@GBNEWS has learned 66 Tory MPs have signed the rebel amendments to strengthen the Rwanda Bill. A leader of the rebels tells me: “It is growing. There are people joining rather than leaving.” A senior Tory tells me it is all about momentum going into the votes tomorrow night.
As I have already said, the Government should back the rebel amendments as well as the Buckland amendment.
"Avanti West Coast managers joked about receiving “free money” from government and performance-related payments being “too good to be true” in an internal presentation at the notoriously unreliable train operator, it has emerged.
One slide, entitled “Roll up, roll-up get your free money here!” described how the Treasury and Department for Transport supported the firm with taxpayers’ money, provided third-party suppliers and inspections, and then paid Avanti fees on top."
They are embarrassed at getting caught saying it, but their slides are correct. All aspects of their service are directed by the DfT who set the fees payable for compliance. And its the same with all of the operators.
This is the idiocy of the dogmatic left who foam on about "privatised" operators. Everything is done by the direct edict of civil servants.
There should be proper privatisation.
You operate your business, you charge your customers, no subsidies. You make a profit, or you go bankrupt and lose your assets.
We did that. They went bankrupt, or needed a form of direct subsidy called "cap and collar" to avoid going bankrupt. None of the major private transport companies - with the exception of First - want anything to do with the industry now.
Then let them go bankrupt. What's the problem with that?
If they go bust, they go bust. That's a healthy part of the free market: inefficient businesses go bust and then their assets go in a firesale at pennies in the pound to someone else to manage better.
You're not getting the concept of public utility, are you ?
(Or perhaps you just object to the whole idea on principle.)
Following the last general election, a direct swing of seven percentage points from Conservative to Labour was required for Labour to become the largest party in a hung parliament. The boundary revisions up this target for Labour to a swing of 8.3 percentage points. To gain an overall majority Labour needs a swing of 12.7%, up from 12.0% on the old boundaries. A more difficult task certainly, but perhaps more a matter of degree than of substance. The swing needed is still substantially more than the 10.2% Tony Blair achieved in 1997, and indeed more than double that at any other election since 1945. Any uniform swing from Conservative to Labour of greater than 4.2% and less than 12.7% at the next general election is likely to produce a hung parliament with no one party having an overall majority.
It's an absolute shambles of a piece of analysis / journalism. Tactical voting doesn't seem to have been accounted for, nor the SNP-Lab swing in Scotland. The BBC (and Railings & Thrasher) seem to be stuck in the same two-party state from 1959 when the swingometer was invented. This is not that world.
Labour won a comfortable majority in 2005 with a national lead of under 3%. While I don't expect their vote to be that efficient this year, the idea that they need a lead of 13% for a majority of just 2 is nuts and clearly has been past no sense-checking.
It's not the job of the Rallings and Thrasher notional calculations to take account of tactical voting in the new constituencies.
Notional calculations, no.
But it *is* the job of those putting out a figure as to what lead Labour (or, indeed, the Tories) would need for a majority / largest party to take account of them.
It's no use saying 'this is just a projection' if the reporting is going to state it as a matter of fact; those projections should take into account the best data we have, which includes behaviour in by-elections and opinion polls.
By contrast, Trump's actions and rejection of those norms and conventions have been out in the open. He's made no secret about wanting to change how politics is done, to his own benefit.
"Changing how politics is done" to shift the balance a certain way has been the progressive credo since forever.
Trump's foreign policy is to retreat behind a wall of impenetrable armaments - that's not dissimilar to the way Biden has been going too. As far as the UK is concerned, is this worse for us than the 'liberal interventionism' era? Iraq cost us billions, and did it make the Middle East any more secure, or advance UK interests? Our support for the Maidan protests removing the Russian-backed President and installing a Western-backed Government - what was the outcome there?
If we look back at the Trump era, it's actually quite blissful foreign policy-wise, because we weren't continually asked to spend money and lives being the sidekick. Now, here we are again in Yemen.
This is a take that is at odds with reality.
Why was the withdrawal from Afghanistan a debacle? Because the Trump Whitehouse did a deal with the Taliban and cut out the Afghan government. Biden should have put a stop to it but the origin of the mess is Trump.
Why is Iran and thier proxies being a pain in the arse again? Because the Trump Whitehouse dumped the nuclear deal and assassinated Soleimani, undoing a couple of decades of careful diplomacy.
Why did Russia further its invasion of Ukraine? Because Trump has consistently backed Putin — even to the degree of taking Putin's side against the US intelligence community — and tried to blackmail Ukraine, so Putin thought he had the green light from a friendly US President, and Russia likely would have attacked sooner if not for Covid. Putin was probably too committed by the time that Trump lost the election to his plans to halt, and is now plainly hoping for Trump being elected again.
The idea that "the Trump era, it's actually quite blissful foreign policy-wise" is genuinely a take that I'd only expect to come from one of our enemies. Trump managed to do a lot of damage without even starting any new wars. Trump being elected in 2024 would be a potential calamity of a scale that hardly anyone alive can remember.
I have comments re your comments on Iran but what you say about Russia and Ukraine just doesn't make sense. Russia attacked in 2014 because it believed Obama wouldn't do anything (which was then correct). It then attacked in 2022 under Biden because (again) it assumed the US wouldn't do much (which seems to be correct, if it was not for Johnson's intervention). The US also continued to train Ukraine's military.
Moreover, Russia invaded in February 2022, more than a year after Trump was defeated. Therefore your comment that "Putin was probably too committed by the time that Trump lost the election to his plans to halt" is just not right - he had plenty of time. The fact was he thought that he could get away with it.
I think you are trying to weave an illogical story to avoid what is closer to the truth - Putin thought Trump was genuinely unpredictable and so he didn't want to risk a war (which is implicitly what the article someone posted the other day about war in Europe being closer than we think - Russia believes Europe or the US will be willing to defend Eastern Europe with force, which they would have been less sure of if Trump was in power).
