols.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073

    HYUFD said:

    Of course in 1975 Thatcher only ran because Joseph did not and so with Joseph at 7-2 already in the betting then there was clearly awareness the Tory Party may pick a leader with a more right-wing take on economics. The involvement of the membership since 2001 also has influenced things.

    That October 2015 poll of Tory members proved to be pretty accurate given May was already the leading candidate of those who actually stood for the leadership in June 2016.

    The 50/1 was incredible. She should have been no longer than 20/1.

    Is Hunt today the betting Thatcher of 1975?
    No as like 1975 the Tories do not want another Remainer just as they did not want another Heathite then, plus of course members get the final say.

    Thatcher simply filled the gap left by Joseph's withdrawal, had Joseph stood he may well have won and would have had Thatcher's backing, Joseph was already a very close third favourite then.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 865

    IanB2 said:

    We are likely to get a free trade agreement on goods, with some concessions around free movement, as our fruit and vegetables won't pick themselves. We are very unlikely to get a free trade agreement on services, and will have to buy any concessions on services with commitments to make ongoing payments to the EU badged as contributions to east Europe reconstruction.

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:


    My guess is that the EU will be happy for tarrif free access for goods as long as we follow their rules.

    Manufactured goods and maybe agriculture, not most services nor freedom of movement as is the case with the EU's FTA with Canada.
    This is the whole point. FTAs do not involve following the other person's rules. That is part of the SM. FTAs involve accepting that the other nation's rules are acceptable (eg equivalent) to your own.



    The UK HAS NO NEED of an FTA to cover goods. There is no mutual benefit in this case. Unless the FTA covers services, there is absolutely no benefit to the UK in signing it.
    And what will the British regulatory standards be in future?

    The Dan Hannan talk of a bonfire of red tape is I suspect very unhelpful.
    What Gove is doing to maintain standards is probably much better to reassure our trading partners.
    It is frankly none of the EUs business what our regulatory standards are going to be in the future. The way an FTA works is that where there is regulatory equivalence, both side accept each others standards. Where there is not, you have to comply with the standards of the country to whom you export. But our internal standards and regulations are our business.

    The challenge is not difficult - it is just that the EU are rightly scared to death that the moment we leave we will become far more efficient by ditching all the pointless regulation on which the EU is so obsessed. So they will try and force us to comply with their regulations even though that is not appropriate for an FTA. If they want to offer us quasi-SM membership it is reasonable to insist that we follow common standards. But if a CETA FTA is all that is on offer, their demands should be refused. Shame our Government has not got the courage to say no.
    Catch 22! If we are to trade with other countries, true, they will not give a damn about our rules, but on the other hand, they will care about what is acceptable to allow in through their borders. To put it more succinctly, they will watch with amusement our playing "Jerusalem" on the swanney whistle out of our respective backsides, but if we want to dance with them, then it will be to their tune.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    King Cole, golfism, the most depraved of sporting vices.

    F1: just idly checking the market, and seen some small changes. Shortening in Bottas' price (now 9 on Betfair Exchange) and lengthening of Verstappen/Alonso. Could be just statistical bobbling, might indicate doubts over the Renault engine.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073

    HYUFD said:

    New ICM poll for the Sun gives Labour a 1% lead, while 71% think Prince Harry marrying Meghan Markle will boost the image of the royal family.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5053804/meghan-markle-will-make-royal-family-modern-say-brits/

    I think they'll both do wonders for the Commonwealth.

    It's hard not to feel quite a bit of respect for Harry. He's already clocked up one big achievement, with his Invictus Games, and he's probably doing more than any other Royal to support and promote the Commonwealth overseas.
    Yes, Harry is now the most popular royal and his choosing to marry a woman of mixed race shows he is fully in tune with the 21st century and also makes the royal family more reflective of the Commonwealth it heads.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    TOPPING said:

    IanB2 said:



    You seem to use a lot of possessive pronouns, for someone living on the other side of the world.

    Does @archer101au pass Norman Tebbitt's cricket test?
    I am British, so it should not come as a surprise that i refer to Britain as 'we' or 'our'. It is more of a surprise when Remainers do it.

    No, I don't pass the cricket test. I still support England (God knows why) not really because I cannot transfer allegiances, but because the Australian cricket team are so unlikeable, something that most Australians also concede. But, as I am not an Australian citizen, I still get to choose.
    Yes it's much more surprising that Remainers who live and pay their taxes here refer to Britain as "we" or "our" than Leave voters who have f**cked off abroad to live.
    Several of PB's staunchest Leavers have, err, Left...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976

    Raining in Adelaide again.

