politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So in the end just 21 LAB MPs abstained

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So in the end just 21 LAB MPs abstained

For sake of completeness, here's Lab MPs who didn't vote but who had prior commitments (not inc watching Apprentice) pic.twitter.com/W8meNOWEOR

Read the full story here

MP_SE

First?

JEO

Can someone provide a list of those who rebelled?

rottenborough

http://order-order.com/

Labour’s 21 abstentions according to party whips, not including authorised absences:

​​​​Fiona Mactaggart
Rushanara Ali
​​​Ian Austin
Ben Bradshaw
Adrian Bailey
Shabana Mahmood
Ann Coffey
​​​​Andrew Smith
Simon Danczuk
Jamie Reed
Chris Evans
​​​​Graham Stringer
​​​​Frank Field
​​​Gisela Stuart
​​​​Mike Gapes
​​​​Margaret Hodge
Tristram Hunt
​​​​​Graham Jones​​​​
​​​​​Helen Jones
​​​​​Liz Kendall
​​​​​Chris Leslie

Moses_

What is this embarrassing x 3 stuff. Just come in from Gatwick so none the wiser at the moment

Scrapheap_as_was

I saw earlier that a shad cab member told the Whips he/she was going to abstain and was told he/she would be sacked if they did but to instead be absent. So they said they'd gone for a meal.

So who is it out of this list?

Powell?

Tissue_Price

Moses_ said:

What is this embarrassing x 3 stuff. Just come in from Gatwick so none the wiser at the moment

x 5

Moses_

Scrapheap_as_was said:

I saw earlier that a shad cab member told the Whips he/she was going to abstain and was told he/she would be sacked if they did but to instead be absent. So they said they'd gone for a meal.

So who is it out of this list?

Powell?

Gone for a meal? Gotta be Abbott

Moses_

Tissue_Price said:

Moses_ said:

What is this embarrassing x 3 stuff. Just come in from Gatwick so none the wiser at the moment

x 5

Oh... That bad huh?

rottenborough

Moses_ said:

What is this embarrassing x 3 stuff. Just come in from Gatwick so none the wiser at the moment

McDonnell said in his speech that he was embarrassed - at least 3 times, although could have been eight or nine.

kle4

Damp squib - old awkward squad replaced with new awkward squad, everyone else happy to toe the line for now.

kle4

FPT:

corporeal said:

(As a side note, am I alone in wishing we'd change the structure of the school year away from it's current set up with a massive summer break to a more year-round thing?

Last year I witnessed a debate between school children on that very subject. While obviously the topic would have been chosen by the teacher, I was the only adult in the room who wasn't their teacher or their TA, so I'm minded to believe they were honest as it wasn't for an audience, and I was surprised at the differing opinions they held on the subject, with about a third in the final vote agreeing that a move away from a long summer break was as good thing, which is more than I would have thought for 9 year olds.

flightpath01

This number then has to be meaningless. What are these authorised absences? Who gets one?
Which labour MP will be the first to get the nickname 'sicknote'?
Was it after all 37, or really 21?? Gordon Brown's smoke and mirrors was much better than this.

Moses_

rottenborough said:

Moses_ said:

What is this embarrassing x 3 stuff. Just come in from Gatwick so none the wiser at the moment

McDonnell said in his speech that he was embarrassed - at least 3 times, although could have been eight or nine.

Ta much, It's one of those situations where you really don't need to ask anything else......

NickPalmer

Bit of a damp squib - I suspect that Osborne urging people to vote with the Government or at least abstain was counter-productive.

What does PB make of this story?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/14/zac-goldsmith-urged-to-withdraw-paedophile-ring-allegations

There was a good deal of indignation here about Watson, in seemingly rather similar contexts. I didn't comment much then and won't now, as I don't know enough about the allegations and supposed evidence, though as I've said before I do think that death should not really be open season for allegations not least because of the impact on surviving relatives.

TheScreamingEagles

21 Rebels isn't that mahoosive by past standards.

But top work by George Osborne, managed to make McDonnell look like a numpty and entrenched the position that Labour just want to rack up the debt.

He's a genius and top strategist isn't he?

TheScreamingEagles

FPT

From the Times

Scottish MPs will be blocked from voting on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources.

Speedy

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

From the Times

Scottish MPs will be blocked from voting on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources.

Will it pass though, or is it just to make the SNP mad.

Scott_P

Moses_ said:

What is this embarrassing x 3 stuff. Just come in from Gatwick so none the wiser at the moment

@GuidoFawkes: WATCH John McDonnell: "Embarrassing, embarrassing, embarrassing, embarrassing, embarrassing" http://t.co/SIFiRyiAo1 http://t.co/FbjoQX3abR

TheScreamingEagles

NickPalmer said:

Bit of a damp squib - I suspect that Osborne urging people to vote with the Government or at least abstain was counter-productive.

What does PB make of this story?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/14/zac-goldsmith-urged-to-withdraw-paedophile-ring-allegations

There was a good deal of indignation here about Watson, in seemingly rather similar contexts. I didn't comment much then and won't now, as I don't know enough about the allegations and supposed evidence, though as I've said before I do think that death should not really be open season for allegations not least because of the impact on surviving relatives.

The Times tomorrow is absolutely horrific for Watson on this front

flightpath01

TheScreamingEagles said:

21 Rebels isn't that mahoosive by past standards.

But top work by George Osborne, managed to make McDonnell look like a numpty and entrenched the position that Labour just want to rack up the debt.
He's a genius and top strategist isn't he?