Furthermore the full scale invasion of Ukraine came 8 months after a summit meeting between Biden and Putin. Blaming it on Trump is absurd.
Liz Truss was Foreign Secretary.
Embarrassing. Went and wandered around in her furry hat during mild weather and then got made a complete tit of by Lavrov asking her if Russia was sovereign over Russia and her saying no.
A simple 'majority of registered voters' yes. Note, Brexit would not have passed on that measure (were it deemed to be a constitutional referendum) nor indeed would the 1975 EEC referendum. It's deliberately a high bar. >50% of the electorate need to actively want the change enough to vote for it, for it to pass.
That's a very high bar to clear (and you may have made it deliberately so) when turnout is often between 60% to 75% of the electorate.
You say as well that the 1975 referendum wouldn't have passed, and you'd be right; but what would've happened in this situation? The question was (Wikipedia): "The Government has announced the results of the renegotiation of the United Kingdom's terms of membership of the European Community. Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?"
Yes won with more votes than no. But are you saying that yes shouldn't have won? Yes was also the status quo (sort of) as the UK would've had to have done something to leave.
Your suggestion sort of works, but the way around it is (as the EU did) is to have creeping changes, each slightly more, none significant, until when you suddenly want to leave (or even change course) you find you can't as it would be a Constitutional issue (but the gradual 'joining' wasn't) requiring such a high vote that it's almost impossible to clear.
By contrast, Trump's actions and rejection of those norms and conventions have been out in the open. He's made no secret about wanting to change how politics is done, to his own benefit.
"Changing how politics is done" to shift the balance a certain way has been the progressive credo since forever.
Saying "we needed to bailout" companies "in order to avoid bankruptcy" is precisely the problem and why there is not a proper privatisation or free market.
The state should NEVER bailout* firms to avoid bankruptcy.
It's not the states job to ensure firms avoid bankruptcy, its the firms job. If they fail, they fail, they need to take responsibility. Privatise the gains, privatise the losses.
The second the state starts picking winners, or equally badly preventing losers, you have a problem.
* That's not to be confused with eg having a furlough scheme during COVID etc. That's not a bailout, that's compensation.
Not only that, but bankruptcy does not mean a firm necessarily goes out of business: it means that the owners cease to be owners.
Plenty of firms - like almost every US airline - have been bankrupt without customers noticing a thing
This article gives some idea of the manner in which a second term of Trump might be very different from the first.
No more going wobbly in climate fight, Trump supporters vow https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/12/trump-second-term-climate-science-2024-00132289 ...Dozens of conservative groups have banded together to write climate policy goals that would devastate virtually every regulation of the fossil fuel industry. The Project 2025 effort, led by the Heritage Foundation and partially authored by former Trump administration officials, also would turn key government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, toward increasing fossil fuel production rather than public health protections.
“We are writing a battle plan, and we are marshaling our forces,” Paul Dans, director of Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation, told E&E News for a story last year. “Never before has the whole conservative movement banded together to systematically prepare to take power Day 1 and deconstruct the administrative state.”..
Chiltern Railways' 'ghost bus': Is this Britain's most bizarre route? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67955990 For the past year, a one-way bus service has been running between two places already served by another operator, in order to keep a rail route open. Why? On a crisp January morning at a bus stop outside West Ealing railway station, a rail replacement service pulls in - one that is thought to be the only one of its kind operating in the UK...
..This is a so-called ghost bus, replacing what is known as a parliamentary train - nicknamed a parly train - a service that rail operators are compelled to offer. The terminology dates back to the Railway Regulation Act 1844, which required private companies to provide an affordable minimum service - a penny a mile for a third-class trip - for working people. Companies would often run just a service a day to comply with the legislation...
Chiltern Railways' 'ghost bus': Is this Britain's most bizarre route? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67955990 For the past year, a one-way bus service has been running between two places already served by another operator, in order to keep a rail route open. Why? On a crisp January morning at a bus stop outside West Ealing railway station, a rail replacement service pulls in - one that is thought to be the only one of its kind operating in the UK...
..This is a so-called ghost bus, replacing what is known as a parliamentary train - nicknamed a parly train - a service that rail operators are compelled to offer. The terminology dates back to the Railway Regulation Act 1844, which required private companies to provide an affordable minimum service - a penny a mile for a third-class trip - for working people. Companies would often run just a service a day to comply with the legislation...
I did the actual train from West Ealing towards High Wycombe back in March 2019. It covered the very short connection from Greenford branch to the old New North Main Line.
Trump's foreign policy is to retreat behind a wall of impenetrable armaments - that's not dissimilar to the way Biden has been going too. As far as the UK is concerned, is this worse for us than the 'liberal interventionism' era? Iraq cost us billions, and did it make the Middle East any more secure, or advance UK interests? Our support for the Maidan protests removing the Russian-backed President and installing a Western-backed Government - what was the outcome there?
If we look back at the Trump era, it's actually quite blissful foreign policy-wise, because we weren't continually asked to spend money and lives being the sidekick. Now, here we are again in Yemen.
This is a take that is at odds with reality.
Why was the withdrawal from Afghanistan a debacle? Because the Trump Whitehouse did a deal with the Taliban and cut out the Afghan government. Biden should have put a stop to it but the origin of the mess is Trump.
Why is Iran and thier proxies being a pain in the arse again? Because the Trump Whitehouse dumped the nuclear deal and assassinated Soleimani, undoing a couple of decades of careful diplomacy.
Why did Russia further its invasion of Ukraine? Because Trump has consistently backed Putin — even to the degree of taking Putin's side against the US intelligence community — and tried to blackmail Ukraine, so Putin thought he had the green light from a friendly US President, and Russia likely would have attacked sooner if not for Covid. Putin was probably too committed by the time that Trump lost the election to his plans to halt, and is now plainly hoping for Trump being elected again.