    Can we have three more days of rain in Adelaide please!!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited December 3

    TOPPING said:

    IanB2 said:



    You seem to use a lot of possessive pronouns, for someone living on the other side of the world.

    Does @archer101au pass Norman Tebbitt's cricket test?
    I am British, so it should not come as a surprise that i refer to Britain as 'we' or 'our'. It is more of a surprise when Remainers do it.

    No, I don't pass the cricket test. I still support England (God knows why) not really because I cannot transfer allegiances, but because the Australian cricket team are so unlikeable, something that most Australians also concede. But, as I am not an Australian citizen, I still get to choose.
    Yes it's much more surprising that Remainers who live and pay their taxes here refer to Britain as "we" or "our" than Leave voters who have f**cked off abroad to live.
    Several of PB's staunchest Leavers have, err, Left...
    I expect if Corbyn gets in many more Tory Leavers will follow, far better to comment on Corbyn's Premiership and post Brexit UK from a sunny tax haven like Singapore, the UAE or Bermuda, Belize or the Bahamas rather than to actually live through it.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328

    TOPPING said:

    So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.

    Quite the reverse. London will be in a much better position to weather the impact than Stoke or Sunderland.
    It depends. London's international links, immigrant diasporas, and young educated workforce will do well in a buccaneer free market world, much less so in a neo-Peronist Identitarian Britain. Mid you, in the latter few will do well.
  • ydoethur said:

    That list of failed favourites is missing the following:

    Maudling 1965
    Butler (twice) 1957 and 1963
    Hailsham 1963 (arguably)
    Halifax (arguably) 1940
    Curzon 1923
    Austen Chamberlain (although he was successful later) 1911
    Stafford Northcote 1881-85

    The favourite has succeeded on the following occasions since Derby in 1846:

    Disraeli 1868
    Balfour 1902
    Austen Chamberlain at the second attempt in 1921
    Neville Chamberlain in 1937
    Antony Eden in 1955

    The latter list have in common that with the partial exception of the first they were all disastrous failures.

    In Tory terms, electing the favourite doesn't work.

    I decided to focus solely on after the end of the magic circle.

    I'm a fan of bringing back the magic circle now.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    IanB2 said:



    You seem to use a lot of possessive pronouns, for someone living on the other side of the world.

    Does @archer101au pass Norman Tebbitt's cricket test?
    I am British, so it should not come as a surprise that i refer to Britain as 'we' or 'our'. It is more of a surprise when Remainers do it.

    No, I don't pass the cricket test. I still support England (God knows why) not really because I cannot transfer allegiances, but because the Australian cricket team are so unlikeable, something that most Australians also concede. But, as I am not an Australian citizen, I still get to choose.
    Yes it's much more surprising that Remainers who live and pay their taxes here refer to Britain as "we" or "our" than Leave voters who have f**cked off abroad to live.
    Several of PB's staunchest Leavers have, err, Left...
    I expect if Corbyn gets in many more Tory Leavers will follow, far better to comment on Corbyn's Premiership and post Brexit UK from a sunny tax haven like Singapore, the UAE or Bermuda, Belize or the Bahamas rather than to actually live through it.
    I think that @RCS1000 is correct in forecasting at least one year of net emigration. The question will be whether the Citizens of Nowhere are those fleeing Corbynism or those fleeing Moggism.
  • HYUFD said:

    Of course in 1975 Thatcher only ran because Joseph did not and so with Joseph at 7-2 already in the betting then there was clearly awareness the Tory Party may pick a leader with a more right-wing take on economics. The involvement of the membership since 2001 also has influenced things.

    That October 2015 poll of Tory members proved to be pretty accurate given May was already the leading candidate of those who actually stood for the leadership in June 2016.

    The 50/1 was incredible. She should have been no longer than 20/1.

    Is Hunt today the betting Thatcher of 1975?
    Yup, the number of Tory Leavers I know who have said they'd back Hunt over someone like JRM and Boris is growing.

    I get the feeling you'd back Hunt over those two?
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,708

    TOPPING said:

    IanB2 said:



    You seem to use a lot of possessive pronouns, for someone living on the other side of the world.