It gave labour an opportunity for civil war and fractious factionalism.

corporeal

FPT:

I have a memory floating around that a lot of social mobility is damaged by a long summer break. Pupils from better off households (well both better off and more educationally focussed, which correlates to an extent) are more likely to read/retain knowledge/do helpful things for their development over the summer, whereas other children fall behind.

Whereas if you split holidays up into shorter blocks through the year then you don't get as much drop off and it helps those kids with potential but from less helpful/supportive/educationally-focused backgrounds.

Plus things about it being easier to parents from a childcare kind of things (easier to chain things like family cover and time off work in small chunks than to cover a six week period) and greater flexibility about the timing of family holidays etc.

(I'm not sure if the old thing about the school year being based on children having time off to help with the farming is true or not).

The terms thing is a pet idea of mine (I'm sure others have thought of it in more details of course). That you join at the first term start date after your birthday, complete 3 terms then move up to the next year, so the children enter and progress on a staggered basis.

Makes sense to me but I haven't analysed deeply etc.

rottenborough

TheScreamingEagles said:

21 Rebels isn't that mahoosive by past standards.

But top work by George Osborne, managed to make McDonnell look like a numpty and entrenched the position that Labour just want to rack up the debt.

He's a genius and top strategist isn't he?

He needs to stop the smirking look though. Looked terrible on BBC news tonight. The British public do not like a know-all smug git and that will trump any economic or tactical brilliance on display. Osborne needs to get a grip of himself.

kle4

According to the BBC a season ticket at Conference side Eastleigh is more expensive than one a Bayern Munich.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34531731

Moses_

NickPalmer said:

Bit of a damp squib - I suspect that Osborne urging people to vote with the Government or at least abstain was counter-productive.

What does PB make of this story?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/14/zac-goldsmith-urged-to-withdraw-paedophile-ring-allegations

There was a good deal of indignation here about Watson, in seemingly rather similar contexts. I didn't comment much then and won't now, as I don't know enough about the allegations and supposed evidence, though as I've said before I do think that death should not really be open season for allegations not least because of the impact on surviving relatives.

If h
If he is wrong he should withdraw now and apologise without reservation. Other members should avoid the rhetoric that seems to be the norm here normally from your side I should add.

By the way Nick could you point me to the place where The .Nonce Finder General actually withdraws the comments or even apologises for distress caused.

Anywhere?

TheScreamingEagles

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

From the Times

Scottish MPs will be blocked from voting on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources.

Will it pass though, or is it just to make the SNP mad.

Looks like it has met with the seal of approval of the parliamentary Tory party.

That said, it is Chris Grayling who is doing this, and I have no confidence in him not screwing this up, again.

How he is still a cabinet minister I have no idea.

oxfordsimon

For those apologists who are saying that 21 rebels is not really that significant...

It is the first key vote since Corbyn took over - and he failed to carry his troops with him.

Of course it is bloody significant! And it is just the start of his inability to control his MPs.

Popcorn futures are going through the roof

kle4

flightpath01 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

21 Rebels isn't that mahoosive by past standards.

But top work by George Osborne, managed to make McDonnell look like a numpty and entrenched the position that Labour just want to rack up the debt.
He's a genius and top strategist isn't he?

It gave labour an opportunity for civil war and fractious factionalism.

Which they've avoided, or made no worse at least.

Speedy

I like the spin on the Telegraph, "Corbyn defied by dozens of his own MP's", 21 is not even 2 dozen.

SimonStClare

A damp-squib seem to be the party line this evening. 21 + how many authorised sick notes?

TheScreamingEagles

oxfordsimon said:

For those apologists who are saying that 21 rebels is not really that significant...

It is the first key vote since Corbyn took over - and he failed to carry his troops with him.

Of course it is bloody significant! And it is just the start of his inability to control his MPs.

Popcorn futures are going through the roof

I'm a Corbyn apologist?

In terms of say of the Iraq vote in 2003 and I think 139 rebels, it is insignificant.

Scrapheap_as_was

Luckiest politician tonight?

The Green MP, the splendid Ms. Lucas who explained in the debate that their economic policy is you keep on borrowing until you can't afford to borrow any more....

but perhaps that's not that shocking these days with the lab leadership.

FrankBooth

Why would the Tories want to make the SNP mad? Surely they want to help the SNP as best they can to retain their one party state in Scotland and keep Labour in their place. The rise of the SNP is the best thing that has ever happened to the Tories.

Moses_

Scott_P said:

Moses_ said:

What is this embarrassing x 3 stuff. Just come in from Gatwick so none the wiser at the moment

@GuidoFawkes: WATCH John McDonnell: "Embarrassing, embarrassing, embarrassing, embarrassing, embarrassing" http://t.co/SIFiRyiAo1 http://t.co/FbjoQX3abR

Thanks.

All I get is guidos page and the link on there sends me back to guidos page.

Not to worry does not take too much imagination to picture the interview.

kle4

SimonStClare said:

A damp-squib seem to be the party line this evening.

Not a party line, it's just not a very high number. Given how silly McDonnell's u-turn was, and purported dissatisfaction with the leadership even recognising this vote was on a gimmick and as the first vote perhaps not the best time for a mass rebellion, it's still not very impressive sounding for those wanting to see Labour's turmoil increase, rather than merely stay as it is.

TheScreamingEagles

FrankBooth said:

Why would the Tories want to make the SNP mad? Surely they want to help the SNP as best they can to retain their one party state in Scotland and keep Labour in their place. The rise of the SNP is the best thing that has ever happened to the Tories.