The idea that "the Trump era, it's actually quite blissful foreign policy-wise" is genuinely a take that I'd only expect to come from one of our enemies. Trump managed to do a lot of damage without even starting any new wars. Trump being elected in 2024 would be a potential calamity of a scale that hardly anyone alive can remember.
I have comments re your comments on Iran but what you say about Russia and Ukraine just doesn't make sense. Russia attacked in 2014 because it believed Obama wouldn't do anything (which was then correct). It then attacked in 2022 under Biden because (again) it assumed the US wouldn't do much (which seems to be correct, if it was not for Johnson's intervention). The US also continued to train Ukraine's military.
Moreover, Russia invaded in February 2022, more than a year after Trump was defeated. Therefore your comment that "Putin was probably too committed by the time that Trump lost the election to his plans to halt" is just not right - he had plenty of time. The fact was he thought that he could get away with it.
I think you are trying to weave an illogical story to avoid what is closer to the truth - Putin thought Trump was genuinely unpredictable and so he didn't want to risk a war (which is implicitly what the article someone posted the other day about war in Europe being closer than we think - Russia believes Europe or the US will be willing to defend Eastern Europe with force, which they would have been less sure of if Trump was in power).
Furthermore the full scale invasion of Ukraine came 8 months after a summit meeting between Biden and Putin. Blaming it on Trump is absurd.
Chiltern Railways' 'ghost bus': Is this Britain's most bizarre route? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67955990 For the past year, a one-way bus service has been running between two places already served by another operator, in order to keep a rail route open. Why? On a crisp January morning at a bus stop outside West Ealing railway station, a rail replacement service pulls in - one that is thought to be the only one of its kind operating in the UK...
..This is a so-called ghost bus, replacing what is known as a parliamentary train - nicknamed a parly train - a service that rail operators are compelled to offer. The terminology dates back to the Railway Regulation Act 1844, which required private companies to provide an affordable minimum service - a penny a mile for a third-class trip - for working people. Companies would often run just a service a day to comply with the legislation...
I did the actual train from West Ealing towards High Wycombe back in March 2019. It covered the very short connection from Greenford branch to the old New North Main Line.
Chiltern Railways' 'ghost bus': Is this Britain's most bizarre route? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67955990 For the past year, a one-way bus service has been running between two places already served by another operator, in order to keep a rail route open. Why? On a crisp January morning at a bus stop outside West Ealing railway station, a rail replacement service pulls in - one that is thought to be the only one of its kind operating in the UK...
..This is a so-called ghost bus, replacing what is known as a parliamentary train - nicknamed a parly train - a service that rail operators are compelled to offer. The terminology dates back to the Railway Regulation Act 1844, which required private companies to provide an affordable minimum service - a penny a mile for a third-class trip - for working people. Companies would often run just a service a day to comply with the legislation...
For non-Brits who don't understand this, here is a brief playlist of YouTube train enthusiasts who have spoken about parliamentary trains on their joyful little hobby.
On Topic - not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but based on numbers currently posted by Iowa Republican Party, Donald Trump carried 98 of the state's 99 counties.
The exception - (not Boris) Johnson County (Iowa City, home of University of Iowa) where Nikki Haley is in first place by one vote.
With 100% of precincts reporting:
Nikki Haley 1,271 35.5%
Donald Trump 1,270 35.5%
Ron DeSantis 755 21.1%
Vivek Ramaswamy 256 7.2%
Ryan Binkley 13 0.4%
Asa Hutchinson 8 0.2%
Chris Christie 3 0.1%
Other 2 0.1%
SSI - was bird-dogging this sucker all evening; fact that Haley was just nip & tuck with Trump, was sign (at least to me) that she was under-performing in turf where she needed to build a margin, in order to pass DeSantis and take 2nd place statewide.
Chiltern Railways' 'ghost bus': Is this Britain's most bizarre route? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67955990 For the past year, a one-way bus service has been running between two places already served by another operator, in order to keep a rail route open. Why? On a crisp January morning at a bus stop outside West Ealing railway station, a rail replacement service pulls in - one that is thought to be the only one of its kind operating in the UK...
..This is a so-called ghost bus, replacing what is known as a parliamentary train - nicknamed a parly train - a service that rail operators are compelled to offer. The terminology dates back to the Railway Regulation Act 1844, which required private companies to provide an affordable minimum service - a penny a mile for a third-class trip - for working people. Companies would often run just a service a day to comply with the legislation...
I did the actual train from West Ealing towards High Wycombe back in March 2019. It covered the very short connection from Greenford branch to the old New North Main Line.
So you haven't then...
Surely another unique service to tick off ?
Buses are NOT trains, and like I said, I already did the connection between the Greenford branch and the New North Main Line in 2019!
On Topic - not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but based on numbers currently posted by Iowa Republican Party, Donald Trump carried 98 of the state's 99 counties.
The exception - (not Boris) Johnson County (Iowa City, home of University of Iowa) where Nikki Haley is in first place by one vote.
With 100% of precincts reporting:
Nikki Haley 1,271 35.5%
Donald Trump 1,270 35.5%
Ron DeSantis 755 21.1%
Vivek Ramaswamy 256 7.2%
Ryan Binkley 13 0.4%
Asa Hutchinson 8 0.2%
Chris Christie 3 0.1%
Other 2 0.1%
For some context, Trump got the votes of around half of 14% of the registered Republicans in the state. How much does this actually tell us electorally ?
A simple 'majority of registered voters' yes. Note, Brexit would not have passed on that measure (were it deemed to be a constitutional referendum) nor indeed would the 1975 EEC referendum. It's deliberately a high bar. >50% of the electorate need to actively want the change enough to vote for it, for it to pass.
That's a very high bar to clear (and you may have made it deliberately so) when turnout is often between 60% to 75% of the electorate.
You say as well that the 1975 referendum wouldn't have passed, and you'd be right; but what would've happened in this situation? The question was (Wikipedia): "The Government has announced the results of the renegotiation of the United Kingdom's terms of membership of the European Community. Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?"