    Does @archer101au pass Norman Tebbitt's cricket test?
    I am British, so it should not come as a surprise that i refer to Britain as 'we' or 'our'. It is more of a surprise when Remainers do it.

    No, I don't pass the cricket test. I still support England (God knows why) not really because I cannot transfer allegiances, but because the Australian cricket team are so unlikeable, something that most Australians also concede. But, as I am not an Australian citizen, I still get to choose.
    Yes it's much more surprising that Remainers who live and pay their taxes here refer to Britain as "we" or "our" than Leave voters who have f**cked off abroad to live.
    Several of PB's staunchest Leavers have, err, Left...
    And some staunch Remainers have remained ....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited December 3
    Pew Research projected Muslim population in Europe by 2050.

    Sweden has the highest projected at 21%, then France at 17% then the UK at 16%.

    Poland, Latvia and Lithuania have the least projected at under 0.5%.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/937258767707754496
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 294
    OchEye said:



    Catch 22! If we are to trade with other countries, true, they will not give a damn about our rules, but on the other hand, they will care about what is acceptable to allow in through their borders. To put it more succinctly, they will watch with amusement our playing "Jerusalem" on the swanney whistle out of our respective backsides, but if we want to dance with them, then it will be to their tune.

    You have missed the point here. The rule of international trade is that you comply with the product standards of the country to which you are importing absent an FTA which establishes equivalence. The issue with the EU is not going to be product standards, it is their overall regulatory system and trying to hold the UK within that so that we do not out-compete them. This is the error in the whole EU ethos, which is why they are really a hindrance to international free trade (as the WTO have commented many times).

    There is no Catch 22. Under FTAs, you agree product standards and very, very high level limitations on anti-competitive behaviour (eg dumping) - you do NOT try and tie in your trading partners to your internal social, environmental and economic policies. But, make no mistake, that is what the EUI intend to do with the UK, mainly because they know that May will never walk away.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 476
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    New ICM poll for the Sun gives Labour a 1% lead, while 71% think Prince Harry marrying Meghan Markle will boost the image of the royal family.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5053804/meghan-markle-will-make-royal-family-modern-say-brits/

    I think they'll both do wonders for the Commonwealth.

    It's hard not to feel quite a bit of respect for Harry. He's already clocked up one big achievement, with his Invictus Games, and he's probably doing more than any other Royal to support and promote the Commonwealth overseas.
    Yes, Harry is now the most popular royal and his choosing to marry a woman of mixed race shows he is fully in tune with the 21st century and also makes the royal family more reflective of the Commonwealth it heads.
    Surely the fact that she is a divorced American (shades of Wallis Simpson) and Roman Catholic is far more of an issue than the colour of her skin. Is he not barring himself from the succession (currently 5th in line) by this marriage?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328

    ydoethur said:

    That list of failed favourites is missing the following:

    Maudling 1965
    Butler (twice) 1957 and 1963
    Hailsham 1963 (arguably)
    Halifax (arguably) 1940
    Curzon 1923
    Austen Chamberlain (although he was successful later) 1911
    Stafford Northcote 1881-85

    The favourite has succeeded on the following occasions since Derby in 1846:

    Disraeli 1868
    Balfour 1902
    Austen Chamberlain at the second attempt in 1921
    Neville Chamberlain in 1937
    Antony Eden in 1955

    The latter list have in common that with the partial exception of the first they were all disastrous failures.

    In Tory terms, electing the favourite doesn't work.

    I decided to focus solely on after the end of the magic circle.

    I'm a fan of bringing back the magic circle now.
    I think all parties would benefit from having their leaders chosen purely by their MPs (or equivalents in devolved areas).
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 8,837
    Any word on this Survation Scottish poll?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    IanB2 said:



    You seem to use a lot of possessive pronouns, for someone living on the other side of the world.

    Does @archer101au pass Norman Tebbitt's cricket test?
    I am British, so it should not come as a surprise that i refer to Britain as 'we' or 'our'. It is more of a surprise when Remainers do it.