Because it forces the SNP hand. The SNP only want to hold a second referendum when they are certain of winning it.

Losing two indyrefs in a row really will settle the matter for a generation.

flightpath01

TheScreamingEagles said:

NickPalmer said:

Bit of a damp squib - I suspect that Osborne urging people to vote with the Government or at least abstain was counter-productive.

What does PB make of this story?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/14/zac-goldsmith-urged-to-withdraw-paedophile-ring-allegations

There was a good deal of indignation here about Watson, in seemingly rather similar contexts. I didn't comment much then and won't now, as I don't know enough about the allegations and supposed evidence, though as I've said before I do think that death should not really be open season for allegations not least because of the impact on surviving relatives.

The Times tomorrow is absolutely horrific for Watson on this front

The guardian article says that Cyril Smith visited the guest house in question - it was in Goldsmith's constituency. It does not seem that anybody was actually named by Goldsmith. If it was implied anywhere that Brittan was involved and the claims were bogus then Goldsmith should say something.

Speedy

flightpath01 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

21 Rebels isn't that mahoosive by past standards.

But top work by George Osborne, managed to make McDonnell look like a numpty and entrenched the position that Labour just want to rack up the debt.
He's a genius and top strategist isn't he?

It gave labour an opportunity for civil war and fractious factionalism.

Not many were stupid enough to take the bait though.

Moses_

Speedy said:

flightpath01 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

21 Rebels isn't that mahoosive by past standards.

But top work by George Osborne, managed to make McDonnell look like a numpty and entrenched the position that Labour just want to rack up the debt.
He's a genius and top strategist isn't he?

It gave labour an opportunity for civil war and fractious factionalism.

Not many were stupid enough to eat the bait though.

2nd officer Titanic

" yeah it's bad but look on the bright side I think there may be a single space on the lifeboat at the other end of this bloody long deck.......

Maybe? "

flightpath01

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrankBooth said:

Why would the Tories want to make the SNP mad? Surely they want to help the SNP as best they can to retain their one party state in Scotland and keep Labour in their place. The rise of the SNP is the best thing that has ever happened to the Tories.

Because it forces the SNP hand. The SNP only want to hold a second referendum when they are certain of winning it.

Losing two indyrefs in a row really will settle the matter for a generation.

Why would a Scottish or Welsh MP of any political persuasion want to vote on an English only matter when they have no say on the same matters in their own constituencies?

GeoffM

kle4 said:

According to the BBC a season ticket at Conference side Eastleigh is more expensive than one a Bayern Munich.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34531731

So what? Why is this a Thing?
(That's directed at a study by the BBC showed, not you kle4. Thanks for the link)

Why would a cricket fan (me!) care that his Lord's ticket cost more than a match ticket in Madras or Bombay, for example? Or that a replica shirt was cheaper there? Is this some BBC misunderstanding of capitalism in that I can just stroll down the road from Eastleigh to Munich because it's cheaper ... in much the same way as I can change supermarkets to buy cheaper beans?

My licence fee paid for this rubbish! Well it didn't because I don't actually pay the telly tax, but never let details get in the way of a good moan, eh?

corporeal

flightpath01 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrankBooth said:

Why would the Tories want to make the SNP mad? Surely they want to help the SNP as best they can to retain their one party state in Scotland and keep Labour in their place. The rise of the SNP is the best thing that has ever happened to the Tories.

Because it forces the SNP hand. The SNP only want to hold a second referendum when they are certain of winning it.

Losing two indyrefs in a row really will settle the matter for a generation.

Why would a Scottish or Welsh MP of any political persuasion want to vote on an English only matter when they have no say on the same matters in their own constituencies?

What if it's a motion of condolences to all early leavers of the RWC?

oxfordsimon

TheScreamingEagles said:

oxfordsimon said:

For those apologists who are saying that 21 rebels is not really that significant...

It is the first key vote since Corbyn took over - and he failed to carry his troops with him.

Of course it is bloody significant! And it is just the start of his inability to control his MPs.

Popcorn futures are going through the roof

I'm a Corbyn apologist?

In terms of say of the Iraq vote in 2003 and I think 139 rebels, it is insignificant.

The numbers are less significant than the timing with regards to the start of a new leadership regime.

No leader of a political party has faced that much of a rebellion on the first key vote.

The future is bleak for party discipline.

FrankBooth

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrankBooth said:

Why would the Tories want to make the SNP mad? Surely they want to help the SNP as best they can to retain their one party state in Scotland and keep Labour in their place. The rise of the SNP is the best thing that has ever happened to the Tories.

Because it forces the SNP hand. The SNP only want to hold a second referendum when they are certain of winning it.

Losing two indyrefs in a row really will settle the matter for a generation.

They can't force the SNP's hand. If they want to hold another referendum and think they can win it, they will. Not much the Tories can do on that front.

Speedy

flightpath01 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrankBooth said:

Why would the Tories want to make the SNP mad? Surely they want to help the SNP as best they can to retain their one party state in Scotland and keep Labour in their place. The rise of the SNP is the best thing that has ever happened to the Tories.

Because it forces the SNP hand. The SNP only want to hold a second referendum when they are certain of winning it.

Losing two indyrefs in a row really will settle the matter for a generation.

Why would a Scottish or Welsh MP of any political persuasion want to vote on an English only matter when they have no say on the same matters in their own constituencies?