Yes won with more votes than no. But are you saying that yes shouldn't have won? Yes was also the status quo (sort of) as the UK would've had to have done something to leave.
Your suggestion sort of works, but the way around it is (as the EU did) is to have creeping changes, each slightly more, none significant, until when you suddenly want to leave (or even change course) you find you can't as it would be a Constitutional issue (but the gradual 'joining' wasn't) requiring such a high vote that it's almost impossible to clear.
Jean Monnet even set out this approach.
In general, I would not hold referendums: elect the MPs, let them decide who forms the government, and govern.
But if we had a simple written constitution the fundamentals of our democracy, including of course the need for regular elections, then yes, I would set a high bar for changes to that constitution.
Jane Stevenson, Kemi Badenoch's PPS, confirms she will rebel and vote for Rwanda Bill amendments (as reported in today's Tel)
"I want it to be as robust as it possibly can be because we need it to be fit for the crisis that we face."
She is on the government payroll.
She isn't technically on the government "payroll" as PPSs aren't paid. The expectation, though, is she'd resign or be sacked over this (and it will be indicative of PM's weakness if she isn't).
I read that Sunak intends to 'find' an extra 150 judges to be at the ready to expedite asylum appeals. If he can do this, it should be fairly easy for the government to increase the number of judges and other court resources needed to tackle the stunningly awful backlog in the criminal justice system. Priorities, though.
We seem to have reached the circular firing squad stage of this government.
What am I missing?
The rebel amendments fall.
If the Conservative rebels vote against the unamended bill, it falls and Rishi and James are off the hook for trying to implement a scheme they both think is batso. And it's not their fault.
"Avanti West Coast managers joked about receiving “free money” from government and performance-related payments being “too good to be true” in an internal presentation at the notoriously unreliable train operator, it has emerged.
One slide, entitled “Roll up, roll-up get your free money here!” described how the Treasury and Department for Transport supported the firm with taxpayers’ money, provided third-party suppliers and inspections, and then paid Avanti fees on top."
Desperate attempt by the Tories to save a few seats?
"Around two million more British citizens living overseas will be able to register for a vote in general elections following a rule change. Previously, people who left the UK more than 15 years ago lost their right to vote. However, this rule has now been abolished under the Election Act 2022. Affected British citizens will now be able to register in the last constituency they were signed up in before leaving the UK."
We seem to have reached the circular firing squad stage of this government.
What am I missing?
The rebel amendments fall.
If the Conservative rebels vote against the unamended bill, it falls and Rishi and James are off the hook for trying to implement a scheme they both think is batso. And it's not their fault.
Sounds like a win for them.
Albeit Sunak will have to ditch another of his pledges/promise/whatever... Tbf no one will be surprised.
This article gives some idea of the manner in which a second term of Trump might be very different from the first.
No more going wobbly in climate fight, Trump supporters vow https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/12/trump-second-term-climate-science-2024-00132289 ...Dozens of conservative groups have banded together to write climate policy goals that would devastate virtually every regulation of the fossil fuel industry. The Project 2025 effort, led by the Heritage Foundation and partially authored by former Trump administration officials, also would turn key government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, toward increasing fossil fuel production rather than public health protections.
“We are writing a battle plan, and we are marshaling our forces,” Paul Dans, director of Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation, told E&E News for a story last year. “Never before has the whole conservative movement banded together to systematically prepare to take power Day 1 and deconstruct the administrative state.”..
Somebody said on the previous post that Kari Lake would be Trump's VP pick. She won't for various reasons (Trump wants to win and Lake actually lost her fight for a start) but I think he would bring Lake in as Interior Secretary.
Desperate attempt by the Tories to save a few seats?
"Around two million more British citizens living overseas will be able to register for a vote in general elections following a rule change. Previously, people who left the UK more than 15 years ago lost their right to vote. However, this rule has now been abolished under the Election Act 2022. Affected British citizens will now be able to register in the last constituency they were signed up in before leaving the UK."
You could say, and many people would, that you’d have to be certifiably insane to want to become a Member of Parliament at the moment, most of all for the Conservative Party
It seems to me to be more strident than I am comfortable with, less compassionate than I am comfortable with, and verging on the xenophobic.
The Conservative Party seems to be changing in a way I find rather worrying. I am a One Nation Conservative, and I worry that some of the rhetoric on the right hand of the Conservative Party is unattractive not only to me but to the voter and to the population
We seem to have reached the circular firing squad stage of this government.
What am I missing?
The rebel amendments fall.
If the Conservative rebels vote against the unamended bill, it falls and Rishi and James are off the hook for trying to implement a scheme they both think is batso. And it's not their fault.
Sounds like a win for them.
Albeit Sunak will have to ditch another of his pledges/promise/whatever... Tbf no one will be surprised.
Rwanda is a policy that frankly is only critical in the minds of right wing Tories who are willing to see a Labour landslide to make their point, when the reality is it is not worth the hassle - mind you reality is something that is collectively missing from their mindset
You could say, and many people would, that you’d have to be certifiably insane to want to become a Member of Parliament at the moment, most of all for the Conservative Party
It seems to me to be more strident than I am comfortable with, less compassionate than I am comfortable with, and verging on the xenophobic.
The Conservative Party seems to be changing in a way I find rather worrying. I am a One Nation Conservative, and I worry that some of the rhetoric on the right hand of the Conservative Party is unattractive not only to me but to the voter and to the population
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 2m As for those on govt payroll minded to vote for rebel amendments, this from a govt figure: “The Chief Whip has made clear that any member of the payroll that doesn’t support the Government this evening will have made their position untenable”
How do the Tory rebels win any of the amendment votes? The opposition parties will be voting against them, as will centre-right Tories who can point out they are 'loyally' following the government line.
You could say, and many people would, that you’d have to be certifiably insane to want to become a Member of Parliament at the moment, most of all for the Conservative Party
It seems to me to be more strident than I am comfortable with, less compassionate than I am comfortable with, and verging on the xenophobic.