    No, I don't pass the cricket test. I still support England (God knows why) not really because I cannot transfer allegiances, but because the Australian cricket team are so unlikeable, something that most Australians also concede. But, as I am not an Australian citizen, I still get to choose.
    Yes it's much more surprising that Remainers who live and pay their taxes here refer to Britain as "we" or "our" than Leave voters who have f**cked off abroad to live.
    Several of PB's staunchest Leavers have, err, Left...
    I expect if Corbyn gets in many more Tory Leavers will follow, far better to comment on Corbyn's Premiership and post Brexit UK from a sunny tax haven like Singapore, the UAE or Bermuda, Belize or the Bahamas rather than to actually live through it.
    I think that @RCS1000 is correct in forecasting at least one year of net emigration. The question will be whether the Citizens of Nowhere are those fleeing Corbynism or those fleeing Moggism.
    They would presumably be fleeing both
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    Mr. daodao, point of order: she's going to become an Anglican.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,494

    HYUFD said:

    Of course in 1975 Thatcher only ran because Joseph did not and so with Joseph at 7-2 already in the betting then there was clearly awareness the Tory Party may pick a leader with a more right-wing take on economics. The involvement of the membership since 2001 also has influenced things.

    That October 2015 poll of Tory members proved to be pretty accurate given May was already the leading candidate of those who actually stood for the leadership in June 2016.

    The 50/1 was incredible. She should have been no longer than 20/1.

    Is Hunt today the betting Thatcher of 1975?
    Yup, the number of Tory Leavers I know who have said they'd back Hunt over someone like JRM and Boris is growing.

    I get the feeling you'd back Hunt over those two?
    Agreed. Hunt is winning my straw poll too.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,157
    Meanwhile Labour continues to edge back towards EU membership millimetre by millimetre (those last two are units of measurement popular on the continent for any really hardcore leavers).

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-01/corbyn-heads-to-portugal-as-u-k-labour-develops-ties-with-eu

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976

    King Cole, golfism, the most depraved of sporting vices.

    F1: just idly checking the market, and seen some small changes. Shortening in Bottas' price (now 9 on Betfair Exchange) and lengthening of Verstappen/Alonso. Could be just statistical bobbling, might indicate doubts over the Renault engine.

    My view, FWIW, is that the Renault will be competitive but unreliable. performance almost always comes before reliability as engines develop. Only three engines allowed next year. Alonso will be spraying champagne a few times, but it won’t be enough against Mercedes and Ferrari.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    daodao said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    New ICM poll for the Sun gives Labour a 1% lead, while 71% think Prince Harry marrying Meghan Markle will boost the image of the royal family.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5053804/meghan-markle-will-make-royal-family-modern-say-brits/

    I think they'll both do wonders for the Commonwealth.

    It's hard not to feel quite a bit of respect for Harry. He's already clocked up one big achievement, with his Invictus Games, and he's probably doing more than any other Royal to support and promote the Commonwealth overseas.
    Yes, Harry is now the most popular royal and his choosing to marry a woman of mixed race shows he is fully in tune with the 21st century and also makes the royal family more reflective of the Commonwealth it heads.
    Surely the fact that she is a divorced American (shades of Wallis Simpson) and Roman Catholic is far more of an issue than the colour of her skin. Is he not barring himself from the succession (currently 5th in line) by this marriage?
    Hence her conversion to Anglicanism.

    It is a commoner, and of mixed ethnicity, that makes her most interesting. It is a fundamental modernisation of the basis of Monarchy. Monarchy, like all Aristocracy, is based on bloodline and the explicit idea that inheritance matters. Monarchy is the antithesis of self improvement and meritocracy.
  • calumcalum Posts: 2,845
    Alistair said:

    Any word on this Survation Scottish poll?

    The DM will no doubt be sitting on it and trying to find some nugget of good news for the forces of Unionism to lead with.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 476
    edited December 3
    HYUFD said:

    Pew Research projected Muslim population in Europe by 2050.

    Sweden has the highest projected at 21%, then France at 17% then the UK at 16%.

    Poland, Latvia and Lithuania have the least projected at under 0.5%.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/937258767707754496

    Once the population of a distinct minority with alien values that wishes to maintain its separateness reaches 5%, it may be perceived by the native population as a threat, and this is much more likely once it reaches 10%. The consequences are potentially dire. The 3 countries with a Muslim population predicted at <0.5% in 2050 have had previous experience of separate alien minorities and it did not work out well - remember what Latvians and Lithuanians did in the 2nd half of 1941.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    daodao said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    New ICM poll for the Sun gives Labour a 1% lead, while 71% think Prince Harry marrying Meghan Markle will boost the image of the royal family.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5053804/meghan-markle-will-make-royal-family-modern-say-brits/

    I think they'll both do wonders for the Commonwealth.