Money.
Specifically to their own constituencies in exchange for parliamentary support.
English votes for english laws is one way to kill the SNP-Tory card that propelled the Tories to a majority.

Scott_P

@alstewitn: .@CityAM on 'that' interview on @Channel4News: @cathynewman 'humanely euthanised his attempt to answer...'. #FiscalPriceIsRight on deficit.

oxfordsimon

flightpath01 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrankBooth said:

Why would the Tories want to make the SNP mad? Surely they want to help the SNP as best they can to retain their one party state in Scotland and keep Labour in their place. The rise of the SNP is the best thing that has ever happened to the Tories.

Because it forces the SNP hand. The SNP only want to hold a second referendum when they are certain of winning it.

Losing two indyrefs in a row really will settle the matter for a generation.

Why would a Scottish or Welsh MP of any political persuasion want to vote on an English only matter when they have no say on the same matters in their own constituencies?

To cause trouble? To make a political point? Just because they currently can?

rottenborough

McTernan is saying there is a way out - leadership election at next party conference and Corbyn not nominated by any MPs. But, I though there were moves via NEC to block this particular route?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11931162/How-Labour-can-get-rid-of-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnell-in-one-easy-step.html

Moses_

Speedy said:

I like the spin on the Telegraph, "Corbyn defied by dozens of his own MP's", 21 is not even 2 dozen.

Yeah you are correct and I really dislike it when papers print this crap.

I note though you are making all efforts to dilute this as best possible Le which is fine. What if the Tories had been in this position and not Labour. What would your postings look like then I wonder.

Nah ...ignore it its telegraph spin Tories are fine just a few muppets going overboard. Mmmm...

flightpath01

kle4 said:

SimonStClare said:

A damp-squib seem to be the party line this evening.

Not a party line, it's just not a very high number. Given how silly McDonnell's u-turn was, and purported dissatisfaction with the leadership even recognising this vote was on a gimmick and as the first vote perhaps not the best time for a mass rebellion, it's still not very impressive sounding for those wanting to see Labour's turmoil increase, rather than merely stay as it is.

I think we will continue to see the labour party taken over by the far right who have been unleashed by the Corbyn victory. The PLP are now running out of road.

Speedy

Moses_ said:

Speedy said:

I like the spin on the Telegraph, "Corbyn defied by dozens of his own MP's", 21 is not even 2 dozen.

Yeah you are correct and I really dislike it when papers print this crap.

I note though you are making all efforts to dilute this as best possible Le which is fine. What if the Tories had been in this position and not Labour. What would your postings look like then I wonder.

Nah ...ignore it its telegraph spin Tories are fine just a few muppets going overboard. Mmmm...

Cameron has suffered far larger rebellions since May:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-facing-first-tory-rebellion-over-europe-as-ministers-try-to-appease-revolt-on-10324032.html

http://news.sky.com/story/1548529/tories-get-taste-for-rebellion-in-purdah-vote

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fox-hunting-david-cameron-facing-tory-6050481

No one has accused Cameron of being on the verge of political disaster with these rebellions.

flightpath01

Moses_ said:

Speedy said:

I like the spin on the Telegraph, "Corbyn defied by dozens of his own MP's", 21 is not even 2 dozen.

Yeah you are correct and I really dislike it when papers print this crap.

I note though you are making all efforts to dilute this as best possible Le which is fine. What if the Tories had been in this position and not Labour. What would your postings look like then I wonder.

Nah ...ignore it its telegraph spin Tories are fine just a few muppets going overboard. Mmmm...

The supposed rebels have missed a chance, the mistake may be terminal for them. All of which is good news for the Tories. However the total absentees was nearer 3 dozen wasn't it?

Scrapheap_as_was

I will from now on clear my personal diary any time that professional clown Mr. Burgon is booked to entertain us.

Can we have a side-bar detailing his hectic diary please and when he's on telly or radio a "Burgon Times" listings?

flightpath01

flightpath01 said:

kle4 said:

SimonStClare said:

A damp-squib seem to be the party line this evening.

Not a party line, it's just not a very high number. Given how silly McDonnell's u-turn was, and purported dissatisfaction with the leadership even recognising this vote was on a gimmick and as the first vote perhaps not the best time for a mass rebellion, it's still not very impressive sounding for those wanting to see Labour's turmoil increase, rather than merely stay as it is.

I think we will continue to see the labour party taken over by the far right who have been unleashed by the Corbyn victory. The PLP are now running out of road.

Did I type 'far right'. ?? Clearly it is too late!!

Mind you when you consider that UKIP hope to benefit from corbymania, you can see what a wierd world we now live in...

JEO

Osborne didn't want a mass rebellion. He wanted to make the Labour leadership look stupid, and for the MPs to follow them over the cliff.

GeoffM

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrankBooth said:

Why would the Tories want to make the SNP mad? Surely they want to help the SNP as best they can to retain their one party state in Scotland and keep Labour in their place. The rise of the SNP is the best thing that has ever happened to the Tories.

Because it forces the SNP hand. The SNP only want to hold a second referendum when they are certain of winning it.

Losing two indyrefs in a row really will settle the matter for a generation.

For a generation? Yes, and that is why it is vital that we vote LEAVE.
This hopefully gives us a second bite at OUT too and a glorious win/win.

kle4

flightpath01 said:

flightpath01 said:

kle4 said:

SimonStClare said:

A damp-squib seem to be the party line this evening.