The Conservative Party seems to be changing in a way I find rather worrying. I am a One Nation Conservative, and I worry that some of the rhetoric on the right hand of the Conservative Party is unattractive not only to me but to the voter and to the population
He speaks for me
The combination of the Brexit 'victory' and the rise of Trump has sent a set of them off into la la land trying to be as alt-right as possible.
This article gives some idea of the manner in which a second term of Trump might be very different from the first.
No more going wobbly in climate fight, Trump supporters vow https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/12/trump-second-term-climate-science-2024-00132289 ...Dozens of conservative groups have banded together to write climate policy goals that would devastate virtually every regulation of the fossil fuel industry. The Project 2025 effort, led by the Heritage Foundation and partially authored by former Trump administration officials, also would turn key government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, toward increasing fossil fuel production rather than public health protections.
“We are writing a battle plan, and we are marshaling our forces,” Paul Dans, director of Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation, told E&E News for a story last year. “Never before has the whole conservative movement banded together to systematically prepare to take power Day 1 and deconstruct the administrative state.”..
Somebody said on the previous post that Kari Lake would be Trump's VP pick. She won't for various reasons (Trump wants to win and Lake actually lost her fight for a start) but I think he would bring Lake in as Interior Secretary.
"It seems hopelessly naive to think GOP senators like Ernst will serve as a guardrail on Trump’s march through the Constitution. They have already accepted his Big Lie, forgiven his many crimes; and few seem to have qualms about backing him even if he is a convicted felon."
"Avanti West Coast managers joked about receiving “free money” from government and performance-related payments being “too good to be true” in an internal presentation at the notoriously unreliable train operator, it has emerged.
One slide, entitled “Roll up, roll-up get your free money here!” described how the Treasury and Department for Transport supported the firm with taxpayers’ money, provided third-party suppliers and inspections, and then paid Avanti fees on top."
They are embarrassed at getting caught saying it, but their slides are correct. All aspects of their service are directed by the DfT who set the fees payable for compliance. And its the same with all of the operators.
This is the idiocy of the dogmatic left who foam on about "privatised" operators. Everything is done by the direct edict of civil servants.
There should be proper privatisation.
You operate your business, you charge your customers, no subsidies. You make a profit, or you go bankrupt and lose your assets.
We did that. They went bankrupt, or needed a form of direct subsidy called "cap and collar" to avoid going bankrupt. None of the major private transport companies - with the exception of First - want anything to do with the industry now.
Then let them go bankrupt. What's the problem with that?
If they go bust, they go bust. That's a healthy part of the free market: inefficient businesses go bust and then their assets go in a firesale at pennies in the pound to someone else to manage better.
You're not getting the concept of public utility, are you ?
(Or perhaps you just object to the whole idea on principle.)
What's that got to do with it?
@rcs1000 gets my point and explained it already well, if a business goes bankrupt then the firms lose their assets - the assets aren't destroyed.
If Thames Water or United Utilities goes bankrupt then Thames Water or United Utilities the companies are wiped out but the assets and operations of the firms can go on first under administration and then ultimately under new owners, who are not burdened by the debts or liabilities of the old owners.
You could say, and many people would, that you’d have to be certifiably insane to want to become a Member of Parliament at the moment, most of all for the Conservative Party
It seems to me to be more strident than I am comfortable with, less compassionate than I am comfortable with, and verging on the xenophobic.
The Conservative Party seems to be changing in a way I find rather worrying. I am a One Nation Conservative, and I worry that some of the rhetoric on the right hand of the Conservative Party is unattractive not only to me but to the voter and to the population
We seem to have reached the circular firing squad stage of this government.
What am I missing?
The rebel amendments fall.
If the Conservative rebels vote against the unamended bill, it falls and Rishi and James are off the hook for trying to implement a scheme they both think is batso. And it's not their fault.
Sounds like a win for them.
Face down the rebels and 'win' then have to implement the ridiculous scheme with 50 odd backbenchers annoyed and who will blame its failure - electoral and practical - on you not accepting their oh so brilliant ideas.
Accept amendments and show that your headbangers can push you around on anything - and have to implement even more desperate measures that will create problems internationally.
Or 'lose', and have to admit that you can't get your flagship legislation through on the issue you hope to lead on in the forthcoming GE. Then have to rustle up something new that will have the same issues or admit defeat.
Not a great set of options. And that's without the fact that the so-called 'One Nation' Tories have largely kept schtum for now for the sake of unity. But even they may decide to grow a backbone if they decide that's a fool's errand.
How do the Tory rebels win any of the amendment votes? The opposition parties will be voting against them, as will centre-right Tories who can point out they are 'loyally' following the government line.
We seem to have reached the circular firing squad stage of this government.
What am I missing?
The rebel amendments fall.
If the Conservative rebels vote against the unamended bill, it falls and Rishi and James are off the hook for trying to implement a scheme they both think is batso. And it's not their fault.
Sounds like a win for them.
A missing possibility is this:
1 The government loses in the house on a key aspect of its current policy, central to the 5 ludicrous pledges. The government feels compelled to resign. Dissolution. All 81 (I think) of the BenPointer competition entries lose the chance of being 100% correct. Nation rejoices
2 Sunak feels compelled to resign amid national mourning at the prospect of 'not another one' new PM even worse than the last. Nearly all of the 81 (79 I think) are wrong about the leadership.
How do the Tory rebels win any of the amendment votes? The opposition parties will be voting against them, as will centre-right Tories who can point out they are 'loyally' following the government line.
It is a good question and occurred to me as well
Maybe someone can answer the question
They can't. The implicit threat is that if their amendments are not accepted they will vote against the bill at third reading when the opposition will also be voting against it.
"Avanti West Coast managers joked about receiving “free money” from government and performance-related payments being “too good to be true” in an internal presentation at the notoriously unreliable train operator, it has emerged.