    It's hard not to feel quite a bit of respect for Harry. He's already clocked up one big achievement, with his Invictus Games, and he's probably doing more than any other Royal to support and promote the Commonwealth overseas.
    Yes, Harry is now the most popular royal and his choosing to marry a woman of mixed race shows he is fully in tune with the 21st century and also makes the royal family more reflective of the Commonwealth it heads.
    Surely the fact that she is a divorced American (shades of Wallis Simpson) and Roman Catholic is far more of an issue than the colour of her skin. Is he not barring himself from the succession (currently 5th in line) by this marriage?
    No as she is going to be confirmed into the Anglican Church and Prince Charles has married a divorcee.
    https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9mSs3dY0SNazR0AUQdB4iA5;_ylu=X3oDMTByMWk2OWNtBGNvbG8DaXIyBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1512325593/RO=10/RU=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/world/europe/uk-royal-wedding-harry-meghan-markle.html/RK=2/RS=ajJTTeXj4ylAaharialcWzVOIBs-
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937
    daodao said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    New ICM poll for the Sun gives Labour a 1% lead, while 71% think Prince Harry marrying Meghan Markle will boost the image of the royal family.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5053804/meghan-markle-will-make-royal-family-modern-say-brits/

    I think they'll both do wonders for the Commonwealth.

    It's hard not to feel quite a bit of respect for Harry. He's already clocked up one big achievement, with his Invictus Games, and he's probably doing more than any other Royal to support and promote the Commonwealth overseas.
    Yes, Harry is now the most popular royal and his choosing to marry a woman of mixed race shows he is fully in tune with the 21st century and also makes the royal family more reflective of the Commonwealth it heads.
    Surely the fact that she is a divorced American (shades of Wallis Simpson) and Roman Catholic is far more of an issue than the colour of her skin. Is he not barring himself from the succession (currently 5th in line) by this marriage?
    No. Succession to the Crown Act 2013.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,315
    edited December 3


    I think that @RCS1000 is correct in forecasting at least one year of net emigration. The question will be whether the Citizens of Nowhere are those fleeing Corbynism or those fleeing Moggism.

    The Grand Unifying Theory of both of these is that they're fleeing a country that's disappeared so far up its own arsehole that both its main political parties are now caricatures of themselves from the 1970s.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976
    A very interesting comment piece about the EU trade negotiations - suggesting that we turn them on their head, starting with WTO and adding value, rather than starting with the status quo and subtracting as the EU will want to do.
    http://commentcentral.co.uk/the-dummies-guide-to-negotiating-with-the-eu/
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,485
    TOPPING said:

    So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.

    I dont think they were worried about being less poor. Just less foreign
  • Alistair said:

    Any word on this Survation Scottish poll?

    I think it might be for one of the Scottish papers this week.

    I've dropped Damian an email asking for an ETA and the client.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,896

    daodao said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    New ICM poll for the Sun gives Labour a 1% lead, while 71% think Prince Harry marrying Meghan Markle will boost the image of the royal family.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5053804/meghan-markle-will-make-royal-family-modern-say-brits/

    I think they'll both do wonders for the Commonwealth.

    It's hard not to feel quite a bit of respect for Harry. He's already clocked up one big achievement, with his Invictus Games, and he's probably doing more than any other Royal to support and promote the Commonwealth overseas.
    Yes, Harry is now the most popular royal and his choosing to marry a woman of mixed race shows he is fully in tune with the 21st century and also makes the royal family more reflective of the Commonwealth it heads.
    Surely the fact that she is a divorced American (shades of Wallis Simpson) and Roman Catholic is far more of an issue than the colour of her skin. Is he not barring himself from the succession (currently 5th in line) by this marriage?
    Hence her conversion to Anglicanism.

    It is a commoner, and of mixed ethnicity, that makes her most interesting. It is a fundamental modernisation of the basis of Monarchy. Monarchy, like all Aristocracy, is based on bloodline and the explicit idea that inheritance matters. Monarchy is the antithesis of self improvement and meritocracy.
    Hence? That law has gone.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,477

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    That list of failed favourites is missing the following:

    Maudling 1965
    Butler (twice) 1957 and 1963
    Hailsham 1963 (arguably)
    Halifax (arguably) 1940
    Curzon 1923
    Austen Chamberlain (although he was successful later) 1911
    Stafford Northcote 1881-85

    The favourite has succeeded on the following occasions since Derby in 1846:

    Disraeli 1868
    Balfour 1902
    Austen Chamberlain at the second attempt in 1921
    Neville Chamberlain in 1937
    Antony Eden in 1955

    The latter list have in common that with the partial exception of the first they were all disastrous failures.