Not a party line, it's just not a very high number. Given how silly McDonnell's u-turn was, and purported dissatisfaction with the leadership even recognising this vote was on a gimmick and as the first vote perhaps not the best time for a mass rebellion, it's still not very impressive sounding for those wanting to see Labour's turmoil increase, rather than merely stay as it is.

I think we will continue to see the labour party taken over by the far right who have been unleashed by the Corbyn victory. The PLP are now running out of road.

Did I type 'far right'. ?? Clearly it is too late!!
..

I thought you were making a point about how the extremes on both sides are pretty interchangeable, much as they would despise that being pointed out.

Scott_P

@faisalislam: Me: this debate ended up being about you rather than the fiscal charter thats your fault: Mcdonnel: "I thought we won the debate hands down"

Galactic levels of delusion...

AndyJS

"Leading former judges and lawyers have criticised the government's "slow and narrow" response to the migrant crisis.

Lord Phillips, former UK Supreme Court head, and Lord Macdonald, ex-director of public prosecutions, are among 300 to sign an open letter on the issue.
They say the offer to accept 20,000 refugees over five years is not enough. One retired judge said the UK could cope with taking in 75,000 a year."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34502419

notme

Moses_ said:

Scott_P said:

Moses_ said:

What is this embarrassing x 3 stuff. Just come in from Gatwick so none the wiser at the moment

@GuidoFawkes: WATCH John McDonnell: "Embarrassing, embarrassing, embarrassing, embarrassing, embarrassing" http://t.co/SIFiRyiAo1 http://t.co/FbjoQX3abR

Thanks.

All I get is guidos page and the link on there sends me back to guidos page.

Not to worry does not take too much imagination to picture the interview.

Oh my, is that clip taken from the news at ten broadcast? Oh dear.

Moses_

Speedy said:

Moses_ said:

Speedy said:

I like the spin on the Telegraph, "Corbyn defied by dozens of his own MP's", 21 is not even 2 dozen.

Yeah you are correct and I really dislike it when papers print this crap.

I note though you are making all efforts to dilute this as best possible Le which is fine. What if the Tories had been in this position and not Labour. What would your postings look like then I wonder.

Nah ...ignore it its telegraph spin Tories are fine just a few muppets going overboard. Mmmm...

Cameron has suffered far larger rebellions since May:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-facing-first-tory-rebellion-over-europe-as-ministers-try-to-appease-revolt-on-10324032.html

http://news.sky.com/story/1548529/tories-get-taste-for-rebellion-in-purdah-vote

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fox-hunting-david-cameron-facing-tory-6050481

No one has accused Cameron of being on the verge of political disaster with these rebellions.

Speedy, indeed he has but don't you just see in that post.... You just proved my point and even gave all the technicolour links. Well done.

TBF if one person goes off piste then the Tory government is about to fall. If there is an alternative view expressed then according to Surbiton then "cracks and fissures" are opening up in the Tories. I note that cracks and fissures were not used tonight so yep you are probably correct all is sweetness and light in the Labour Party. My bad.

I can only presume that the Labour Party are a totally unified force for good working as one for the good of all. Oh.... And Surby is either a Geologist or a very frustrated climber that never made it to the the top of a sand dune.

oxfordsimon

AndyJS said:

"Leading former judges and lawyers have criticised the government's "slow and narrow" response to the migrant crisis.

Lord Phillips, former UK Supreme Court head, and Lord Macdonald, ex-director of public prosecutions, are among 300 to sign an open letter on the issue.
They say the offer to accept 20,000 refugees over five years is not enough. One retired judge said the UK could cope with taking in 75,000 a year."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34502419

Judges and lawyers are well-known for their detailed knowledge of how to deal with a large number of refugees....

Sometimes, they should just stick to being lawyers and see if they can get that right.

TheScreamingEagles

I bid you all good night with this offering from General Boles

https://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/654425642604363776

Tykejohnno

AndyJS said:

"Leading former judges and lawyers have criticised the government's "slow and narrow" response to the migrant crisis.

Lord Phillips, former UK Supreme Court head, and Lord Macdonald, ex-director of public prosecutions, are among 300 to sign an open letter on the issue.
They say the offer to accept 20,000 refugees over five years is not enough. One retired judge said the UK could cope with taking in 75,000 a year."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34502419

Have these idiots seen the latest poll saying 59% against more Syrians coming here.

Danny565

Have to admit that grammar schools is one thing I can't get on a leftie high horse about. Though I'm probably biased here because I went to one myself.

Moses_

flightpath01 said:

Moses_ said:

Speedy said:

I like the spin on the Telegraph, "Corbyn defied by dozens of his own MP's", 21 is not even 2 dozen.

Yeah you are correct and I really dislike it when papers print this crap.

I note though you are making all efforts to dilute this as best possible Le which is fine. What if the Tories had been in this position and not Labour. What would your postings look like then I wonder.

Nah ...ignore it its telegraph spin Tories are fine just a few muppets going overboard. Mmmm...

The supposed rebels have missed a chance, the mistake may be terminal for them. All of which is good news for the Tories. However the total absentees was nearer 3 dozen wasn't it?

Just back so I don't know the total number but given the position of the opposition , or the new position of the opposition, or the latest position of the opposition which has probably changed again since I started writing this sentence.......

Can that many Labour a MPs have sick notes and / or the dog ate my homework excuses?

kle4

Tykejohnno said:

AndyJS said:

"Leading former judges and lawyers have criticised the government's "slow and narrow" response to the migrant crisis.