One slide, entitled “Roll up, roll-up get your free money here!” described how the Treasury and Department for Transport supported the firm with taxpayers’ money, provided third-party suppliers and inspections, and then paid Avanti fees on top."
They are embarrassed at getting caught saying it, but their slides are correct. All aspects of their service are directed by the DfT who set the fees payable for compliance. And its the same with all of the operators.
This is the idiocy of the dogmatic left who foam on about "privatised" operators. Everything is done by the direct edict of civil servants.
There should be proper privatisation.
You operate your business, you charge your customers, no subsidies. You make a profit, or you go bankrupt and lose your assets.
We did that. They went bankrupt, or needed a form of direct subsidy called "cap and collar" to avoid going bankrupt. None of the major private transport companies - with the exception of First - want anything to do with the industry now.
Then let them go bankrupt. What's the problem with that?
If they go bust, they go bust. That's a healthy part of the free market: inefficient businesses go bust and then their assets go in a firesale at pennies in the pound to someone else to manage better.
You're not getting the concept of public utility, are you ?
(Or perhaps you just object to the whole idea on principle.)
What's that got to do with it?
@rcs1000 gets my point and explained it already well, if a business goes bankrupt then the firms lose their assets - the assets aren't destroyed.
If Thames Water or United Utilities goes bankrupt then Thames Water or United Utilities the companies are wiped out but the assets and operations of the firms can go on first under administration and then ultimately under new owners, who are not burdened by the debts or liabilities of the old owners.
The issue comes if there is a charge on those assets - rather hard to pump water if the pump is owned by a third party and they take it away because they haven’t been repaid
It’s why on 1 level letting Thames water goes into administration makes sense but it instantly opens up a whole secondary set of issues that may not be easily solved
How do the Tory rebels win any of the amendment votes? The opposition parties will be voting against them, as will centre-right Tories who can point out they are 'loyally' following the government line.
You could say, and many people would, that you’d have to be certifiably insane to want to become a Member of Parliament at the moment, most of all for the Conservative Party
It seems to me to be more strident than I am comfortable with, less compassionate than I am comfortable with, and verging on the xenophobic.
The Conservative Party seems to be changing in a way I find rather worrying. I am a One Nation Conservative, and I worry that some of the rhetoric on the right hand of the Conservative Party is unattractive not only to me but to the voter and to the population
Maybe this explains why as they get older people seem no longer to be turning towards the Conservative Party. The party is no longer the party of sound values and sound money, it conserves nothing, it commands no respect.
You could say, and many people would, that you’d have to be certifiably insane to want to become a Member of Parliament at the moment, most of all for the Conservative Party
It seems to me to be more strident than I am comfortable with, less compassionate than I am comfortable with, and verging on the xenophobic.
The Conservative Party seems to be changing in a way I find rather worrying. I am a One Nation Conservative, and I worry that some of the rhetoric on the right hand of the Conservative Party is unattractive not only to me but to the voter and to the population
How do the Tory rebels win any of the amendment votes? The opposition parties will be voting against them, as will centre-right Tories who can point out they are 'loyally' following the government line.
It is a good question and occurred to me as well
Maybe someone can answer the question
They can't. The implicit threat is that if their amendments are not accepted they will vote against the bill at third reading when the opposition will also be voting against it.
Maybe that would be best and they end up with nothing
How do the Tory rebels win any of the amendment votes? The opposition parties will be voting against them, as will centre-right Tories who can point out they are 'loyally' following the government line.
It is a good question and occurred to me as well
Maybe someone can answer the question
They can't. The implicit threat is that if their amendments are not accepted they will vote against the bill at third reading when the opposition will also be voting against it.
I can see why Sunak regards it as an idle threat then.
We seem to have reached the circular firing squad stage of this government.
What am I missing?
The rebel amendments fall.
If the Conservative rebels vote against the unamended bill, it falls and Rishi and James are off the hook for trying to implement a scheme they both think is batso. And it's not their fault.
Sounds like a win for them.
Albeit Sunak will have to ditch another of his pledges/promise/whatever... Tbf no one will be surprised.
You could say, and many people would, that you’d have to be certifiably insane to want to become a Member of Parliament at the moment, most of all for the Conservative Party
It seems to me to be more strident than I am comfortable with, less compassionate than I am comfortable with, and verging on the xenophobic.
The Conservative Party seems to be changing in a way I find rather worrying. I am a One Nation Conservative, and I worry that some of the rhetoric on the right hand of the Conservative Party is unattractive not only to me but to the voter and to the population
How do the Tory rebels win any of the amendment votes? The opposition parties will be voting against them, as will centre-right Tories who can point out they are 'loyally' following the government line.
It is a good question and occurred to me as well
Maybe someone can answer the question
They can't. The implicit threat is that if their amendments are not accepted they will vote against the bill at third reading when the opposition will also be voting against it.
Maybe that would be best and they end up with nothing
And maybe Sunk, sorry Sunak, will think he can do a Boris and go to the country to get this done, as Boris did with Brexit. He might well be that delusional. He really might.
How do the Tory rebels win any of the amendment votes? The opposition parties will be voting against them, as will centre-right Tories who can point out they are 'loyally' following the government line.
It is a good question and occurred to me as well
Maybe someone can answer the question
They can't. The implicit threat is that if their amendments are not accepted they will vote against the bill at third reading when the opposition will also be voting against it.
I can see why Sunak regards it as an idle threat then.
Losing the bill will be a political earthquake, consequences unknowable. On the whole losing the bill would be best for sanity, the country, the chance of clearing the Augean stables etc.
Prediction FWIW: The bill will pass, more or less unamended. The agony of the unimplementable farce continues. The Lords, I hope, will do their best, but for sane people it's a no win. If the Lords passes it, the ghastly farce carries on; if they delay it (which will kill it in the end) the Tories have someone to blame.
How do the Tory rebels win any of the amendment votes? The opposition parties will be voting against them, as will centre-right Tories who can point out they are 'loyally' following the government line.