    In Tory terms, electing the favourite doesn't work.

    Macmillan was probably favourite in 1957 though Butler was favourite in 1963, Howard favourite in 2003 (albeit elected unopposed), Maudling may well have done better than Heath.
    Agree about Macmilland and Butler. Don’t think Maudling was ever that likely. IIRC there was some sort of scandal......development in the North East/Yorkshire. Paulson. (witrhout checking!)
    But the Poulson affair did not come to light until the early 1970s when Maudling was Home Secretary and felt obliged to resign from the Heath Government.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976

    HYUFD said:

    Of course in 1975 Thatcher only ran because Joseph did not and so with Joseph at 7-2 already in the betting then there was clearly awareness the Tory Party may pick a leader with a more right-wing take on economics. The involvement of the membership since 2001 also has influenced things.

    That October 2015 poll of Tory members proved to be pretty accurate given May was already the leading candidate of those who actually stood for the leadership in June 2016.

    The 50/1 was incredible. She should have been no longer than 20/1.

    Is Hunt today the betting Thatcher of 1975?
    Yup, the number of Tory Leavers I know who have said they'd back Hunt over someone like JRM and Boris is growing.

    I get the feeling you'd back Hunt over those two?
    Yup. Not voting for Boris (even his own wife doesn’t trust him) and JRM is too inexperienced to go straight in as PM.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937
    HYUFD said:

    daodao said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    New ICM poll for the Sun gives Labour a 1% lead, while 71% think Prince Harry marrying Meghan Markle will boost the image of the royal family.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5053804/meghan-markle-will-make-royal-family-modern-say-brits/

    I think they'll both do wonders for the Commonwealth.

    It's hard not to feel quite a bit of respect for Harry. He's already clocked up one big achievement, with his Invictus Games, and he's probably doing more than any other Royal to support and promote the Commonwealth overseas.
    Yes, Harry is now the most popular royal and his choosing to marry a woman of mixed race shows he is fully in tune with the 21st century and also makes the royal family more reflective of the Commonwealth it heads.
    Surely the fact that she is a divorced American (shades of Wallis Simpson) and Roman Catholic is far more of an issue than the colour of her skin. Is he not barring himself from the succession (currently 5th in line) by this marriage?
    No as she is going to be confirmed into the Anglican Church and Prince Charles has married a divorcee.
    snip insanely long url
    Both irrelevant, as the article you link to actually confirms.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    daodao said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pew Research projected Muslim population in Europe by 2050.

    Sweden has the highest projected at 21%, then France at 17% then the UK at 16%.

    Poland, Latvia and Lithuania have the least projected at under 0.5%.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/937258767707754496

    Once the population of a distinct minority with alien values that wishes to maintain its separateness reaches 5%, it may be perceived by the native population as a threat, and this is much more likely once it reaches 10%. The consequences are potentially dire. The 3 countries with a Muslim population predicted at <0.5% in 2050 have had previous experience of separate alien minorities and it did not work out well - remember what Latvians and Lithuanians did in the 2nd half of 1941. </p>
    The key is ensuring Muslim communities respect British law and culture and while respecting their faith do no try and impose Sharia on the rest of us.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    Mr. Sandpit, probably true but Ferrari added both this year.

    Mr. Sandpit (2), interesting idea on WTO, but can't see May doing that.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,157
    Sandpit said:

    A very interesting comment piece about the EU trade negotiations - suggesting that we turn them on their head, starting with WTO and adding value, rather than starting with the status quo and subtracting as the EU will want to do.
    http://commentcentral.co.uk/the-dummies-guide-to-negotiating-with-the-eu/

    That is an extremely good article. If we had gone with something along those lines on the afternoon of the day after the vote think how different things would have been by now.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,896
    TOPPING said:

    So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.

    ...without significant changes to economic policy - both intervention and redistribution - with which Conservatives would be most uncomfortable. Hence May's near total failure to secure an agenda to pursue her diagnosis. And another reason why the logic of Brexit directs toward a Labour government.
This discussion has been closed.