Lord Phillips, former UK Supreme Court head, and Lord Macdonald, ex-director of public prosecutions, are among 300 to sign an open letter on the issue.
They say the offer to accept 20,000 refugees over five years is not enough. One retired judge said the UK could cope with taking in 75,000 a year."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34502419

Have these idiots seen the latest poll saying 59% against more Syrians coming here.

They can believe we could and should take a lot more, and they could even be right - all that poll would mean is they cannot really claim to be representing public opinion when stating we should take more.

Sean_F

oxfordsimon said:

AndyJS said:

"Leading former judges and lawyers have criticised the government's "slow and narrow" response to the migrant crisis.

Lord Phillips, former UK Supreme Court head, and Lord Macdonald, ex-director of public prosecutions, are among 300 to sign an open letter on the issue.
They say the offer to accept 20,000 refugees over five years is not enough. One retired judge said the UK could cope with taking in 75,000 a year."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34502419

Judges and lawyers are well-known for their detailed knowledge of how to deal with a large number of refugees....

Sometimes, they should just stick to being lawyers and see if they can get that right.

That's not a bad idea.

ReggieCide

TheScreamingEagles said:

21 Rebels isn't that mahoosive by past standards.

But top work by George Osborne, managed to make McDonnell look like a numpty and entrenched the position that Labour just want to rack up the debt.

He's a genius and top strategist isn't he?

Does it take a genius to make JM look like a numpty? He does a good job all by himself.

ReggieCide

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

From the Times

Scottish MPs will be blocked from voting on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources.

Will it pass though, or is it just to make the SNP mad.

Why wouldn't it pass?

ReggieCide

kle4 said:

According to the BBC a season ticket at Conference side Eastleigh is more expensive than one a Bayern Munich.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34531731

easier to get I suspect

surbiton

ReggieCide said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

From the Times

Scottish MPs will be blocked from voting on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources.

Will it pass though, or is it just to make the SNP mad.

Why wouldn't it pass?

Does it not need HoL approval as well ?

SimonStClare

Quite fitting that on a day when unemployment figures are at pre 2008 levels, SCoE John McDonnell should announce that Danny Blanchflower has been taken on board as an adviser.

ReggieCide

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Luckiest politician tonight?

The Green MP, the splendid Ms. Lucas who explained in the debate that their economic policy is you keep on borrowing until you can't afford to borrow any more....

but perhaps that's not that shocking these days with the lab leadership.

her supporters would not appreciate quite why that was amusing as, evidently, she herself did not. It must be something in the air in Brighton, or up the nose?

ReggieCide

FrankBooth said:

Why would the Tories want to make the SNP mad? Surely they want to help the SNP as best they can to retain their one party state in Scotland and keep Labour in their place. The rise of the SNP is the best thing that has ever happened to the Tories.

I'm not sure that Scotland is now that important however it breaks.

oxfordsimon

surbiton said:

ReggieCide said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

From the Times

Scottish MPs will be blocked from voting on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources.

Will it pass though, or is it just to make the SNP mad.

Why wouldn't it pass?

Does it not need HoL approval as well ?

Why should it? It is effectively just a change to the standing orders of the Commons.

ReggieCide

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrankBooth said:

Why would the Tories want to make the SNP mad? Surely they want to help the SNP as best they can to retain their one party state in Scotland and keep Labour in their place. The rise of the SNP is the best thing that has ever happened to the Tories.

Because it forces the SNP hand. The SNP only want to hold a second referendum when they are certain of winning it.

Losing two indyrefs in a row really will settle the matter for a generation.

Ms Crankie showed she was alive to this on Newsnight

surbiton

Moses_ said:

NickPalmer said:

Bit of a damp squib - I suspect that Osborne urging people to vote with the Government or at least abstain was counter-productive.

What does PB make of this story?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/14/zac-goldsmith-urged-to-withdraw-paedophile-ring-allegations

There was a good deal of indignation here about Watson, in seemingly rather similar contexts. I didn't comment much then and won't now, as I don't know enough about the allegations and supposed evidence, though as I've said before I do think that death should not really be open season for allegations not least because of the impact on surviving relatives.

If h
If he is wrong he should withdraw now and apologise without reservation. Other members should avoid the rhetoric that seems to be the norm here normally from your side I should add.

By the way Nick could you point me to the place where The .Nonce Finder General actually withdraws the comments or even apologises for distress caused.

Anywhere?

I think Goldsmith should not withdraw any comment.

Surely, the first person who raised the Jimmy Saville issue was also attacking an "innocent" dead man until more evidence came in. No one thinks Saville was innocent today !

The stories about some of these people were rife in the 80s when both Watson and Goldsmith were toddlers.

ReggieCide

oxfordsimon said:

flightpath01 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrankBooth said:

Why would the Tories want to make the SNP mad? Surely they want to help the SNP as best they can to retain their one party state in Scotland and keep Labour in their place. The rise of the SNP is the best thing that has ever happened to the Tories.

Because it forces the SNP hand. The SNP only want to hold a second referendum when they are certain of winning it.

Losing two indyrefs in a row really will settle the matter for a generation.

Why would a Scottish or Welsh MP of any political persuasion want to vote on an English only matter when they have no say on the same matters in their own constituencies?

To cause trouble? To make a political point? Just because they currently can?

The Scots have previous to help out Blair. Different scenario now but why? They're Scots?

surbiton

oxfordsimon said:

surbiton said:

ReggieCide said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

From the Times

Scottish MPs will be blocked from voting on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources.