It is a good question and occurred to me as well
Maybe someone can answer the question
They can't. The implicit threat is that if their amendments are not accepted they will vote against the bill at third reading when the opposition will also be voting against it.
Maybe that would be best and they end up with nothing
And maybe Sunk, sorry Sunak, will think he can do a Boris and go to the country to get this done, as Boris did with Brexit. He might well be that delusional. He really might.
How do the Tory rebels win any of the amendment votes? The opposition parties will be voting against them, as will centre-right Tories who can point out they are 'loyally' following the government line.
It is a good question and occurred to me as well
Maybe someone can answer the question
They can't. The implicit threat is that if their amendments are not accepted they will vote against the bill at third reading when the opposition will also be voting against it.
Maybe that would be best and they end up with nothing
And maybe Sunk, sorry Sunak, will think he can do a Boris and go to the country to get this done, as Boris did with Brexit. He might well be that delusional. He really might.
You could say, and many people would, that you’d have to be certifiably insane to want to become a Member of Parliament at the moment, most of all for the Conservative Party
It seems to me to be more strident than I am comfortable with, less compassionate than I am comfortable with, and verging on the xenophobic.
The Conservative Party seems to be changing in a way I find rather worrying. I am a One Nation Conservative, and I worry that some of the rhetoric on the right hand of the Conservative Party is unattractive not only to me but to the voter and to the population
Maybe this explains why as they get older people seem no longer to be turning towards the Conservative Party. The party is no longer the party of sound values and sound money, it conserves nothing, it commands no respect.
Balance of payments, defence of the realm, food (and other) security, law and order ... an elegy for a vanished time, isn't it?
And respect for rank and title. Yet look at how the Party regards the HoL and the C of E. Once its key bastions.
Desperate attempt by the Tories to save a few seats?
"Around two million more British citizens living overseas will be able to register for a vote in general elections following a rule change. Previously, people who left the UK more than 15 years ago lost their right to vote. However, this rule has now been abolished under the Election Act 2022. Affected British citizens will now be able to register in the last constituency they were signed up in before leaving the UK."
How do the Tory rebels win any of the amendment votes? The opposition parties will be voting against them, as will centre-right Tories who can point out they are 'loyally' following the government line.
It is a good question and occurred to me as well
Maybe someone can answer the question
They can't. The implicit threat is that if their amendments are not accepted they will vote against the bill at third reading when the opposition will also be voting against it.
Maybe that would be best and they end up with nothing
And maybe Sunk, sorry Sunak, will think he can do a Boris and go to the country to get this done, as Boris did with Brexit. He might well be that delusional. He really might.
Throughout 2019 my WhatsApp’s were filled with the comings and goings on Brexit, May memes, DUP contortions, Spartan maths, the lot. Followed by heated plus minuses on Jez Vs Boz.
Then of course in 2020-1 it was a continual flurry about lockdown, vaccines, ppe contracts. Then we had the month of the two Lizes.
Right now it’s mostly UAP hearings, Netflix Vs Apple+, VAR and one message musing whether Michell Obama might be president.
Rwanda is just not a wedge issue in the way rebels think it is. Everyone is apathetic about British politics, there’s no tidal wave of love for Starmer, there’s no great revulsion for Sunak, there won’t be a Daveygasm and even the SNP are a bust. The electorate is just rather tired of British politics. It’s a change election but to the sound of a whimper rather than a roar. The Tories should man up and take their medicine without doing themselves any more lasting damage. With a fresh leader and some introspection, they’d stand a decent chance of limiting labour to one term.
Comments
(Or perhaps you just object to the whole idea on principle.)
But it *is* the job of those putting out a figure as to what lead Labour (or, indeed, the Tories) would need for a majority / largest party to take account of them.
It's no use saying 'this is just a projection' if the reporting is going to state it as a matter of fact; those projections should take into account the best data we have, which includes behaviour in by-elections and opinion polls.
You say as well that the 1975 referendum wouldn't have passed, and you'd be right; but what would've happened in this situation? The question was (Wikipedia): "The Government has announced the results of the renegotiation of the United Kingdom's terms of membership of the European Community. Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?"
Yes won with more votes than no. But are you saying that yes shouldn't have won? Yes was also the status quo (sort of) as the UK would've had to have done something to leave.
Your suggestion sort of works, but the way around it is (as the EU did) is to have creeping changes, each slightly more, none significant, until when you suddenly want to leave (or even change course) you find you can't as it would be a Constitutional issue (but the gradual 'joining' wasn't) requiring such a high vote that it's almost impossible to clear.
Jean Monnet even set out this approach.
Plenty of firms - like almost every US airline - have been bankrupt without customers noticing a thing
No more going wobbly in climate fight, Trump supporters vow
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/12/trump-second-term-climate-science-2024-00132289
...Dozens of conservative groups have banded together to write climate policy goals that would devastate virtually every regulation of the fossil fuel industry. The Project 2025 effort, led by the Heritage Foundation and partially authored by former Trump administration officials, also would turn key government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, toward increasing fossil fuel production rather than public health protections.
“We are writing a battle plan, and we are marshaling our forces,” Paul Dans, director of Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation, told E&E News for a story last year. “Never before has the whole conservative movement banded together to systematically prepare to take power Day 1 and deconstruct the administrative state.”..
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/elon-musk-gives-tesla-ultimatum-another-12-of-shares-or-no-ai-robotics/
"Give me it or I'll scream and scream."
https://news.sky.com/video/rishi-sunak-my-patience-with-this-has-worn-thin-right-13025031
Chiltern Railways' 'ghost bus': Is this Britain's most bizarre route?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67955990
For the past year, a one-way bus service has been running between two places already served by another operator, in order to keep a rail route open. Why?
On a crisp January morning at a bus stop outside West Ealing railway station, a rail replacement service pulls in - one that is thought to be the only one of its kind operating in the UK...
..This is a so-called ghost bus, replacing what is known as a parliamentary train - nicknamed a parly train - a service that rail operators are compelled to offer.