Will it pass though, or is it just to make the SNP mad.

Why wouldn't it pass?

Does it not need HoL approval as well ?

Why should it? It is effectively just a change to the standing orders of the Commons.

It does remove the "vote Labour , get SNP" card from the Tories !

RobD

surbiton said:

oxfordsimon said:

surbiton said:

ReggieCide said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

From the Times

Scottish MPs will be blocked from voting on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources.

Will it pass though, or is it just to make the SNP mad.

Why wouldn't it pass?

Does it not need HoL approval as well ?

Why should it? It is effectively just a change to the standing orders of the Commons.

It does remove the "vote Labour , get SNP" card from the Tories !

Labour, with SNP support, could simply reverse the standing order change.

oxfordsimon

surbiton said:

oxfordsimon said:

surbiton said:

ReggieCide said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

From the Times

Scottish MPs will be blocked from voting on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources.

Will it pass though, or is it just to make the SNP mad.

Why wouldn't it pass?

Does it not need HoL approval as well ?

Why should it? It is effectively just a change to the standing orders of the Commons.

It does remove the "vote Labour , get SNP" card from the Tories !

There will still be UK-wide votes on a whole range of issues - so that line is still potent.

surbiton

RobD said:

surbiton said:

oxfordsimon said:

surbiton said:

ReggieCide said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

From the Times

Scottish MPs will be blocked from voting on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources.

Will it pass though, or is it just to make the SNP mad.

Why wouldn't it pass?

Does it not need HoL approval as well ?

Why should it? It is effectively just a change to the standing orders of the Commons.

It does remove the "vote Labour , get SNP" card from the Tories !

Labour, with SNP support, could simply reverse the standing order change.

Then this is another farcical "rule". Tories have a majority now.

RobD

surbiton said:

RobD said:

surbiton said:

oxfordsimon said:

surbiton said:

ReggieCide said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

From the Times

Scottish MPs will be blocked from voting on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources.

Will it pass though, or is it just to make the SNP mad.

Why wouldn't it pass?

Does it not need HoL approval as well ?

Why should it? It is effectively just a change to the standing orders of the Commons.

It does remove the "vote Labour , get SNP" card from the Tories !

Labour, with SNP support, could simply reverse the standing order change.

Then this is another farcical "rule". Tories have a majority now.

Why is it a farcical rule, because it can be changed by successive Parliaments? Surely that is a key part of how our Parliament functions?

surbiton

RobD said:

surbiton said:

RobD said:

surbiton said:

oxfordsimon said:

surbiton said:

ReggieCide said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

From the Times

Scottish MPs will be blocked from voting on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources.

Will it pass though, or is it just to make the SNP mad.

Why wouldn't it pass?

Does it not need HoL approval as well ?

Why should it? It is effectively just a change to the standing orders of the Commons.

It does remove the "vote Labour , get SNP" card from the Tories !

Labour, with SNP support, could simply reverse the standing order change.

Then this is another farcical "rule". Tories have a majority now.

Why is it a farcical rule, because it can be changed by successive Parliaments? Surely that is a key part of how our Parliament functions?

Should London MPs vote in all English matters when some of the powers are devolved to London ? Should MPs from Devon vote on the HS2 ?

ReggieCide

Moses_ said:

flightpath01 said:

Moses_ said:

Speedy said:

I like the spin on the Telegraph, "Corbyn defied by dozens of his own MP's", 21 is not even 2 dozen.

Yeah you are correct and I really dislike it when papers print this crap.

I note though you are making all efforts to dilute this as best possible Le which is fine. What if the Tories had been in this position and not Labour. What would your postings look like then I wonder.

Nah ...ignore it its telegraph spin Tories are fine just a few muppets going overboard. Mmmm...

The supposed rebels have missed a chance, the mistake may be terminal for them. All of which is good news for the Tories. However the total absentees was nearer 3 dozen wasn't it?

Just back so I don't know the total number but given the position of the opposition , or the new position of the opposition, or the latest position of the opposition which has probably changed again since I started writing this sentence.......

Can that many Labour a MPs have sick notes and / or the dog ate my homework excuses?

opposition? what opposition?

oxfordsimon

RobD said:

surbiton said:

oxfordsimon said:

surbiton said:

ReggieCide said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

From the Times

Scottish MPs will be blocked from voting on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources.

Will it pass though, or is it just to make the SNP mad.

Why wouldn't it pass?

Does it not need HoL approval as well ?

Why should it? It is effectively just a change to the standing orders of the Commons.

It does remove the "vote Labour , get SNP" card from the Tories !

Labour, with SNP support, could simply reverse the standing order change.

Indeed - 'no parliament can bind its successor' (or so they said during my Constitutional Law tutorials.

However it is the sort of change that is actually quite hard to undo = as the world moves on and past battles aren't always worth re-fighting.

Given that Labour won't be in a position to do anything for a long time, I am not too concerned about it!

ReggieCide

surbiton said:

oxfordsimon said:

surbiton said:

ReggieCide said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

From the Times

Scottish MPs will be blocked from voting on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources.

Will it pass though, or is it just to make the SNP mad.

Why wouldn't it pass?

Does it not need HoL approval as well ?

Why should it? It is effectively just a change to the standing orders of the Commons.

It does remove the "vote Labour , get SNP" card from the Tories !

That card no longer needed. It did its job and then some

ReggieCide

surbiton said:

RobD said:

surbiton said:

RobD said:

surbiton said:

oxfordsimon said:

surbiton said:

ReggieCide said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

From the Times

Scottish MPs will be blocked from voting on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources.

Will it pass though, or is it just to make the SNP mad.

Why wouldn't it pass?

Does it not need HoL approval as well ?

Why should it? It is effectively just a change to the standing orders of the Commons.

It does remove the "vote Labour , get SNP" card from the Tories !

Labour, with SNP support, could simply reverse the standing order change.

Then this is another farcical "rule". Tories have a majority now.

Why is it a farcical rule, because it can be changed by successive Parliaments? Surely that is a key part of how our Parliament functions?

Should London MPs vote in all English matters when some of the powers are devolved to London ? Should MPs from Devon vote on the HS2 ?

Living in London and with London a Labour City, I would agree

AndyJS

In Canada the Liberals have led in 15 of the last 18 polls:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015

JEO

surbiton said:

RobD said:

surbiton said:

RobD said:

surbiton said:

oxfordsimon said:

surbiton said:

ReggieCide said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

From the Times

Scottish MPs will be blocked from voting on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources.

Will it pass though, or is it just to make the SNP mad.

Why wouldn't it pass?

Does it not need HoL approval as well ?

Why should it? It is effectively just a change to the standing orders of the Commons.

It does remove the "vote Labour , get SNP" card from the Tories !

Labour, with SNP support, could simply reverse the standing order change.

Then this is another farcical "rule". Tories have a majority now.

Why is it a farcical rule, because it can be changed by successive Parliaments? Surely that is a key part of how our Parliament functions?

Should London MPs vote in all English matters when some of the powers are devolved to London ? Should MPs from Devon vote on the HS2 ?

Which matters are devolved to London that means London MPs can vote on a policy area that doesn't affect their constituents?

HS2 is an individual project, not a policy area.

CarlottaVance

NickPalmer said:

What does PB make of this story?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/14/zac-goldsmith-urged-to-withdraw-paedophile-ring-allegations

There was a good deal of indignation here about Watson, in seemingly rather similar contexts. I didn't comment much then and won't now, as I don't know enough about the allegations and supposed evidence, though as I've said before I do think that death should not really be open season for allegations not least because of the impact on surviving relatives.

In the Mail as well:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3273212/Goldsmith-told-quit-London-mayor-race-abuse-smears-Tory-candidate-refuses-withdraw-discredited-claims-linked-Brittan.html

A couple of points. For Goldsmith afaik it is a constituency matter (not entirely clear on boundaries, but Elm Guest House was not in Richmond West Bromwich). Goldsmith appears focussed on the abuse, not the political allegiance of the alleged abuser - something Watson seems to have a bit of a blind spot on - but yes, death should not result in "open season" on the reputation of the recently deceased. ( Watson in the Sunday Mirror immediately after Brittan died).

Sunil_Prasannan

Danny565 said:

Have to admit that grammar schools is one thing I can't get on a leftie high horse about. Though I'm probably biased here because I went to one myself.

People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn.

- M. H. Thatcher, 14th Oct 1977

Sunil_Prasannan

surbiton said:

RobD said:

surbiton said:

oxfordsimon said:

surbiton said:

ReggieCide said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

From the Times

Scottish MPs will be blocked from voting on English-only laws under new plans to be brought before the Commons next week.

The timing of the announcement is intended as a deliberate provocation of the Scottish National party at the start of its annual conference, according to Tory sources.

Will it pass though, or is it just to make the SNP mad.

Why wouldn't it pass?

Does it not need HoL approval as well ?

Why should it? It is effectively just a change to the standing orders of the Commons.

It does remove the "vote Labour , get SNP" card from the Tories !

Labour, with SNP support, could simply reverse the standing order change.

Then this is another farcical "rule". Tories have a majority now.

May the Farce be with you!

Sunil_Prasannan

SimonStClare said:

A damp-squib seem to be the party line this evening. 21 + how many authorised sick notes?

They rebelled by... abstaining, not voting with the "evil" Tories???

AndyJS

Danny565 said:

Have to admit that grammar schools is one thing I can't get on a leftie high horse about. Though I'm probably biased here because I went to one myself.

Funny how so many lefties went to grammar school.

Sunil_Prasannan

AndyJS said:

Danny565 said:

Have to admit that grammar schools is one thing I can't get on a leftie high horse about. Though I'm probably biased here because I went to one myself.

Funny how so many lefties went to grammar school.

Thatcher's point above was that they are State schools, none the less.

DecrepitJohnL

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Luckiest politician tonight?

The Green MP, the splendid Ms. Lucas who explained in the debate that their economic policy is you keep on borrowing until you can't afford to borrow any more....

but perhaps that's not that shocking these days with the lab leadership.

Surely in this age of household economics, Ms Lucas has a point: isn't that how most people get mortgages?

Scott_P

DecrepitJohnL said:

Surely in this age of household economics, Ms Lucas has a point: isn't that how most people get mortgages?

No

If you follow her point to its logical conclusion using your analogy, we would all be richer if we all took out bigger mortgages and bought bigger houses.

dugarbandier

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Surely in this age of household economics, Ms Lucas has a point: isn't that how most people get mortgages?

No

If you follow her point to its logical conclusion using your analogy, we would all be richer if we all took out bigger mortgages and bought bigger houses.

Like the Manchester UTD owners

felix

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-cannot-rely-on-student-vote-to-bring-it-back-to-power-in-the-next-election-says-report-a6694176.html


Oops!