The terminology dates back to the Railway Regulation Act 1844, which required private companies to provide an affordable minimum service - a penny a mile for a third-class trip - for working people. Companies would often run just a service a day to comply with the legislation...
JUST IN
Jane Stevenson, Kemi Badenoch's PPS, confirms she will rebel and vote for Rwanda Bill amendments (as reported in today's Tel)
"I want it to be as robust as it possibly can be because we need it to be fit for the crisis that we face."
She is on the government payroll.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-67992671
I do hope not.
Surely another unique service to tick off ?
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_EAUfG-ZRkKyFnW5aSoKbjOl-XFH-V_X
The exception - (not Boris) Johnson County (Iowa City, home of University of Iowa) where Nikki Haley is in first place by one vote.
With 100% of precincts reporting:
Nikki Haley
1,271
35.5%
Donald Trump
1,270
35.5%
Ron DeSantis
755
21.1%
Vivek Ramaswamy
256
7.2%
Ryan Binkley
13
0.4%
Asa Hutchinson
8
0.2%
Chris Christie
3
0.1%
Other
2
0.1%
SSI - was bird-dogging this sucker all evening; fact that Haley was just nip & tuck with Trump, was sign (at least to me) that she was under-performing in turf where she needed to build a margin, in order to pass DeSantis and take 2nd place statewide.
Or something like that.
Amid apocalyptic YouGov polling and Rishi Sunak’s nose-diving approval ratings, whispers about the future have re-started
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/16/why-tory-talk-is-turning-to-change-of-leadership/
But if we had a simple written constitution the fundamentals of our democracy, including of course the need for regular elections, then yes, I would set a high bar for changes to that constitution.
Around 40 Tory rebels secretly meeting in a back room in parliament.
Liz Truss, Suella Braverman , Danny Kruger, and Iain Duncan smith all inside
The rebel amendments fall.
If the Conservative rebels vote against the unamended bill, it falls and Rishi and James are off the hook for trying to implement a scheme they both think is batso. And it's not their fault.
Sounds like a win for them.
"Around two million more British citizens living overseas will be able to register for a vote in general elections following a rule change. Previously, people who left the UK more than 15 years ago lost their right to vote. However, this rule has now been abolished under the Election Act 2022. Affected British citizens will now be able to register in the last constituency they were signed up in before leaving the UK."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67993306
You could say, and many people would, that you’d have to be certifiably insane to want to become a Member of Parliament at the moment, most of all for the Conservative Party
It seems to me to be more strident than I am comfortable with, less compassionate than I am comfortable with, and verging on the xenophobic.
The Conservative Party seems to be changing in a way I find rather worrying. I am a One Nation Conservative, and I worry that some of the rhetoric on the right hand of the Conservative Party is unattractive not only to me but to the voter and to the population
They have all given up on governing but not on personal ambition.
@BethRigby
·
2m
As for those on govt payroll minded to vote for rebel amendments, this from a govt figure: “The Chief Whip has made clear that any member of the payroll that doesn’t support the Government this evening will have made their position untenable”
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
"It seems hopelessly naive to think GOP senators like Ernst will serve as a guardrail on Trump’s march through the Constitution. They have already accepted his Big Lie, forgiven his many crimes; and few seem to have qualms about backing him even if he is a convicted felon."
https://twitter.com/BillKristol
@rcs1000 gets my point and explained it already well, if a business goes bankrupt then the firms lose their assets - the assets aren't destroyed.
If Thames Water or United Utilities goes bankrupt then Thames Water or United Utilities the companies are wiped out but the assets and operations of the firms can go on first under administration and then ultimately under new owners, who are not burdened by the debts or liabilities of the old owners.
Accept amendments and show that your headbangers can push you around on anything - and have to implement even more desperate measures that will create problems internationally.
Or 'lose', and have to admit that you can't get your flagship legislation through on the issue you hope to lead on in the forthcoming GE. Then have to rustle up something new that will have the same issues or admit defeat.
Not a great set of options. And that's without the fact that the so-called 'One Nation' Tories have largely kept schtum for now for the sake of unity. But even they may decide to grow a backbone if they decide that's a fool's errand.
Maybe someone can answer the question
1 The government loses in the house on a key aspect of its current policy, central to the 5 ludicrous pledges. The government feels compelled to resign. Dissolution. All 81 (I think) of the BenPointer competition entries lose the chance of being 100% correct. Nation rejoices
2 Sunak feels compelled to resign amid national mourning at the prospect of 'not another one' new PM even worse than the last. Nearly all of the 81 (79 I think) are wrong about the leadership.
It’s why on 1 level letting Thames water goes into administration makes sense but it instantly opens up a whole secondary set of issues that may not be easily solved
Floaaaa-ting!
Prediction FWIW: The bill will pass, more or less unamended. The agony of the unimplementable farce continues. The Lords, I hope, will
do their best, but for sane people it's a no win. If the Lords passes it, the ghastly farce carries on; if they delay it (which will kill it in the end) the Tories have someone to blame.
The British People or Lefty Lawyers?
And respect for rank and title. Yet look at how the Party regards the HoL and the C of E. Once its key bastions.
Then of course in 2020-1 it was a continual flurry about lockdown, vaccines, ppe contracts. Then we had the month of the two Lizes.
Right now it’s mostly UAP hearings, Netflix Vs Apple+, VAR and one message musing whether Michell Obama might be president.
Rwanda is just not a wedge issue in the way rebels think it is. Everyone is apathetic about British politics, there’s no tidal wave of love for Starmer, there’s no great revulsion for Sunak, there won’t be a Daveygasm and even the SNP are a bust. The electorate is just rather tired of British politics. It’s a change election but to the sound of a whimper rather than a roar. The Tories should man up and take their medicine without doing themselves any more lasting damage. With a fresh leader and some introspection, they’d stand a decent chance of limiting labour to one term.
NEW THREAD